Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> > Yes, you would be moral if only it weren't for the US. Darn them!
> > Your caricature does not accurately represent what I wrote.
> I think it does, more or less. Your implication has been that Canada's
> problems originate with the US,
More accurate: your perception is that that's what I've been saying. It's not.
I'm saying you're dealt cards and you play the hand you're dealt. But ignoring US
preponderance on this continent is like not seeing the elephant you're sharing
the bed with.
> and that any of Canada's perhaps
> less-than-sterling actions are caused because they have little choice
> but to bow to the yoke of oppression of the southern imperialists and do
> their bidding.
At times that's true. As I just said in another post in response to John, it's
not that I believe we're morally superior. We're human beings and would do things
exactly the way you do were we in your situation (something not all Canadians
> > My reasoning is that we are being hammered enough by US
> > protectionism as it is -- if we upset the US it could get worse.
> > So what? Don't sell to US markets. Take your ball and go home.
> > The US can't really do much about Canadian trade with other
> > countries, can it?
> > We're an export-dependent economy -- 80% of what we make gets
> > exported, and most of that goes to the U.S. Why would we go
> > back to the stone age just to retain the moral high ground
> > (note I said, "why *would* we..." not "why *should* we..."
> No good reason that I can think of, just things like pleasing God,
> keeping yourselves free of entangling alliances, and so forth. Oh, yes,
> and the fact that you could spout off on an internet discussion list
> with some modicum of credibility because of your superior moral
But I don't believe I'm speaking from a superior moral position -- that's where
your caricature distorts beyond recognition. You've missed the point, or I
haven't explained myself clearly.
> If you commit immoral actions for the purposes of keeping a foreign
> market open, fine, but then quit bellyaching about the oppressions of
> the foreigners. At least the Americans on this list who warn of the
> potential Chinese threat are consistent in that they abhor the US' trade
> status with the Chinese, instead of making excuses about how big a
> market China is.
And that's a good thing...why, exactly?
> > Not badly put, actually.
> I may have to have this post framed.
> > we were also pressured by Kennedy to station Bomarc nuclear
> > missiles on Canadian soil. When we refused, the US dismantled
> > our aerospace industry (remember the AVRO Arrow scandal?)
> > No kidding? The US actually invaded Canada and took apart the
> > aerospace factories? Wow.
> > Who wrote that? Not I.
> You wrote that the US "dismantled" your aerospace industry.
You did. But I never wrote that it was done by military force as you
> What, you
> were building arms for the imperialists to the south, and they
> threatened to take their business elsewhere? That makes you an oppressed
> nation? Give me a break. If the mob threatens to buy their automatic
> weapons from another supplier, well, I probably tell them not to let the
> door hit their butts on the way out.
> > The pressure was, again, exports. I don't think you have any
> > idea how much of your military equipment is built in Canada.
> So then, why is a pacifist like you berating the US? Oughtn't you to be
> tending to home business instead, like working to get Canada out of the
> arms-building business?
I wasn't taking a moral position -- merely explaining a fact of economic life.
But since you seem interested, I'll say that as far as I'm concerned, Gadianton
Robbers, aka the Military-Industrial Complex, are still Gadianton Robbers even if
they wear a maple leaf instead of stars 'n' bars. I'm proud that my own personal
high-tech career has been primarily in medical software and related products,
rather than in military-related applications.
> > If the Manhattan had spilled oil, whose environment would have
> > been harmed, who would have had to clean it up, and who would
> > have refused to foot the bill, dya think?
> Maybe you're right. Please cite a reasonably recent example of the US
> creating an environmental mess in another country, especially an
> important strategic/trade partner, and then refusing to do anything to
> help out.
> > Currently, I think you're probably correct. For now. Will that
> > be the situation tomorrow? Are Canadians righteous and God-
> > fearing enough to stand alone against the world, if it comes to
> > that? Will God fight your battles for you
> > If we're righteous. But we're not.
> Bingo. So perhaps if you don't have the chops to stand on your own, you
> should quit bellyaching about the bully on your team.
You keep confusing statements about economic realities with opinions about
morality. I hope I've elucidated your fuzzification.
> > What do you think would happen to Nortel, Canadian
> > Marconi, Spar Aerospace, etc., etc.?
> > I suppose the US would invade Canada, seize control of them,
> > and forcibly dismantle their factories and research facilities,
> > as it did your aerospace industry?
> > The least you could do is make your caricatures funny.
> Since you didn't find it funny, clearly you are wrong. In fact, I
> suppose the least I could have done would have been nothing at all. But
> we aren't all clever enough to be Canadians, so you have to show a
> little patience.
I'll try. Maybe it's because it's drier here ;-)
> > I only pray that we become Scotland to their England and not
> > Romania to their Soviet Union.
> > If you quit your bellyaching, we may allow you to catch the
> > anchovies for our pizzas. No promises, comrade.
> > Spasibo.
> A Nunavet insult? A Canadian sandwich spread? An anagram of "I pass
Russian for "thank you." Although now that you mention it, I like some of your
other possibilities -- they have potential. "Can I supersize your spasibo with
that poutine, sir?"
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and
falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authorís employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: email@example.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!