You mentioned Harper not committing troops to Iraq, which is a change of position for him and part of the reason Canadians do not trust him. When Harper was a member of the Reform Party he was very critical of Jean Chretien not sending troops to Iraq, and sent this letter to the Wall Street Journal: Conservative Canadians Speak Out!
Wall Street Journal | 3/28/03 | Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day

Posted on 03/29/2003 5:27:55 PM PST by FreedomNotSafety

Canadians Stand With You

By STEPHEN HARPER and STOCKWELL DAY

Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations.

This is a serious mistake. For the first time in history, the Canadian government has not stood beside its key British and American allies in their time of need. The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values. Disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, and for the collective interests of our key historic allies and therefore manifestly in the national interest of Canada. Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us.

But we will not be with the Canadian government.

Modern Canada was forged in large part by war -- not because it was easy but because it was right. In the great wars of the last century -- against authoritarianism, fascism, and communism -- Canada did not merely stand with the Americans, more often than not we led the way. We did so for freedom, for democracy, for civilization itself. These values continue to be embodied in our allies and their leaders, and scorned by the forces of evil, including Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. That is why we will stand -- and I believe most Canadians will stand with us -- for these higher values which shaped our past, and which we will need in an uncertain future.

Messrs. Harper and Day are the leader and shadow foreign minister, respectively, of the Canadian Alliance.
This man is now playing dumb. In the last election when he did not become Prime Minister he pouted, said because he was not voted Prime Minister he was leaving the leadership. He said he refused to live in Stornaway, the home of the opposition, where he now lives. We saw the NRA come up here to help him with his election.
Many do not trust him and all I can hope for is a minority government, which allows the Liberals and NDP to allie with each other and stop contentious bills from being passed by Harper's Conservatives. Historically, the best times for Canadians has been with Minority governments, where politicians actually do something for us in hopes they get elected next time.
Harper wants to bring Same Sex Marriage up in Parliament for a free vote, yet promised not to use the Withstanding clause to this. Let us see. This homophobic man, who loves to wear eyeliner, is taking the issues of the Christian right into Canadian politics.

I find it highly naive that Americans find our objection to your policies that hurt us, economically and socially, unreasonable "anti-americanism.

I read somewhere that there is a similar dynamic in the politics of New Zealand and Australia. The Kiwis resent the Aussies as overbearing and meddlesome, while the Australians tend to be oblivious of the New Zealanders except in times of confrontation.

Canadian intellectuals and the left have always been wary of the United States sometimes in a knee-jerk sort of way. But what set off a widespread hostile reaction was the invasion of Iraq and the tone of the hostility in the Bush administration and the U.S. media (especially cable news)towards all international agencies, the United Nations, Europe and when we dared to pass on the coalition of the willing: Canada. Harper or not it will be deep-seated for a decade or two at the least I would think.

Harper is expected to, at best, win only a minority of seats in this election. Given that the Liberals have been in power for 12 years, and are arrogant as well as corrupt, one might expect a huge majority for the Conservatives. It is only distrust of Harper and his party's right-wing that has prevented that from happening.

The idea of restricting oil and gas exports to the U.S. is simply an expression of the helplessness that Canadians feel towards influencing "Bush" policies that hurt Canada. It is also an expression of the realization that the only thing that get attention is a threat to American economic interests.

Way to raise the World's opinion of Harper Kris!

Why does anti-American sentiment resonate with Canadians? Maybe because of arrogant White House policies. Or maybe because the US media and the general public makes fun of Canada at every mention of us. I have recently moved to the US and I hear the same stupid "eh" and "aboot" jokes over and over and over and over. It probably gets on our nerves that you stereotype us as such retards, especially given the relatively shoddy condition of the US educational system. Yes, we're being overly sensitive. For a long time Canadians politely took it in stride. But frankly, you treat us like dirt. Why should we like you? Does anybody? You treat a lot of countries like dirt. Since the Bush administration came in, is there a country in the world that likes the United States? And I'm talking about public opinion, not their governments. The reason some of the governments participated in the US war in Iraq is that they're -afraid- of you.

Kris, your commentary is juvenile. Don't you have anything better to do than write vulgar phrases?

Andrew: "I have recently moved to the US and I hear the same stupid "eh" and "aboot" jokes over and over and over and over."

Well Andrew, I've lived in the U.S. for four decades and the only time I hear such comments are from Bob and Doug McKenzie movies. So, I don't know where you live, but it is a far different place from my locale.

It is a shame Paul Martin is going to go down. He has been a good leader for Canada and hardly anti-American. His criticisms of the U.S. are mostly for good reason, but he has been cooperative on the important issues.

That said, a Conservative government is probably the best outcome for the U.S.

I'd argue that Canadians aren't particularly anti-American. Canadians have great respect for the American people and American popular culture.

However, we, like much of the rest of the world, have little respect for the Bush administration.

We see the Bush invade Iraq and turn Saddam's torture chambers into ... torture chambers.

We see your President and Vice-President argue for the need to torture.

We see the war service of honorable politicians like John McCain and John Kerry smeared by chickenhawks like GWB, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, etc. etc.

With the issue of torture, we wonder what happened to your country's bedrock political principles. The Pentagon flogged the idea that what went on at Abu Graib (sp?) was the work of grunts who stepped out of line, but subsequent revelations have made pretty clear that it's official policy.

Another difference is that we have greatly less religious influence in our politics.

Whereas Karl Rove thought, correctly, that gay marriage would be a great wedge issue in the US, Stephen Harper has had to muzzle the more religious and/or homophobic members of his party. Otherwise, he wouldn't have had a chance of winning this election. The national media have had very little access to Conservative candidates other than Harper. Rick Santorum and his ilk wouldn't have a hope of getting elected in most of Canada.

Stockwell Day, the former leader of Harper's party, argued that creationism should be taught in Canadian schools and that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time.

He was laughed out of any contention for the Prime Minister's office.

We have no Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson figures in our politics, and we like that.

Hell, the National Post column of Canada's (one and only) self-styled Ann Coulter clone, Rachel Mardsten, lasted a few months before it was dropped. Even Canadian conservatives find such stridency off-putting.

There's a joke up here:

Q: Why doesn't Bush invade or annex Canada?
A: He doesn't want 30 million more Democrats.

There may kernels of policy disagreements with the US, but the reality is that an analysis of US-Canadian relations would be explained better by psychological factors than political or economic ones.

There are not two countries in this world more similar than America and Canada...and this simililarity is made unbearable by the huge disparities in size and influence.

In essence, Canada ends up becoming the rebellious younger sibling that resents everything its older sibling stands for, in a desperate attempt to prove its individuality. We see this psychological dynamic play out in our homes all the time...this just a macrocosm of that dynamic.

Unfortunately, many Canadians - true to the form of the rebellious and resentful younger sibling - will find this psychological analysis to be infuriating...as a truth we know deep inside but are afraid to admit often is.

In summary: grow up Canada. It's good for your psychological well-being, not to mention your relationship with the only significant economic and security partner you have.

I traveled to Toronto repeatedly last year, and it was astonishing how insufferable and, frankly, rude most Canadians had become towards Americans. Even at social functions and dinner parties an air of hostility would envelop me when I was confronted by the first individual or group who expected me to denounce my own President to a group of foreigners, and did not immediately do so. It's not entirely clear at what point Canada crowned itself the World's Conscience nor, frankly, whether it has any basis to do so. The deeply nuanced relationship between Canada and the United States has been analyzed and re-analyzed for many decades. However it is tiresome in the extreme to chalk up every issue arising under that relationship as the fault of the Americans. I think the best example of late was a bunch of immigrant Canadian gang members gunning down a young girl outside a shopping center, and it somehow being America's fault (because we also have guns, and gangs, and shopping centers, and young girls I guess - still with me?).

