Back in the U.S., more specifically, back in my hometown in Tennessee, there is an on-going senate race and the Republicans (they are honorable men) have been up to their race-baiting tactics, as usual, and this time not only have they enlisted the aid of a real loser of a politician from Chattanooga, but they have run an ad about those irresponsible Canadians, who God knows have been such “global freeloaders”, thus are the perfect people to handle dealing with North Korea, eah?
To quote the Globe and Mail:
. . . Various actors in the 30-second spot suggest Mr. Ford is a tax-and-spend playboy, a gun-control supporter, and soft on terrorism and nuclear threats to the United States. One man in the ad says: “Canada can take care of North Korea. They’re not busy.”
The comments from some Canadians have been quite to the point, especially considering that Canada has had combat troops in Afghanistan:
Peter Simms from Canada writes: Maybe we should leave our dead soldiers in various places around Washington. It’s a different sort of marketing but it will probably draw their attention and hopefully their approval.
or
James Cyr from Balmertown, Canada writes: Canada has nothing to do with American elections, and as such should not be referenced to. We should remind American politicians to stick to trying to get elected without making idiotic references to Canada.
but it is fun to use Canada as a whipping post regarding what passes as North Korean policy since they don’t mind too much, right?
For more background on just what is going on in Tennessee, read this link.
I really hope my mom does not vote for the Republican candidate in this election but then she knows this guy from when he was mayor of Chattanooga.
Sphere: Related Content
21 Comments
Distasteful, yes, but Canadian irritation on this topic isn’t hitting my outrage meter. This is particularly in view of the gratuitous shots taken by the Liberal Party in its recent failed attempt to maintain its hold on power, see generally Wikipedia, and my own posts here, here, here. (and yes, I’m aware that pointing to my own blog constitutes link-whoring, but it was a lot more convenient for me to search my own archives)
That was pretty random.
Yeah, we are freeloaders…
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/5344/cvvm.html
Random, indeed Willie_G.
I never thought I would see an article with Chattanooga, Republicans, Canada and North Korea mentioned but . . . it is very much a dadaesque mash-up. I figured Canadians reading this would shake their heads and laugh.
There’s a news article here about this issue. I think that the US ambassador to Canada is absolutely correct when he says that a lot of US-bashing (which is a national pastime in Canada), goes on particularly during Canadian elections. My personal opinion is that my fellow Canadians are wrong to gratuitously bash the US during elections, and the US office that ran that ad (which has since been pulled), was similarly wrong to bash Canada for electoral purposes. Nothing that should rile Canadians up, though: it’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
As an aside, Canada’s minority Tory government would like to give the country a more muscular defense and foreign policy, and has had some success (within the Canadian context, anyway), on this. On the other hand, I’m anticipating a Liberal government at the next election, whenever that is, at which time things will return back to “normal” (underfunded military, equivocating on Palestine-Israel, and, of course, the regular national pastime alluded to above).
It makes me very sad when U.S. politicians lower themselves to Canada-bashing.
dogbertt, don’t worry. Politicians who make such statements are only advertizing the fact that they are far down the chain of command, to far to know what’s really going on. You think Canadians aren’t in Iraq? Canada has admitted that some of the Canadian soldiers who are on ‘exchange programmes’ with the US are there (Canadian JTF2 officers often ‘train’ with the SEALs). Don’t know if I’m gonna get in trouble for saying this, but I came across some evidence that would suggest that Canada’s implication is greater than what has been revealed. During the early days of the US invation of Iraq, I would search for “Canadians” “Iraq” (together). One particular result caught my attention. It was from a Canadian paper. It had been posted about 45 minutes before I did my search, but it had already been pulled. Clicking on the link brought me to a message from the paper saying the article wasn’t available anymore. But, the headline of the article as it appeared in Google was more than enough, “Canadian soldiers capture an airfield near Baghdad”.
Because politicians are well-known for travelling the high road and trying to get elected based on reasoned arguments and solid governing plans?
I think this story is simply one example showing that the enormous reservoir of good will that the “image” of Canada in the US had accumulated (built up over the decades since the beginning of WWII) has finally reached the bottom of the barrel. I think it’s already beginning to rise again, but the decline was accelerated by the rise of the internet in the last several years, with the consequent ability to instantly spread the news of Canadian animosity toward the Bush administration in the last several years to places such as the red state of Tennesse.
