Reply #47: what?

[iverglas]

Becoming more like the U.S. is not something Canada should be proud of. Certainly not in this instance of taking away rights and freedoms and liberty.

What rights and freedoms and liberty do you imagine that US citizens and residents have that Canada is taking away??

The nationals of any nation have no right, freedom or liberty to enter another nation unless it is expressly granted by that other nation. Not under any laws of the international community pretty much since there was such an idea.

The U.S. is undoubtedly a frightened, liberty-less, facist country right now, but the Canadians are looked upon as being above stooping to our standards.

If you don't want us "stooping" to your standards, you could try raising yours.

It's hard to stay upright when one has a millstone around one's neck, and that's pretty much what the US is to Canada in this respect.

I don't understand what people don't understand. (You might start by reading my other posts in this thread.)

The US government uses its economic and military weight to advance its own interests at the expense of others', and thus to crush dissent in the international community. A lot of other nations can't afford to cut the cord on the millstone. It's also an anchor.

A majority of Canada's trade is with the US. This has worked relatively well over the decades, since we speak the same language, get along reasonably well, have similar lifestyles, and each have things the other wants and is willing and able to pay a reasonable price for, while selling at reasonable prices. We kinda thought this worked.

In the last few years, we have been bullied and lied to and pushed around in ways that no distant relation, let alone friend and neighbour, would ever do to its cousin or drinking buddy. Whole towns in several parts of Canada were going down the toilet because of the illegal duties the US was charging on softwood lumber exports from Canada -- money that was going straight into the pockets of big corporations in the US, while US consumers paid higher prices for housing and such -- and the mills were shutting down. This was despite the fact that tribunal after tribunal had found that the US was acting in violation of the trade agreement it signed and had to turn billions of dollars back over to Canada. It just said no. It said it wanted to renegotiate. Tried that with the place you bought your car from lately? Would you do it to your neighbour if you bought a car from him/her? So because the people whose families depended on the forestry and lumber industry saw no option other than homelessness and welfare, Canada agreed to take a whole lot less money than it was owed, and to "negotiate" again in a few short months' time.

Yes, we have a government at present that didn't have an interest in trying to hold the US's feet to the fire. But what do you really imagine we can do? Stop the flow of natural gas? A Canadian government is really going to do that to the USofA? All bets would be off at that point, methinks.

Then there was that whole bogus mad cow thing. Who profited from that? Guesses? Who lost? Canadian farmers, and thus Canada as a whole, and US consumers. Quelle surprise.

The US is moving on a number of fronts to establish hegemony over North America. The "security perimiter" is one aspect. It requires Canada to abdicate elements of our sovereignty and change how we do various rather fundamental things to suit Washington.

Do you know that Canadian airlines that fly from Point A to Point B *in Canada* but, in the normal course of flight, overfly US territory, may not carry passengers -- Canadian passengers, passengers that the Canadian government has no beef wtih -- who are on the *US* no-fly list ... or ... well, I can't find exactly what, but obviously it's a big enough threat for Cdn airlines to have little option but to comply by submitting passenger lists for checking against a *US* list that we don't know who's on.

And because of how the *US* government is choosing to pursue its alleged security interests, *we* are having to change our historical approach to immigration and borders. Or else. Again, yes, this suits the present, in all likelihood transient government pretty well, but it is hardly in *our* interests.

Damn. Blame the victim.

There are reasons we don't like who's in Washington. We: you and us. This kind of stuff is one of them. Me, personally, I would love to give Bush and the boys a great big red and white finger and tell them they can build houses out of sand 'cause they aren't getting our softwood lumber, and they can heat their houses with cow dung 'cause they aren't getting our natural gas, and they can recall the latest in the long line of nasty ambassadors 'cause he isn't welcome anymore.

And then I'd be pretty soon out of a job, and eating softwood lumber and wishing I could still afford to live in the place that I can heat real cheap now ...

We hate them because they're vicious and they exploit and oppress. Their *ability* to do that doesn't go away just because somebody gives them the finger.