People forget how much Americans hate to get involved in external conflicts. We really do, we love America and don't want to have to deal with much else. However, we learned the very hard way in both WWI and WWII that if we are isolationist, no one else in the world steps up, and eventually things hit the fan. The US foreign policy of the last 50+ years can be reduced to this simple maxim: 'If not us, who?' In other words, if self-annointed moral compass nations like Canada really put their money where their mouths are and went out and actually struggled for the good of the world, we Americans would happily drift back into our dreamy isolationism. But you won't, so we can't. If you refuse to do the job, then you lose the right to complain about how we do it.

Dear Irresponsible Speculator,

You go out and struggle for the good of the world? No. You bomb poor people. You do it for yourselves. You've done it in countries all around the world for decades. You do it so that you can stay powerful and rich and on top forever.

And then you ask: why do they hate us?

The more you keeping bombing people, the more they're going to hate you.

Osama bin Laden killed 3,000 civilians and that's terrible. But how many civilians has the United States killed?

So now when you say, "we're doing it to spread freedom" ...the rest of the world says, "we don't believe you."

"However, we learned the very hard way in both WWI and WWII that if we are isolationist, no one else in the world steps up, and eventually things hit the fan. The US foreign policy of the last 50+ years can be reduced to this simple maxim: 'If not us, who?' In other words, if self-annointed moral compass nations like Canada really put their money where their mouths are and went out and actually struggled for the good of the world, we Americans would happily drift back into our dreamy isolationism. But you won't, so we can't. If you refuse to do the job, then you lose the right to complain about how we do it."

I must admit that I'm puzzled that you mention WWI and WWII, conflicts which Canada entered three years and two years, respectively, before the US.

I don't think WW1 had anything to do with a "struggle to make the world better," but the textbook definition of a just war would have to be the fight against Hitler.

In that case, the answer to "if not the US, who?" would be Britain, Canada, France, the USSR, etc.

I readily admit that Canadians can sound smug and self-righteous at times. However, if you want to argue an "if not the US, who?" thesis against Canada, isn't using the two world wars somewhat ironic?

As for more recent conflicts, how did the Vietnam War make the world a better place? I'm not just pointing fingers at America here: I find it quite disgusting, in fact, that when the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia to boot the genocidal Khmer Rouge back to the jungle, both the Canadian and American governments stood up in the UN and denounced the Vietnamese for the toppling of one of the most evil regimes in history.

I'm a Canadian who recently returned home after living in the U.S. for 10 years. I agree with Irresponsible Speculator that the knee-jerk anti-Bush, anti-Americanism so many Canadians now voice is tiresome, rude and based on ignorance about what the U.S. is really like. But comments like this one reinforce Canadian prejudices:

"However, we learned the very hard way in both WWI and WWII that if we are isolationist, no one else in the world steps up, and eventually things hit the fan."

What do you mean by "steps up?" Do you mean, "joins the war effort years before the U.S. gets involved?" The war years 1939-40 are being erased from memory in the U.S.A., which is unfortunate.

Dear Irresponsible Speculator

I don't know what your circle of friends is like up here, but almost all of my friends, as well as my family, feel the same way. We happen to like Americans, but it's your "you're either with us or agin us" government, who has consistantly crapped all over international treaties that didn't enrich his friends that we object to.

Canada's history is fully intertwined with that of the US. When I was in school, we had to study US history as well as Canadian history in order to fully understand where our country came from. Can the same be said for the US? Do they still teach that the US won the war of 1812?

Now, just like history, our economies are intertwined. If one country gets a cold, the other one will too. (although in Canada's case we'll probably get pnemonia) (sp?).

You have the gall to generalize against all Canadians because of a few people at a party? 2 Years ago, when I was in Atlanta on business, I was wearing a Roots Canada Olympic jacket. On my way to get my baggage, a gentlman came up to me on the subway car, called me an f*ing traitor, and spat on me. Should I generalize and call all Americans prejudiced jerks?

No. I wasn't raised that way.

Many political observers question the viability of Canada without Quebec. I would also add "the existence of the United States" as being a necessary condition for the maintenance of the Canadian "nation-state." Obviously, many Canadian elites use anti-Americanism to generate a sense of national identity for Canada, i.e. we have a different culture from our southern neighbors and that makes us a different people. However, it's clear that Ontario & much of the Canadian east have a similar culture to the Blue States of the northern U.S. and it's equally clear that Alberta & parts of the Canadian west share many of the same cultural values that are embraced by the Red States. In this growing cultural war of values in North America, there is no U.S. or Canada - there is only "Red" and "Blue."

"There are not two countries in this world more similar than America and Canada...and this simililarity is made unbearable by the huge disparities in size and influence."

I think this is the most perceptive post on this subject.

The idea that this resentment has its origin in George Bush is laughable. I live in Michigan (I've been able to get CBC on the ol' rabbit ears all my life,) and such acrimony has existed for decades if not longer.

One doesn't boo a child's hockey team, for instance, as a response to Bush's soft-lumber policy.

Opposition to Bush does not equate to being anti-American. Canada is a viable country, and we couldn't have a better neighbor.
Bush is Bush, and America is America. These are separate things. Just because most of the world hates Bush's Guts doesn't mean they automatically hate America or all Americans.
Stop, I repeat stop, confusing Bush with America.

I really like a lot about Canada, and the countries are a lot more alike than political rhetoric on both sides of the border suggests.

But I wish Canadians (and many Americans) would stop painting all Americans as in line with the Bush administration's policies. This is a president that won only narrowly (and arguably dubiously) and has an approval rating of about 40%. Wherever he's leading, at the moment most of us don't want to follow. The Canada-bashing and France-bashing of the Iraq war debate was about three years ago. Much has changed since.

A Harper-led government would be a good thing if it can reduce this. Martin's U.S.-bashing really annoys me.

We Canadians should cut your access to ALL of our natural resources, including oil and gas, until your government begins abiding by international human-rights and trade law. Reimburse us the money you stole from us on softwood lumber. Pull out of Iraq and apologize to the world for going to war on false pretences and destabilizing an entire region. Prosecute your president, vice president and attorney general for crimes against humanity. Then and only then would your sorry nation have some credibility.
With an ugly outlaw nation on its southern border, it's time we Canadians developed new allies and markets and further isolated you.
Whether on Kyoto, Iraq, torture or any number of other issues, your nation's government has chosen to take the most evil of positions.
We Canadians hate your government, and by extension, unfortunately, your country, because the government you have elected is nothing short of evil.

"We Canadians should cut your access to ALL of our natural resources, including oil and gas, until your government begins abiding by international human-rights and trade law. Reimburse us the money you stole from us on softwood lumber. Pull out of Iraq and apologize to the world for going to war on false pretences and destabilizing an entire region. Prosecute your president, vice president and attorney general for crimes against humanity. Then and only then would your sorry nation have some credibility."

See, this is the sort of wild-eyed hysteria that we become so tired of. Is this anger *really* occasioned by a soft-lumber dispute (which isn't as one-sided as Canadians would lead us to believe, but...)

And for that matter, do most Canadians *really* not understand how commodities are sold on the world market? "Cut our access" indeed. And sell this excess capacity to whom? The Chinese? What will they need this oil for again? To make trinkets for the US economy you say?

I guess our bomb throwers haven't thought this one through...

