Canada losing status as prime U.S. ally??

(re mixedfarmer's comment) But if we're still stuck with Harper, things aren't likely to change much here. Nor can we count on the Liberals to fix things, considering that Paul Martin signed the SPP agreement and Chretien signed on for free trade before him.

Apathy is certainly a problem, but I tend towards optimism. When people get upset about something, they tend to get active politically, and deep integration has the potential to fire people up the way free trade did--as long as people hear about it.

st. thomspon, when we talk about america protecting canada, it is not in arogance or in a disrespectful way. it is in the same spirit as canada would protect the US. If WW2 turned out differently and both Canada nd the US had not gotten involved, and japan and germany had succeeded, whenif german or japanese ships started landing we'd have a common interest. the same way we have a common interest against terrorism now, and the same way we have a common interest in keeping quality industrial jobs in america and canada and not sending them all to china.

when americans talk about protecting canada we are not infering it is a one way street. we assume canada is just as interested in protecting america aswell.

i don't know why you automatically jumped to this conclusion that America being protective of Canada is somehow demeaning to Canada.

being protective of your ally is not demeaning, it is affectionate.

okay, so anti-americanism is a total farse... right

and people that want to cut off gas and water to hundreds of thousands of people as a barganing tool.. you find that totally acceptable not anti-american atall??
yu see it as completely justifiable to cut off vital life support to american citizens because of a war you don't agree with??? calling us fat, brainwashed religious fanatics...

yu don;'t see anything legitimately anti-american about that??

yu honestly feel that is a sane and justifiable position to take???

yea i guess anti-americanism is just another one of our stupid uneducated fat lazy imperialist american delusions. :roll:

cause there is no one that says we deserved 9/11, there is no one that says "i can't wait for americans to have their economy colapse and be brought to the third world". there is no one that says that americans are no different than NAZI'S...

these are not extremist anti-american positions right?? these are totally logical and justified positions to take... :roll:

"Yet whenever a Canadian makes fun of anything American. Its classified as Anti-American. Even check out the American jokes on this website, and take a peek at all the Americans responding to it. You people really need to ease up on the Anti-American finger pointing."

It's the mean-spiritedness of the jokes against Americans. Canadian nationalists treat the US as an enemy power, a force to be opposed, attacked and ridiculed not just for its foreign and domestic policy but also for its culture and the work and leisure habits of its citizens. Susan talks of the US being "ethnocentric", when she knows damn well that American nationalism is a civic form, not an ethnic one. If "American" were an ethnic identity, it would be protected by hate laws from much of the vicious rhetoric spewed by Vive posters.

The label "anti-American" shouldn't be used to shut down debate, but it is a legitimate label for those who repeatedly, reflexively and without any sense of balance or proportion bash Americans, their country and their culture.

In many ways, Canadian culture is superior to American culture. But the reverse is true in many instances as well. We are less violent as a society and tend to be more collaborative in our problem-solving, for instance. On the other hand, Americans tend to be more entrepreneurial and achievement-oriented than Canadians, and have a superior work ethic and culture of individual responsibility.

In my opinion, Canadians, particular in Southern Ontario, tend to have too much faith in government as a "force for good". The US ofter errs in the opposite direction, privatizing enterprises and industries that really are natural monopolies. We have a better health *insurance* system than the US, but not all aspects of the Canadian healthcare system are superior to their US counterparts.

I often wonder just what Susan and many of the other anti-US (face it, it's an accurate characterization) posters would see as an acceptable Canada/US relationship. Would we still trade with one another and have a relatively open border? Would we still be allowed to watch US TV and movies, or would a cultural Berlin Wall be put up? Would there still be Wal-Marts in Canada? And who would our major trading partner(s) be? I know what you folks oppose. What do you want instead?

“If "American" were an ethnic identity, it would be protected by hate laws from much of the vicious rhetoric spewed by Vive posters.

There is truth in that and a “but” as well.
Laws will never end discrimination, if anything they will add to it.

“The label "anti-American" shouldn't be used to shut down debate, but it is a legitimate label for those who repeatedly, reflexively and without any sense of balance or proportion bash Americans, their country and their culture. “

Nor should the label anti-Semite be used to shut down debate.
There exists a double standard on the topic of your dear old anti. Next vive will be sponsoring an anti-idiot or an “against” imitative in conjunction with the CHRC. As it is pc speak has taken over.