So it’s going to be a “delayed” reaction type of situation. It took decades to run down the accumulated capital and it will take a while to build it up again (that is, if Canadians “in general” give a damn about such capital — I don’t want to be patronizing, there may be many Canadians who would be happy to see Canada and the US go their separate ways, as far as a formal alliance goes).
I hope somebody has energetically straightened out the Republicans (in TN or DC or whoever it was that approved this ad) about the current Canadian death toll for Afghanistan. I admit I’m utterly amazed about Canada’s current level of commitment there; after the accidental US bombing that killed 4 Canadian troops in Afghanistan (2003 or was it 2004?) I thought for sure that the Canadian government would withdraw its troops, a la Spain leaving from Iraq.
Maybe quick-to-take-offense Canadians should take this as a more accurate indicator of the Republican/Bush administration’s appreciation for Canadian contributions to the US war effort.
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/N.....sp?id=1938
I don’t think this type of unit citation is commonly awarded to US units.
No, because Canada is one of the U.S.’s last remaining friends.
It is sad that the natural humbleness and graciousness of Canadians, such admirable traits, allow ignorant U.S. politicians to spew crap like that.
In the Canadian context, “US-bashing” is inaccurate and, I think, an exaggeration by US republican types hoping to raise ‘circle the wagons!’ support.
Compared to Europe, or god, Korea, Canadian criticism of the States could more accurately be called “US-exasperated sighing” or “US-roll our eyes at the things they are doing now” or “US-shake our heads in dismay”. We’re a pretty mild bunch, politically, despite what some drunken Canuck expat ranting a little at 2 am in a bar may have convinced you of otherwise.
#11: “No, because Canada is one of the U.S.’s last remaining friends.
It is sad that the natural humbleness and graciousness of Canadians, such admirable traits….”
#12: “…Canadian criticism of the States could more accurately be called “US-exasperated sighing” or “US-roll our eyes at the things they are doing now” or “US-shake our heads in dismay”. We’re a pretty mild bunch, politically…”
I just took a look at the Globe & Mail comments section from the link (after my previous comments). I see they they closed it after 27.
Wow.
“William Doyle from Prince George, Canada writes: ‘So the Bush regime thinks that Canada is a freeloader . I would say that if the Bush regime think we should be joining them in plundering and torturing people all over the world then I am happy to be called a freeloader.
Judgement day is coming for them, I would say that the key members of the Republican government will be spending an eternity in hell, they will not as easily fool St Peter as they have the people of the USA.’”
Mr Doyle may have been inspired to his hell analogy by the recent speech of El Presidente Chavez at the UN. Most of the other comments are along these lines, though not as strong; take a look.
I don’t think it’s quite as easy to separate us (Americans) from our own government as foreigners may imagine; what was the Guardian (English newspaper) headline after the election (”How could 59 million Americans be so dumb?” — something like that).
Of course this may mean that we Americans are indeed bound for one of the circles of hell; in that case, I think those who feel this way should immediately take measures to protect themselves, by getting as much distance between them and the US as possible.
Freaking hypocrites is what they are. Pretty easy to build up social programs etc. when you hardly spend a dime on defence.
Why should Canada spend lots on defense? We are surrounded by 3 invasion-uncrossable oceans on 3 sides, and our sole border is America on the 4th side. So since America is the only nation in the world that could possibly invade us, and further considering that if America ever invaded we haven’t a hope in hell no matter how much we spend on defense…….isn’t low defense spending logical?
If you are really saying, mr goat, that we should be spending lots of our GDP on defense so as to be unpaid auxiliaries to your glorious military and it’s adventures on other continents….well, why should we?
If you are saying that America has no choice but to spend staggering percentages of your wealth on the military and we are hypocrites for criticizing social problems arising from those massive military expenditures…well that is a question of opinion. My opinion is that you do have a choice - you could choose to cut your military by a factor of 50, and enjoy life on the American continent and let the rest of the world take care of itself. So far you have chosen to spend enormous amounts of treasure and blood to be world hegemon - ok sure. The point is, you don’t have to. You choose to. We chose to take care of our people instead.
http://www.comw.org/pda/bmemo10.htm is a site which breaks down military expenditures etc….very interesting read.
Cheez, some of you guys get way off-topic. It leads me to believe that my buck-tooth, barefoot, hillbilly brothers are not the only ones influenced by devious unethical Republican activities.