Actually the Chinese have already come calling about our oil. They'll need it to fuel about a billion cars in the near future.
So go ahead. Keep buying those trinkets. Maybe we Canadians don't know much about how commodities are sold on the world market, but we know the Chinese have your economy by the balls.

As far as the softwood lumber dispute is concerned, A NAFTA tribunal has declared that the US acted illegally in collecting duties and has to return said duties. This is a tribunal that Canada didn't even want included in NAFTA as they figured there was no need for it, but the US insisted on it being there. And now the US is refusing to abide by it's treaty obligations. Something that in the last 225+ years they have been very adept at. Just ask Native Americans about that one.

How terrible for Canada! If Harper is elected, the Canadians will be treated to the same right-wingnuts, the same religio-fascists that rule the United States. I wished better for our northern neighbors than to be saddled with Bush and Cheney clones. We need Canada to stay liberal so that we may have a place to escape to when the American fascists tighten the noose around us here at home, as they are busy doing using 9/11 as pretext.

Wow. This message board may not only be the least educated debate on American policies i have ever read, but the most insulting as well. I'm going to throw out some terms and wonder if anyone on this board has heard of them. Realism, Liberal Internationalism, Security Dilemma, Hard and Soft Power, External Power Balancing, Hegemonic Stability Theory, Democratic Peace Thesis, Free Loading States, I guess I could go on but you get the picture. There is nothing more frustrating than listening to people debate something the only believe they understand. People need to stop thinking that because they watch cable news programs on television they know what is going on, and even more important, know why it is going on. These are not credible sources of intellectual debate.

Americans, quit thinking we never screw up. Quit thinking our relationship with Canada is insignificant (By far our biggest trading partner). Quit believing we can do it on our own (Simply put, we can't).

Canadians, stop blaming the extreme anti-Americanism in your country on the Bush administration (I've heard it for years before Bush was on any ballot). Quit thinking that the United States is evil (Perhaps the most depressing because, at the end of the day, we share many common values and norms). And, since you do share a border with the most powerful country in today's world, please get over the fact that "Canada's balloting is 'hardly a blip on the world's radar'"

So both sides READ up before you curse each other with baseless rhetoric. It only hurts our important partnership and keeps us from our vital world vision of a peaceful international community.

Uh-oh looks like someone took an IR course last semester. :)

I love it when Canadians talk about witholding exports of natural resources to the US...because he highlights just how irrational and emotional they become when it comes to viewing the US.

Hello - if you stop sell natural resources to us, who'll pay for your bloated welfare state? China? Keep dreaming - all your infratsructure is set up to export to the United States. If the Chinese want to invest some cash in a pie-in-the-sky oil sands project, let them go ahead.

Anyway then you'll finally be in bed with a nation who has flawless human rights and personal freedoms...oh wait a second...this is isn't really about policies and values, is it?

If the Conservatives win the election we are all in trouble. Canada stands for Equality, Human Rights, Peace Keeping- not war and FREE SPEECH.

Canada is about progressing into the future not stepping back into the dark ages. We are a young nation and are tolerant of everyone who choses to live in Canada.

Canada has a reputation to keep in the world and right now we need govern morally, ethically,socially and most important of all peacefully.

GOD HELP us if we end up a Conservative Nation, at that point Canada will become the 53rd State.

I am voting NDP, a step forward into the future.

CANADA RULES and EVERYBODY KNOWS WHY!!!!!!

"bloated welfare state" ?

Do you just repeat what Bill O'Reilly and co. tell you?

Why wouldn't you want a welfare state? I'm curious. Unless you are a millionaire (I'm guessing you aren't, sorry if you actually are, The Truth) it seems like it would be in your interest to have health care and social services.

Dearest "A Canadian who cares,"

"GOD HELP us if we end up a Conservative Nation, at that point Canada will become the 53rd State."

If you're gonna talk trash, at least get it correct: you would be the 51st state.

As long as we don't end up with the same status as Puerto Rico.

Funny how the "no taxation without representation" thing doesn't apply to them.

Sorry curuousgeorge, you can't just go around typecasting people who disagree with you into caricatures. For the record, I can absolutely care less about Bill O'Reilly or other rightwing populists.

If you don't understand why a bloated welfare state is bad for you and your country in the long run, then clearly your vaunted educational system has not taught you basic economics.

I can't be bothered to give you an economics lesson. Buy a legitimate mainstream textbook (not Das Kapital) and give it a read.

Canada is more connected in its core values to Europe than it is to the US. Crime rates. political structures, approach to healthcare, imprisonment rates, religion, gay marriage, we're a European country

Yet we are stuck beside the USA, superficially going along with them for business and money issues, but deep in our hearts we know we are considered the bland cousin we exchange cards with by habit.

So, we continue with our glazed smiles to our neighbours to the south who collectively seem to have gone nuts.

"Maybe we Canadians don't know much about how commodities are sold on the world market, but we know the Chinese have your economy by the balls." Poster self-identified as "the economist".

With such a lofty assumed name, one would think you would know a lot about economics. As such, you must know that despite China's impressive annual GDP growth figures for several years running, and despite China having more than 4X the population of the US, its GDP is still less than 1/7th that of the States. (America's economy represents more than 30% of world GDP.) Presumably, you can do the math on what that means for per capita GDP in China.

You must also know that, though America's trade deficit vis-a-vis China is large in nominal dollars, as a percentage of GDP it's not much larger than that which the States had with Japan in the 80s.

From that you should also be able to deduce that America's economy is so large, and China's need to invest internally so great (to increase the VERY low standard of living--consider the per capita GDP numbers--suffered by more than 1 billion if its increasingly restless people), that while China does have the ability to significantly influence America's economy, China is in fact much more dependent on the American economy than vice versa.

The same is true, though for different reasons, of Canada and Europe.

While it certainly seems to be fun sport for some Canadians and Europeans to engage in half-hearted anti-Americanism, it's just that: sport. In real life, they cannot afford to be anti-American in a true sense, any more than Americans can be afford to be anti-Canadian or anti-European. (Of course, "economist", if you really want to be an anti-American, you could just disengage from the use of all American made good and goods made with American licensed technology, e.g., the internet.)

Honestly, though, I don't really know any Americans who would consider themselves anti-Canadian or anti-European.

Huh? Having healthcare is bad for me?

thetruth, your argument isn't logical and you didn't answer my question. I don't agree with American economics and so I must be a communist and so I must be wrong?

Don't give me this crap about Das Kapital. You buy into the ideology so much that you can't even consider an alternative. Anything else is illegitimate or "out out of the mainstream." If it's out of the mainstream it must be wrong? You've become more like the Soviets than you think.

So many national myths, where do I start:

(1) Canada has no reason for signing to Kyoto...if the world went off hydrocarbons tomorrow, Canada (which is nothing more than a white Saudi Arabia economically) would fall off a cliff tomorrow. Need proof? Why has Canada talked a great game about emissions but actually done worse than the US since Kyoto? You think you're globally irrelevant now, wait until the US doesn't need your oil and gas.

(2) Europe is far more vibrant and foreward thinking than Canada. Ideas actually come out of Europe...most notably innovative market-based ideas. A lot of Americans don't realize this, but the European Union elite (thanks to lack of democracy and accountability to its backward looking masses at the EU level) is quietly working toward a neo-liberal vision that could make America look socialist. Power companies, ports, mass transit systems, some financial services - in all of these areas, the EU is ahead of the US in terms of applying market approaches.