Individualist, how exactly do I fit your own definition of "anti-American" then? Where and when have I ever just reflexively bashed US culture? My points and criticisms are very specific, and have to do with economics, and a few bad agreements, not US culture as a whole. I'm hardly just posting jokes about Americans to Vive, and in fact, jokes about Americans make up little to NONE of the site content. You've completely mischaracterized me and my position, but I guess that's easier than actually coming up with an intelligent response. You should look up the definition of "straw man" (and "ad hominem") some time.

Ditto for you lostalex. I have never in my life called anyone in the US fat, for instance. Nor did I say we should CUT OFF oil and gas and water; I said oil and gas should be on the table when we negotiate agreements like NAFTA. I don't think water should be on the bargaining table at all, and I support efforts to get it out of trade agreements completely because it's a common human right.

I do think oil and gas should be part of our bargaining chips, but largely because right now we're just giving away the store. We should be negotiating to keep more money in the pockets of Canadians, since these are our resources we're talking about, and also ensure that we have the right (which the US already has) to keep some aside for ourselves as an emergency reserve. It is also one of the few things we have that can give us any leverage at all on other issues like softwood lumber or getting water out of NAFTA. And that doesn't mean cutting off supply completely, but it could mean limiting access, who knows--the point is to actually discuss it and negotiate it with Canadian interests in mind, instead of just merrily building massive pipelines to ship it all south.

You seem to care an awful lot about the US lives those resources affect, but my point is that there are Canadian lives at stake too, and you are conveniently ignoring them, as are most US officials--no one seems to care if Canadians freeze in the dark or go thirsty for lack of their own resources, so long as the pipelines keep shipping them south for US consumption. Don't Canadian lives matter to you? Or are Americans the only important ones? Because Canadians need to use those resources too, and if we just keep selling them off, we don't get to.

(It also never seems to occur to the US to try to limit or descrease consumption rather than just raiding our reserves, since all resources tend to be finite.)

Ultimately, my position is not anti-American, and it is extremely simple. I don't believe NAFTA is working. I don't want Canada, the US and Mexico to enter into NAFTA-plus agreements such as the SPP because when NAFTA isn't working, it makes no sense to head merrily along into NAFTA-plus. I don't believe that NAFTA or the SPP are beneficial to the regular citizens of ANY of the three countries involved, but instead, help out big corporations and their bottom lines. However, due to the size and market power of the US and the way agreements have been and are being set up, I believe that NAFTA-plus agreements tend to be more beneficial to the US and far more detrimental to Canadian (and Mexican) sovereignty than to US sovereignty. However, the agreements significantly erode democracy on all three countries, and as such, all three countries should be resisting implementing them.

I don't automatically disagree with trade or co-operation with any country, US included. But I disagree with the WAY that it is currently being conducted, and also resist being locked into a trilateral relationship when there are so many other potential trading partners in the world. NAFTA might have worked had it been set up differently; it might also have worked to continue trading without this sort of exclusivity agreement.

Regarding what I would LIKE to see in the Canada-US relationship, again, that's simple. Limits on foreign ownership so Canada could actually keep some of its companies Canadian rather than selling them all to the US. Nationalization of resources like oil and the ability to maintain our own reserves in case of emergency. Maintaining our own national policies, regulations and standards, or at least always adopting the highest standards when harmonizing our countries, rather than just US standards good or bad.

And above all, trade, but trade that is set up so that it can benefit Canada too, not only the US. And trade agreements that actually involve the elected representatives of all three countries, not trade agreements that completely bypass any parliamentary or congressional oversight, because that's fascism, not democracy.

These are things that would be good for US citizens as well as Canadian citizens. I can't state enough that I don't have a problem with the US in general, I have a problem with the trade agreements we have set up as they stand.

PS I don't think Wal-Mart is good for any community or country that it's in, and there's plenty of evidence to support that argument. For one thing, its presence has forced all retailers to keep seeking out the cheapest means of producing goods possible, which has resulted in sweatshop conditions and miserable wages for people living in places like China. Not to mention crappy quality goods. In the actual towns where Wal-Mart puts up stores, they usually come in, drop their prices, kill off all the local businesses, then raise their prices again. And need I bring up the terrible wages, benefits and hours Wal-Mart gives its employees? Or that fact that Wal-Mart stores have been caught numerous times using illegal immigrants as near-slave labour, going so far as to lock them in at night in some cases?

PPS The argument that if the US was ethnocentric there would be hate laws to protect the US is nonsensical.