Why the US bashing in Canada? It’s partly to do with the way the US has unfairly treated Canada. Canada did not participate in Iraq war for a good reason - because it saw the Bush’s flaws. Time has proven Canada correct. This is was a huge repeat US blunder. US is breaking the bank trying to finance the unwinnable war, while tens of thousands American military are maimed and killed. For staying out of this war, Canada was given a cold shoulder by the US. That probably hurt more then anything else, and the fact that Canada had always supported and helped the US (including the rescue of American hostages in Iran 1980 by Canadian ambassador, providing relief and refuge for Americans after the 9/11, and etc), fueled resentment. Just because Canada didn’t agree with Bush’s war, Canada got punished. This despite the fact that Canadians are serving and dying in Afghanistan (which by the way, includes those soldiers who were killed by American friendly fire). The reward for all the years of loyalty and one disagreement, this is how the US paid back Canada. In summary, I think that’s where a lot of the anti Americanism in Canada comes from.
“…Why the US bashing in Canada? It’s partly to do with the way the US has unfairly treated Canada….For staying out of this war, Canada was given a cold shoulder by the US. That probably hurt more then anything else….Just because Canada didn’t agree with Bush’s war, Canada got punished…”
In exactly what way has the US “unfairly treated”…; “given the cold shoulder” to…; & “punished” Canada? Surely derogatory public references from some Americans (like in this TN-only campaign ad) don’t qualify — Lord knows we (the US) get enough derogatory public references from Bush admin-despising Canadians (as a few fair Canadians pointed out in the comments section of the Globe & Mail article that was linked above).
It’s your country’s absolute right to not participate in US initiatives, if you see them as “folly”, and if Canadians as a whole are absolutely convinced they are right, then the avoidance of such “folly” (Iraq, US continental anti-ballistic defense) should be its own reward. Do you think Americans should also lavishly thank you for angrily rebuking them over their own decision as to do what they judge is in their national interest?
There are interesting parallels between the US-ROK and the US-Canada defense relationship, though one of the main differences is that Canada is willing to risk the lives of its soldiers to support the Nato effort in Afghanistan (for which they should always be prominently mentioned in the US press and by the Bush administration).
But isn’t the Afghan op being supported with your forces because, overall, Canadians have objectively judged that it’s in Canada’s interest to do so? (Surely not because Canada is “doing the Yanks a favor” — Canadian lives are too important for that).
You know, there was a time (still in the memory of some living Canadians) when the shoe was on the other foot. When Canada was fighting a war it deemed in its national interest, while the US stood by on the sidelines (and was probably “getting the cold shoulder” from some Canadians for its lack of participation).
I’m talking of course about 1939-41.
Hugh wrote:
“…Why should Canada spend lots on defense….My opinion is that you [US] do have a choice - you could choose to cut your military by a factor of 50, and enjoy life on the American continent and let the rest of the world take care of itself. So far you have chosen to spend enormous amounts of treasure and blood to be world hegemon - ok sure. The point is, you don’t have to. You choose to. We chose to take care of our people instead….”
How about if our prospective “factor of 50″ cut were to include an announcement that an attack on Canada would no longer be regarded as an attack on the US? That would certainly allow us to save on defense expenditures, though it might be bad for yours (ie Canadians might decide they need their own independent nuclear deterrent force).
You might be thinking that Canada could go to a formal policy of total neutrality a la Switzerland, but I would point out to you that Switzerland (and Sweden) have traditionally maintained large (for their size) conventional military establishments, in order to protect their neutrality (to include conscription).
Or maybe you could choose to rely on the former “mother country’s” nuclear deterrent. There’s certainly a historical precedent for this; it would merely mark a return to the formal North American defense posture that prevailed prior to December 1941. But — would the UK agree to undertake such a commitment?
Better check it out ahead of time.
Do you think the US would be able to project itself around the world as it can - and does - if it needed to keep significant military assets on the Canada/US border? Yeah, we Canadians don’t have to spend excessively on defence, but I don’t think the US could hope to have a better ally on its border. (Mexico isn’t bad either.) Really, the relationship between the US and Canada is mutually beneficial, and, at the end of the day, we are and will remain friends despite the occasional disagreement. A few morons on both sides of the border shouldn’t be a big deal. Actually, its the Canadian vs. American expats in Korea bullshit that pisses me off.