Economically, Canada only shares with Europe policies of economic stagnation (not counting oil and gas), but at least the Europeans are doing something about and realize how stupid socialist policies are. The Canadians have two huge advantages, access to America and huge oil and gas reserves, that Europe doesn't have and they still can't get their act together.

Canada as a country produces nothing except some natural resources and a few manufacturing items in plants set up by Americans. Let's face it, with US manufacturing in decline when the world gets off oil and gas, and the bedouins in the desert go back to the stone age, the Canadians are going with them.

By the way, if you don't agree with "American economics," what about "British economics" or "European Union economics" or "Chinese economics" or "Indian economics?"

The whole world is changing - some faster than others - but Canada. Good luck.

We have no reason to sign Kyoto? Other than that we want to stop the world from being permanently ruined? The US says it would cost them money. Don't you get it?? We've broken the planet. And it's going to continue because of short-sighted selfishness and greed. Hope you liked Katrina.

From your paragraph about the EU, it looks like the beloved market is more important than democracy. Way to go.

An idea Canada came up with: the traditional form of peacekeeping... you know, the form of it where you didn't blow up people.

The rest of your argument is pretty much that Canada isn't rich so that makes them terrible. Money is all that counts, right? What an empty, empty person you must be.

the whole world is changing? what about the rest of the americas? you know, your own back yard?? they're all going left. Monroe must be spinning in his grave. You'd better hurry up and arrange some more coups to get things in order, chop chop. So what if a few hundred thousand die. They're not Americans and they don't even have much money.

"What an empty, empty person you must be."

If that makes you feel better...

Judging by the characterizations and caricatures, I can see this going nowhere. If you want to have a proper debate about ideas, I am very happy to oblige.

If you just want to vent and degenerate into namecalling, I (and I assume washingtonpost.com) would rather we disengage.

"when the world gets off oil and gas, and the bedouins in the desert go back to the stone age, the Canadians are going with them."

Yeah, that sounds like a nice proper debate, you gentleman.

Fine let's disengage. I think the topics have run their course.

They'll probably bomb us back to the stoneage if we don't do what they want.

Why? Why are these types of discussions always so negative?

I'm a 44 year old Canadian and I have fond memories of vacationing in the US as a child and lived there for a couple of years just recently. I have met Americans that I didn't and who didn't like me, that's life, but the vast majority of Americans are great people and very similar to Canadians. It's just the religious nutcases south of the border that leave me scratching my head.
Oh, and yes, I did vote Conservative today and am very happy that Stephen Harper is our new Prime Minister!
Now, please continue the family squabble...

The Conservatives won tonight, but it's a minority government. The Liberals were so scandal-ridden that the Conservatives should have been able to run a glazed ham and get a majority.

They didn't.

What happened?

People still don't trust their theocon tendencies.

They are so badly outnumbered by the other parties that they will have to govern from the center, or their government will fall.

Bring on the same-sex marriage and abortion votes, Stephen.

What has so far not been mentioned in this often ridiculous debate about Canada and the USA (the sanctimonious NDP voters most of all) is the hypocrisy that exists among so many on Canada's Left: doing all they can to maintain Canadian sovereignty in the face of American "hegemony" yet refusing to properly fund a Canadian Military Force that can actually enforce that sovereignty, or do much of anything at all, without the help of those big bad Americans. So Canadian troops in Afghanistan have to depend on American aircraft for support and re-supplying because the Liberal party in power for most of the last fifty years has constantly cut back the Canadian Forces budget. I'm all for Canada's universal health care system and think it amazing that such a thing has not yet been implemented in the USA, but a country that has to depend on another country to defend it has already for all intents and purposes given up its sovereignty.

Most Canadians are not anti-American. They are anti-Bush (I'm not). If an American doesn't approve of GWB, can it also be interpreted that is he/she anti-American as well?

It's great that the conservatives are in! Changes in democracies are good. They should lower taxes to make the economy more competitive and spend more on the military. Hopefully Canada-U.S. relations improve!

Yesterday I voted Conservative, in large part because I can trust Stephen Harper to restore relations with the US to something I don't have to ba ashamed of anymore.

I see relations with the two countries very much as similar to that of my own marriage. We support each other economically, socially, and culturally, but don't necessarily vote the same way at the polls. This is not a cause for acrimony, since we respect the other's right to have different opinions. Consequently, it isn't necessary for either of us to insult or disrespect the other as a means of somehow inflating our respective egos. We are secure enough in ourselves not to do that.

Thank God Mr. Harper won. I look forward to a healing of the rift, even as I fully expect differences of opinion to continue.

Yeah our military can hardly do anything without the big bad Americans.

Thank you USA for helping us out in our war against Afghanistan. We really shouldn't have started it if we couldn't do it ourselves.

Anti-Americanism? What about anti- Canadian sentiments from our American neighbours? Each time the US Ambassador opens his mouth I feel as if I am sitting in kindergarden being lectured on why I am a bad kid.

There are many similarities as there are differences between these two great countries. It would be wonderful if we had better relations with our southern pals, however following your best friend as he throws himself on a cliff in neither prudent nor particularily helpful.

Canadians did not give Prime Minister Harper much of a leash. It is still a minority and I think it will be more difficult for the Conservatives as they will have to choose between going to bed with the separatists, or the left. That might create quite a conundrum for a party that had some very right wing members.

Same (*&)(&)(*& different day

Harper is our new Prime Minister, but he does not have a compelling mandate.

Perhaps Harper's election will lead to an agreement on the Lumber Duties issue. If the Bush administration perceives Harper and the Conservatives to be an improvement over Martin and the Liberals, then maybe they'll be encouraged to sway from the hard line and talk turkey with Mr. Harper.

President Reagan and Prime Minister Mulroney had a good relationship back in the 80s, which was one of the reasons that NAFTA was completed.

"If 'you don't understand why a bloated welfare state is bad for you and your country in the long run, then clearly your vaunted educational system has not taught you basic economics.

I can't be bothered to give you an economics lesson. Buy a legitimate mainstream textbook (not Das Kapital) and give it a read."
Our bloated welfare state has balanced it's budget for the last 7 years. We go shopping with a debit card and think about the future, America appears to shop with a handful of credit cards that are maxed to the limit. We are very successful at thinking of the welfare of our population, not creating debt, and balancing our budget. America does none of these things, so it is very clear who has the economic problem.
I see at the first sign of a diplomatic problem, America is already loading it's guns. We do not have the addiction to a military solutions that you appear to, Canadians are peacekeepers and I believe that is what the evolution of human civilization should be. The military and the arms dealers cozy relationship is only corruption with a little patriotism thrown in to hook people into thinking you could not survive without a military solution.
How may dictatorships has America helped overthrow because they won't support the corrupt agenda of your government. How many of the last few wars you have been involved in are authentic and serious threats to civilization. Many see your warmaking as a threat to civilized society and a threat to mankind in general.We do not see you as the world's protectors more like a danger to us all and your addiction to a military solution.
America has been involved in 200 wars and military skirmishes in the last 50 years and has it's hand in 8,000,000 deaths. Since when does killing or enabling dictators in the killing of innocent civilians become such a proud moment you wants us to share it with you? Spreading democracy is Ameri-speak for spreading mass murder and I for one want nothing to do with this psychopathic vision of the world.
I don't know what Americans were taught in school but I keep running into this revisionist idea of WW2 and WW3 where the rest of the world begged the US to help us out in the battle we chose to fight and America refused to help, until we had spent years fighting. They only fought when they were affected economically, not because of any brave fight for civilization. The choice was one of blatant self interest, you were the last in the game just before the game was over and then demanded the trophy, completely ignoring the work of your other team members. How can anyone argue with the self serving propaganda that your education system taught as truth?

Hey Speak Out for Democracy - 8 million dead? Hmm. Even allowing for the german and japanese troops killed by US troops in WWII, that sounds way off the mark. care to share your math?

I hope the Canadians here ignore any stupid Canada bashing. Canada has been a great neighbor and loyal ally. We may differ from time to time, but who doesn't? The differences are dwarfed by what we share. Good luck to your new govt.

Hear, hear, CE, a true ally indeed. I have to laugh when ol' Speakout criticizes the US for overthrowing dictators. For the entire Cold War, we were criticized from teh Left for cozying up to dictators (see Pinochet, Augusto, and Marcos, Ferdinand), and now we're vilified for overthrowing them. Just no satisfying some anti-Americans.
The above ananyis of US involvement in WW2 is just loony. True, we were late to teh party, but once there we did OK.
In any case, good luck to Mr. Harper - he'll need it.

Leaving aside the cross-border squabbling, I just want to take issue with those who present this as a swing to the right.

Cons 37%
Lib 30%
NDP 17%
Bloc 10%
Green 5%

So 62% of voters chose parties to the left of the conservatives, even after a campaign in which Harper tried to seize the centre. If the left wasn't fractured into smaller parties they would have literally wiped the conservatives off the map.

Moreoever, many of those who did switch to Harper have not become conservatives at all, they merely wanted to punish the Libs. After 13 years in power, the Libs struck people as complacent, and a (relatively small) corruption scandal seemed to confirm it. This is a slap on the wrist. People wanted to remind them Canada is not a one-party state.

It's not, but the centre of gravity remains firmly in the Liberal party. I doubt Harper will last even three years. A whiff of scandal and he's toast.

So to those Americans who are calling this a swing to the right, I respectfully suggest that you are perhaps unused to electoral calculations involving three- and four-party systems.

PS I should have added that the right itself was until recently split into two parties, the Alliance and Conservatives. Their unification made power - though not a majority government - a possibility.

But even following a Liberal scandal under an unpopular PM, the voters of the left outnumber those of the right nearly two-to-one.

first of all Bill oreilly is the most ignorant person when it comes to issues outside of the country. wow this guy is like tucker carlson that looser on crossfire who wear's a bowtie. He once said Canada is essentially Nicaragwa except cold,, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm last time I checked Canada was in the g8 therefore having one of the largest economies in the world. What a dumb as*! haha when i Travelled to Mexico I had a kid come and argue with me that the top half of Canada was french, hahaha one of the funniest things i have heard. This is also the kid who didn't know where toronto was even though it is the the fourth biggest city between Canada and the United States,, this type of ignorance is very disturbing!

first of all Bill oreilly is the most ignorant person when it comes to issues outside of the country. wow this guy is like tucker carlson that looser on crossfire who wear's a bowtie. He once said Canada is essentially Nicaragwa except cold,, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm last time I checked Canada was in the g8 therefore having one of the largest economies in the world. What a dumb as*! haha when i Travelled to Mexico I had a kid come and argue with me that the top half of Canada was french, hahaha one of the funniest things i have heard. This is also the kid who didn't know where toronto was even though it is the the fourth biggest city between Canada and the United States,, this type of ignorance is very disturbing!

Much of this "debate" was simply childish. I am a Canadian citizen, and a student of Law, who is very happy to have Mr. Harper in power, and am hopeful about improving Canada-US relations. I would just like to reiterate what has already been said, Canadians are not Anti- American yet many are Anti-Bush. This is based mainly on the Iraq war. When your President Bush made the accusations of "weapons of mass destruction" a surprising number of Canadians were in heavy support of the Bush Administration, yet when the inspectors failed to discover any such weapons the majority of Canadians believed the war was about oil. Now I dont want to give my opinion on what side I support, because I wish to let people decide for themselves.

I am proud to live so close to America, and I heavily enjoy my frequent visits to my neighbouring country. In highschool I can remember my favourite class was American History.

I plead with these so called "Anti Amercians" living in Canada to rethink their position and determine why they have this particular view. Is it simply a case of jumping on the band wagon? Or is it just simply a disagreement with the Bush Administration? If the later is true, then please don't generalize all of Americans into that category, since George W. barely squeked into power

On behalf of Canadians, I apologize for our immaturity.

"Most Canadians are not anti-American. They are anti-Bush (I'm not). If an American approve of GWB, can it also be interpreted that is he/she anti-American as well?"

I agree with the poster on here who mentioned that most canadians aren't anti-american so much as anti bush. in fact i think alot of the global tide of anti americanism is as much directed at bush spacifically rather than america and americans themselves. and who can blame them? illegal wars based on false pretenses? deliberately misleading the public about wmd? abu gharib prison? guantanemo bay? illegal wiretaps? the list goes on and on. most americans don't realize that it isn't that the world 'hates' us. the are horribly terrified of us. we have morphed from the old republic into the evil empire in front of their eyes. dick cheney is palpatine. the only thing i might add to some of the quite frankly harsh comments on here is that where i am from (the bay area) you would find it very hard to find anyone who supports bush or any of his policies. the point being that the usa is vast, complex, regional and defies generalizations. simplistic bashing only makes it more difficult for those of us on both sides of the border who will have to heal the damage and clean up the mess of the current administration once they finally leave.

Several years back, I was a member of a U.S. delegation to an international commercial convention (I won't mention which one) and those talks were held in Europe. On the sidelines of the event, we hung out with the Canadian delegates, generally socialized and had a great time. During the negotiations, though, the Canadian delegation would play both sides of the arguments that were being presented. While they would quietly inform us that, in truth, their delegation shared the same views with the U.S. delegation on a number of issues, in the end, they could not vote with us simply because they were afraid of "the perception that Canada would be too close to the U.S.".

A year or so later, I was on a camping trip and a couple members of the group were from Canada. While drinking around the campfire, I asked one of the Canadians about what defines him as a Canadian. His reply: "The fact that I'm not an American".

Since that point, those two events have always clouded my opinion of Canada and Canadians, justifiably or not. It's also worth noting that they occurred a full five yars before the Iraq invasion, during the Clinton years.

It is true in fact, that there is some Anti- Americanism that is alive and well in Canada. As "LibRep" concluded, even before the Iraq war there were many Canadians who did not support our neighbouring country. I believe this is because, (and keep in mind, I am a Canadian citizen born and raised), there is some jealousy amongst those "Anti Americans".

While you will hear many of us speaking about how proud we are that our country is so accepting and peaceful, and unique you will not hear many speak the truth. Which of course, is jealousy. We are jealous that we are not on top of the world, and most importantly I believe that the Canadians who dont support Americans do it because they are upset at the lack of attention you give us. For example, I searched 5 prominent US newpapers online for even a little blurb about Canada's election today. The Washington Post was the last one I searched, and I found a small story about it. Now personally, this doesn't bother me however many Canadians feel that since everytime George Bush Speaks there is often a story on the front page of every Canadian cities newspaper, that it should be likewise for your cities.

Like I said, the majority of Canadians will never admit that so dont count on anyone else in my country to back that up.

"Like I said, the majority of Canadians will never admit that so dont count on anyone else in my country to back that up."

Clever way of discrediting anyone who disagrees with you in advance.

I should think Canadian conservatives would be more likely to be jealous of American power than Canadian liberals. Simply because conservatives tend to be bigger fans of unilateral power.

I think you do injustice to the millions of Canadians who are completely sincere in their attachment to multilateral approaches.

Also, you said higher up - and I agree - that the current sentiment in Canada is more anti-Bush than anti-America. So how does that square with your belief that "We are jealous that we are not on top of the world"?

Canada is rarely in the news, as you say. The same is true of Scandinavia, New Zealand, Switzerland. Pleasant places to live. As the old Chinese curse goes: May you live in interesting times. Canada is lucky it's boring.

I think the Canadian conservatives, such as myself, believe that we too can share some power and be at the top. That is why we aren't jealous, yet hopeful and respectful.

Well you see "OD", I was more specifically referring to the fact that Bush or no Bush, "Anti- Americans" are simply jealous of America and the recent band wagon approach, is due to the Bush Administration.

The fact I was getting at with regards to the news, was that as a neighbouring country and somewhat close allie many Canadians are upset at the lack of care and attention placed towards Canada from the Americans and more importantly, American media.

Canadians wish to remain un-American. This should not be confused with anti-American. Wishing to be soverign, unique and free is universal. Actually, Canadians aren't "anti-" much of anything. We seek to get along with all sorts. Being "anti-" means to take actions that seek to overthrow the other. Canadians do no such thing. We merely wish to continue to set ourselves apart form other nations. We are no more "anti-American" than we are "anti-Swede" or "anti-Argentine". We wish for Canadian solutions to issues of concern to Canadians. Americans tend to be more "anti-" (confrontational) in their aproach than Canadians. Witness, as one example, how each country removed itself from British control. Brutal war versus bilateral constitutional change.

I just think you all have way to much time on your hands to be actually sitting on your computers eagerly awaiting the next responce to your uneducated opinions. But before I leave the office I would like to thank all of you for the entertainment!
Well to satify your urges to lash out and plead your case to one another I agree most with "respect for the usa", and also with this last individual that basically stated that canadians are "cats"

"I think the Canadian conservatives, such as myself, believe that we too can share some power and be at the top. That is why we aren't jealous, yet hopeful and respectful."

Well, no-one can accuse you of dishonesty, that's for sure.

It's just lucky for you that you were out of power in 2003, or you would have had to prove your loyalty by going into Iraq.

And that would have wiped your party off the political map. This way you get to talk loyalty without having to walk the walk.

Actually, the Canadian army is not very large and in 2003 almost all of our energy was focused towards Afghanistan, therefore we could not have been able to assist in the War on Iraq. Mr. Harper stressed that in his campaign.

"We are not 'Anti-American'":

Your characterization of the American Revolution versus Canada's own relationship with the UK is amusing. Your sovereign is still the Queen of England, correct?

Also, I believe that you've confused Canada's anti-"anti-" stance with the simple fact that it is unable to muster an armed force, and instead has chosen to rely on the U.S. for territorial defense. It's a very convenient arrangement for Canada.

Finally, Canada's desire to remain "soveriegn, unique and free" is not really what annoys the few Canada-observors in the U.S. Actually, it's the fact that you've chosen to do so by endlessly comparing (or contrasting) yourselves to Americans and that when it serves you most (e.g. Paul Martin's campaign) you go the extra step to draw out those distinctions.

"Actually, the Canadian army is not very large and in 2003 almost all of our energy was focused towards Afghanistan, therefore we could not have been able to assist in the War on Iraq. Mr. Harper stressed that in his campaign."

Yeah, he did, in his 2005-6 campaign. He was saying something very different in 2002-3.

"Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations. This is a serious mistake."
Stephen Harper, Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2003

"We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies."
Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, April 11, 2003

So you see, like I said, it was only the fact that he was out of power that saved his ass.
Otherwise, Canadian troops would be dying in Ramadi and Falluja today, and the streets of Toronto and Saskatoon careers would be no-go areas for Conservative politicians.

I didn't say Mr. Harper wouldn't have sent the troops, I merely stated that regardless of what he wanted it would have been impossible.

I fully agree with Mr. Harper's statement that we should be there standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies. This does not necessarily mean with troops, yet support, which in fact the liberal government did the complete opposite.

"I fully agree with Mr. Harper's statement that we should be there standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies. This does not necessarily mean with troops, yet support."

Gee, RespectForTheUSA, I'm not sure that kind of support would get you too many crumbs of power from the guys at the top table.

Anyway, you're 'mistaken' in asserting that Harper did not explicitly advocate sending troops to the invasion forces building up on Iraq's border.

"Canada should be part of the pre-deployment exercise because Canada should be working with British, Americans and other allies to ensure maximum pressure is exerted on Saddam Hussein so he understands he must disarm." (Stephen Harper, CBC, January 28, 2003)

Funny how memory plays tricks on people in political parties.

Exactly where did I say that he did not advocate sending troops? I stated that he would have liked to, but even so, it would have been impossible to do so due to lack of resources and man power.

If he were in power at the time, and if it were realistically possible to send troops, then he would have sent them. No arguing that. What I'm saying is that we should have at least been supporting our allies, whether it be through finances or a kind word.

Well, I have to say that's a pretty lame excuse he's using. Clearly Canada could have managed a field hospital or something if Harper had been PM.

I think we both know that had he been PM, some Canadian troops would have participated in the invasion.

What you appear to be saying is that the 2003 Harper was dumping on the Libs for not participating, when he secretly thought there weren't enough spare troops to do so anyway. He could have shared that opinion with the Canadian public at the time. He didn't. It's a brand new argument that only emerged since it became apparent that Iraq is a disaster.

But we agree on one thing. I too wish that Harper had been in a position to send troops at the time. Then we wouldn't see amnesiac Canadians forgiving him his stupidity, while frothing at the mouth over the sponsorship scandal, simply because sponsorship has been in the papers more lately.

PM-elect Harper did state in 2003 we should have joined the war in Iraq. He now will assist by sending troops to Afghanistan to relieve US forces to move to Iraq and/or rejoin our families. While this started as a Liberal commitment, it is better support for the war on terror for Canada to be in Afghanistan now, rather than moving the commitment to Iraq. Years of Liberal neglect of the military have made this the best option for both countries needs. And for those that paint the Canadian Forces as "Peacekeepers"...please stop! Although the idea was a Canadian one, and we have participated on a level greater than most on UN missions, we are soldiers highly trained in ALL phases of war, and pride ourselves in that, not just "peacekeeping".

I'd like to take aim at one Canada-U.S. myth that has been perpetuated by the Michael Moore types - that America (and Americans) are somehow more violent than Canada (and Canadians):

Canada's overall crime rate is now 50 percent higher than the crime rate in the United States. Moreover, since the early 1990s, crime rates have dropped in 48 of the 50 states and 80 percent of American cities. Over that same period, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canada's 10 biggest cities.

Also, in 2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 people; while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was also more than twice that of the states: 746 to America's 295 for the people.

As for the comment that there aren't enough Canadian troops to participate in Iraq, since Harper has announced he plans to increase the size of Canada's armed forces, I guess that will soon no longer be an issue.

It won't happen - since Bush doesn't want to embarrass Harper - but I for one would be most amused if the US Govt were to request the new Canadian Govt to send troops to Iraq.

I'd like to see Harper trying to wriggle out of that. Under the spotlight, he would find it less easy to say different things to different people.

Jack: All of those crime figures vary wildly due to different legal definitions and reporting rates. Why don't you try a crime with a straightforward definition, like murder?

Tell us about the respective murder rates in Canada and the US, Jack. For some reason you missed those in your analysis.

My, aren't you testy, OD? Did something burst your "all's progressive and enlightened in Canada" bubble? First the Conservatives gaining in Parliament and now some stats that might indicate Canadians are just as prone to violence as their savage neighbors to the South.

Here's one source for the stats: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=fb715fde-9cee-42e2-ae75-81061c3cee14 .

In short, it seems that Canada's becoming MORE violent, while the US LESS violent. So what's gone wrong in Canada, OD?

Warm Regards,

Jack

Still no murder stats, Jack?

It's easy to find sexual assault stats for both the States and Canada that vary by a factor of about four, depending where you look. And when they go up, the government and police always claim it's just that more people are coming forward. That's why I propose murder stats as a better guide. One crime, one stat. Hard to fiddle the numbers.

Actually I think Americans should be proud that their murder rates have fallen so dramatically for so long, under both parties' rule. I've never heard a good explanation why. Nobody seems to have any idea. I know I don't.

OD:

Despite being aware of Homer Simpson's admonition ("You can use statistics to prove anything. 14% of all people know that."), I agree that Jack's got a point. Even if his statistics were slightly off because of definitional issues, and, therefore, even if Canada's numbers were lowered significantly, they would still strongly suggest that Canada's problems with violence and violent crime are as great as those of the States.

What's more, living in a large American city (Seattle) that's close to a large Canadian city (Vancouver), I can offer from multiple personal experiences that I have seen almost as many yahoos in Canada as I do in the States.

The overall point, clearly, is to challenge the assumption of many Canadians that, as Jack notes, we are the "savage neighbors to the South."

Too many Canadians (and others) who post on this site on a regular basis--e.g., you and SpeakOutForDemocracy--appear to be obsessed with pouring over America's failings.

Perhaps if you (and others) took a moment to consider your own cultural problems, and further took a moment to consider the significant contributions America has made to the world, people like Paul Martin would be discouraged from engaging in his unseemly anti-American panderings.

Actually I almost never bother to comment on US domestic issues, which aren't really my business.

I certainly don't go on about US crime rates, because I'm a fan of the Second Amendment and wouldn't want to give ammo to Canadians who seek to take away my guns.

It doesn't help my cause at all to exaggerate US crime rates. It's just a sad fact that the US murder rate is vastly higher than Canada's. Seattle, as you know, is hardly representative. And Vancouver, as you also probably know, is where all the Canadian junkies live. If I lived in Windsor, and compared it to Detroit, I would also end up with a very unrepresentative picture.

America's failings and successes aren't my concern. All my posts here until Jack came along with his skewed statistics were strictly about Canada. The only thing that concerns me about America is its current habit of starting stupid wars and its attempt to destroy the UN. Because that's everybody's business.

Stop doing that and you'll never hear from me again. Nothing interests me less than American cultural touchstones like abortion, gay marriage etc. You can be a Baptist theocracy for all I care.

OD: "America's failings and successes aren't my concern. All my posts here until Jack came along with his skewed statistics were strictly about Canada."

It's disingenuous to say that America's failing and successes aren't your concern--"You can be a Baptist theocracy for all I care." There's likely no other country in the world that is so influenced by American culture as Canada is.

And, it may be that on this page your comments were focused on Canada, but you know very well that on other pages you've taken unseemly (and unjustified) shots at Americans in general.

Yes, given that America is currently the world's dominant economic/military/cultural power, Americans should expect critical scrutiny of how that power is used and how it affects the rest of the world. And, as you may recall from another page, I defended your right to do so. Americans should also expect, though, that the criticism be factual, measured, and directed in good faith.

OD: In case it was obvious by the context, the previous post was mine.

I take shots at Americans for backing the Iraq war. America is a democracy, and a majority re-elected Bush in 2004, so obviously those citizens are answerable for their government's actions.

Since those citizens try to enforce their worldview on foreigners using deadly force, I'm entitled to comment and there's nothing unjustified about it. Americans can do whatever they like to each other.

My comments are factual and measured, and my facts are carefully checked. As for good faith, I'm not one of those who hopes something bad happens to Americans. I just want them to stop doing bad things to other people.

And by the way, although I am currently in Canada, I'm British.

"I take shots at Americans for backing the Iraq war. America is a democracy, and a majority re-elected Bush in 2004, so obviously those citizens are answerable for their government's actions."

Well, given that you're British, and given that your government also supported/particpated in the war, and further given that your government was also re-elected after the war, perhaps that should warrant some critical self-reflection about your countrymen.

"Since those citizens try to enforce their worldview on foreigners using deadly force, I'm entitled to comment and there's nothing unjustified about it."

I didn't say you were "unjustified" in providing commentary. In fact, as you know, I defended your right to do so on another page. What I criticized--and what presumably makes others so enraged as to engage in personal attacks against you--were the unjustified shots you've taken against Americans in general. For example, I recall a post on another page in which you said something to the effect that America is a country of "voters without brains."

It probably is true that most Bush voters were voting out of tragic ignorance, or were just voting their pocket books. But, it's also the case that many Bush supporters (people I know and respect, even though I disagree with them), voted for him because they understand and agree with the neo-con world view.

The neo-cons are not anti-intellectual buffoons. They have a respectable intellectual lineage. Furthermore, though things are problematic now in the Middle East, it is not at all clear that the neo-con vision will be proven wrong (though I seriously fear they will be).

"My comments are factual and measured, and my facts are carefully checked."

Yes, as I indicated in another post on another page, I agree that your posts are generally thoughtful and logical. But, as I just noted, they are not ALWAYS measured, and therein lies the problem.

There's just one comment I'd like to make addressing something that I've read several times throughout this: the factors that contributed to Canadian confederation all add up to anti-Americanism. People often forget that. Canada's government policy is generally considered to follow "peace, order, and good government", while the U.S. policy is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The fact of the matter is, The U.S. was formed through revolution - through conflict with the British. Those who opposed revolution and believed in their government's integrity (namely the British Loyalists) fled to Canada.
America: Rapid change
Canada: Slow change.
There will always be an underlying anti-American sentiment in Canada, and there always has been, because Canada was founded on counter-revolutionary principles that directly opposed the U.S. method of governance.

Well, few of us can be measured all the time. But I can at least assure you that I don't give British (or Canadian) voters a break either.

And I know there are intellectual neo-cons. If anything, it's their ivory tower theorising that infuriates me. We all tend to believe that we are right and others wrong, but few of us are arrogant enough about our theories to believe they should govern the lives and deaths of people thousands of miles away. Few of us are sure enough about our ideas to make them materialise as 500lb bombs over strangers' cities. They're very ready to put other people's lives on the line to back their convictions.

Even families disagree with each other sometimes. I think my ambivilance towards the U.S. right now and I'm referring to the illegal attack of Iraq and the Viet Nam war is for all the civilians wiped out in the name of what?
Why is Canada centered out for it's anti-Americanism. The last I heard 85% of the Global Community disagree with American Foreign Policies abroad and have done for a long time now. I don't mind living in a Country (Canada) that has been compared to "Sweden without the army knife".
It's okay to agree to disagree when you are neighbours but if we don't support the decisions of the Bush Administration, we don't have to. During the Viet Nam war I played in a band with some very Spiritual young people who decided they did not agree with the Republican's then and we supported their right to that. There is much adversity here in Canada over the Softwood issue, the war in Iraq, the hypocrisy and greed of your foreign policies, your failure to respect other countries style of government, your pointing your finger at other countries human rights issues when you yourselves are running around the world, spreading terrorism, hate, bogus democracy, while your government tortures people, and has broken every International human rights law in the book. I thought it quite interesting that the latest blurb of Osama's came at a time when Mr. Bush's agenda of spying on American's is an issue.
Oh, oh, look now Osama's coming to get us, we have to do this. Perhaps a better look at your foreign policies might have something to do with why 9/11 happened. I cringed when Paul Martin did his little anti American attack and so did the rest of Canada as we are such hypocrites when it comes to programs for our own Native Indians, and poor, and our failure to have improved our greenhouse gases. People like Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, Tucker Carlson, McCarthy, George Bush, do not help your once great Country in the eyes of the World. Now, not so much. No, Canadian's as a rule, are not jealous of the U.S. or scared of being bombed or taken over for our oil and water (even more important). Right now, because of many reasons, the majority of Canadians do not trust, or respect your current government and do not understand why you have allowed this great crime against humanity to happen. I'm sure this will change again when and if you can ever get the war mongers out of there. It's hurting your people. In parting, the only reason Stephen Harper got in was because Paul Martin was the "architect" of his own demise and the cronyism and corruption resulting from the arrogance of power is really no different from what you yourselves are going through with your current administration. Stephen Harper will perish in Parliament if he tries to do anything to turn back the Charter of Rights issues which have already passed. The Liberals are a strong opposition still and along with the NDP who made a very strong showing this time will see this does not happen. We actually went more left than right if you look at the number of seats in Parliament by the Liberal and NDP.Your current administration is extremely unpopular. I love America and yes it's easy to forget all the people who didn't support Mr. Bush's war on his self perpetuating war on terror. I think that's why is hurts so much as I still remember the words and was there watching Martin Luther Kings wonderful speeches. The legacy he left the Global Community is the biggest treasure that ever came from your Country. Please, get back on track America, Good Luck and God Bless.

Mr Harper is partly right above. Canada was indeed forged in wars, but against America. The failed invasions of 1775 and 1812, which would make excellent movie subjects but may not get major Hollywood treatment anytime soon, left an impression North of the border. We want good relations with our neighbours, but would rather keep our own foreign policy, thankyou very much. Would America's government consider surrendering its sovereignty to some foreign power? We wouldn't either.

Sexual assault stats are virtually meaningless and depend on willingness to report, likelihood of conviction etc. A rising rate may be actually a good thing, a sign of more reporting rather than more crimes.

Homicide is different. Rates are broadly comparable. And I would say that both Canada's and America's rates of gun-related deaths are appalling. These countries need to look at the UK, and try to figure out what they are doing right over there. The way things are going, Toronto will soon outshoot the whole of Britain.

Jack, I read the article you posted. I think we Canadians have to open our eyes and see what happening. Note, crime is rising in Canda after 12 years of Liberal gov't left-leaning policies. It's just another reason why they deserve to be voted out!

As a Canadian, who lived ad owned a business in the US in the 90's, I can say that there is a big difference between the normal Canadian attitude towards the US, and what is going on now. Most Canadians, including me, have great respect for the achievements and power of your great country. However, I observe with sadness the decline of this great nation under the Bush administration, most of it as a result of poor policy decisions, and often ask myself - where is this country headed. Where do I start to list these - (1) Increadably poor return on investment in Iraq (replacing a dictator with what is effectively pro-Iranian theocracy, at a cost of ½ trillion dollars, and alienating most of the world in the process). (2) Spying on it's citizens, reminiscent of some countries behind the Iron certain, no matter what the justification, (3) introducing Intelligent Design in some schools as science. (4) Possibly overturning Row vs. Wade. (5) Introducing prison torture, and in general trampling all over established international lows and standards for treating prisoners. (6) Curtailing important neurological research using Stamp Cells. (7) dividing the nation along ideological lines (Red/Blue) like never before.

Our murder rates in Canada are a fraction of yours in the United States. There are actually more murders per year in a city like Detroit than there are in all of Canada put together. I feel safe walking down any street in any city at any time of day or night, anywhere in Canada. What American can say that of any city in the U.S.?
Your nation is a lawless jungle -- ironically governed by politicians who spout "law and order" rhetoric but then do all in their power to keep guns in people's hands.
You Americans will keep building new prisons, will keep burying more of your dead, will keep electing reactionary politicians who keep things that way. It's all so obvious why this is happening but you Americans have a real blind spot; your fanatic attachment to guns has been your undoing as a society. Go ahead and spout your superiority. At least we here in Canada do not have to go about our daily lives in fear.

John,

It would seem that the greatest thing you should fear is the hate (of the U.S.; anything else?) that's apparently building up inside of you.

Also, your use of the term "reactionary' is amusing and quite indicative of your political leanings. I'm picturing you, in BC somewhere, festooned in Che Guevara memorabilia.

Ivo, great comment! You forgot to mention turning a yearly surplus into a huge deficit.

T.J., instead of accusing me of hatred, why don't you address the substantive facts I cite? In fact, I nurture no hatred for the United States; I just have a realistic cold-eyed appraisal of what your nation is all about. Can you, as an American, walk down any city street at any time of day or night and feel safe?
Here in civilized Canada, we can still do that. That's because we don't give every goon walking down the street a "constitutional right" to bear arms.
What amazes me is that despite the many evident failings of your shattered, dysfunctional society, folks like you still like to claim your nation is superior -- so superior, in fact, that it needn't be bound by international law!
What a joke.

"Can you, as an American, walk down any city street at any time of day or night and feel safe?"

You don't seem to be following the conversation very closely.

Given the data that state that Canada has a higher violent-crime rate than the US, it would seem that the average American is indeed safer walking down their own street than the average Canadian.

Here's the link again.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=fb715fde-9cee-42e2-ae75-81061c3cee14

"folks like you still like to claim your nation is superior -- so superior, in fact, that it needn't be bound by international law!"

You couldn't define "international law" if I gave you 5 (American!) dollars.

First Phil Bazhal you quoted our Bush bootlicker journalist who until recently worked for Bush, in an article from the most biased newspaper in Canada that is so disrespected that they are always on the verge of folding. Great research work.
Even before I quote respectible statistics, from a relevant and honest source I can tell you that I have spent time in the US and have twice had guns pulled on me. I have witnessed a murder outside my hotel room. I have found my trips there quite scary and in your large cities would not even consider walking alone at night. In Canada I have walked alone at night and have never had an incident.

This is a quote from Statistics Canada
Crime comparisons between Canada and the United States
2000
Over the past 20 years, Canada recorded much lower rates of violent crime than the United States did. However, rates for property offences have generally been higher in Canada, according to a comparison of police-reported crime between the two nations.

Crime rates in both countries have followed similar trends during the past two decades. After peaking in 1991, rates for both violent and property crime generally declined throughout the 1990s.

Based on selected offences, the United States has had a much higher rate of reported violent crime than Canada. The homicide rate was three times higher in the United States than it was in Canada, while the American rate for aggravated assault was double the Canadian rate. For robbery, the rate was 65% higher in the United States.

On the other hand, since 1990, Canada has recorded slightly higher rates of property crime, although the rates have gradually been converging during the late 1990s. Canada has higher reported rates than the United States for breaking and entering, motor vehicle theft and arson.

Rates for both violent and property offences also followed similar regional patterns in the two nations, rising from east to west.

Compared to American cities, Canadian cities had lower rates of homicides, aggravated assaults and robberies. However, property crime was more prevalent in Canadian urban centres.

Violent crime: U.S. rates higher for homicide, assault and robbery
Note to readers
This release is based on analysis in a new report, Juristat: Crime comparisons between Canada and the United States, which is available today from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. The data came from the Canadian and American Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) programs and the Canadian and American Homicide Surveys.

The different number of offences co