# Canada and the New American Empire



## Matt_Fisher (7 Dec 2004)

The following is taken as an excerpt from the CBC Newsworld Documentary "Canada and the New American Empire", Pretty typical of the CBC's left-leaning anti-American standpoint, especially the following passage:

"The obvious alternative is for Canada to spend its relatively small military resources not as a supplement, symbolically supporting the space arm of the New American Empire but as a complement to the U.S. military machine in the form of highly trained and well equipped peacekeepers and peace makers who could work in the post-hostilities disaster areas which the United States so often leaves behind it. Investing their defence dollars in constructive, multilateral action could make Canadians feel they were playing a more legitimate role in trying to achieve peace in and increasingly troubled world"

http://www.cbc.ca/empire/security.html
Security
Documentary special on CBC Newsworld (ET):
Monday, December 6 at 8 p.m. & 11 p.m.
(Note: The following is an edited synthesis of a number of source documents, below, whose authors retain the copyrights to their original text.) 

CANADA AND THE POST-9/11 SECURITY STATE 
When considering closer security relations with a superpower neighbour, maintaining control over Canadian policy levers is certainly a legitimate area of concern. But would alternatives better protect Canada's ability to set policies in its own interests? Foregoing deeper bilateral security relations may actually weaken Canada's ability to maintain its independence. Without a more proactive bilateral approach, Ottawa may have little or no influence over U.S. policies that greatly affect Canadian prosperity, jobs, investment and the incomes from which to finance high quality social goods, such as health care and education. Indeed, greater border uncertainty caused by U.S. security decisions could undercut domestic priorities. Yet, at the same time, even Americans now refer to the U.S. as an Empire.

Recognizing the excesses of empires throughout history, we must place those insights into the contemporary setting of a fragile planet at the limits of its capacity to cope. As we face global warming, overpopulation, resource depletion, pollution, and the effects of HIV/AIDS, we should experience deep anxiety about what possibilities actually exist for Canada to continue to hold a worldview that is markedly different from that of the U.S. Is it our role to be like the Quakers, speaking truth to power? Or is it our role to join the most powerful nation in world history and wilfully ignore the likely effects of militarism and domination carried to their global extreme? 

Canada's Prime Ministers have always faced the difficult task of balancing two competing approaches to Canada-U.S. integration â â€œ proximity vs. distance. The challenge today is to find the right balance in the context of constantly changing domestic and external circumstances. But in a security-deficient environment plagued by mutually reinforcing addictions to public safety and homeland defence, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Ottawa to manoeuvre between the two options. The search for an ideal equilibrium is more complicated today because the political and economic risks of moving towards either option are increasing simultaneously. Proximity is risky because America's addiction to security has forced Washington to select strategies that are unappealing to a majority of Canadians who remain committed to the promise of multilateral security. Distance is risky, because anything less than a crystal clear commitment to American security will affect Washington's enthusiasm for protecting Canadian economic interests. 

The Canadian political elite, although aware of the necessity of keeping the border open to legitimate traffic, is concerned that closer collaboration with the U.S. on security matters will reduce Canadian sovereignty. Many feel that any association with the U.S. results in a lessening of Canada's ability to define and execute its own policies. In fact, it is arguable that it is more Canadian identity than sovereignty that is threatened. Those who favour greater integration with the United States tend to consider only the economic and security aspects of the question, neglecting the role played by identity in Canadian policy. Any policy of rapprochement with the United States must bear an unmistakable Canadian imprimatur in order to be acceptable to Canadian leaders and the population at large:

It must respond to Canadian interests (and not a desire expressed by Washington)
It must be consistent with the values of Canadian society, and above all, it must contain mechanisms to regulate crises and unforeseen situations.
In other words, an agreement with the United States must not be perceived as a Trojan horse.

In a sense, then, the choice for Canada seems stark: either increase military expenditures and strength, improving control over its territory or de facto see this pass to the US. This problem, however, is complicated by the fact that many Canadian nationalists see any cooperation with the United States as threatening Canadian sovereignty. Many also view increases to defence spending as stealing funds from urgent domestic priorities and making the Pentagon's future calls for Canadian troops for overseas adventures more certain. Yet most fail to recognize that cutting Canada adrift from the USâ â€if such were possible, which it manifestly is notâ â€would oblige Canada to spend far more to ensure its defences and, if it failed to do so, guarantee that the U.S. will be forced to act to protect itself. 

Canada faces a dilemma. To endorse security initiatives like National Missile Defence is to break with its long-standing opposition to the weaponization of space and to accept a military doctrine in which few place much credit. But to reject participation in this new American high-tech Maginot Line would entail losing its chair at the NORAD table and so what little access it has to the Pentagon's planning processes.

As a Canadian military command, NORAD activities have to be seen as reflecting Canadian foreign policy. NORAD, however, is also one of a system of interdependent U.S. commands designed to support American foreign policy, including its present policy of pre-emptive war. By its very nature, then, NORAD institutionalizes Canadian support for U.S. military initiatives and related U.S. foreign policy. Under these conditions, we have to ask what it means when, for instance, the Canadian government decides not to condone the U.S. war in Iraq but Canadian military personnel through NORAD are performing key support functions for that war. There is a serious disconnect here between Canadian foreign policy and Canadian military activity and it is quite possible that our sovereignty depends on less institutionalized participation, not more.

The obvious alternative is for Canada to spend its relatively small military resources not as a supplement, symbolically supporting the space arm of the New American Empire but as a complement to the U.S. military machine in the form of highly trained and well equipped peacekeepers and peace makers who could work in the post-hostilities disaster areas which the United States so often leaves behind it. Investing their defence dollars in constructive, multilateral action could make Canadians feel they were playing a more legitimate role in trying to achieve peace in and increasingly troubled world.


----------



## pbi (7 Dec 2004)

Actually, apart from some rather gratuitous references to the "US Empire" which tends to be a left-wing kneejerk in Canada, I agree with the depiction of our strategic/foreign policy dilemma. I have commented a few times on this site that our relationship with the US must not be a "_master-lackey_" one: we have the same right to self-determination that the US insists upon for itself. We cannot merely become footsoldiers for the US at any time they need legitimacy for something: there must be a clear Canadian interest involved. 
At the same time, we have economic and security interests that we must respect or we risk serious and widespread impact on Canadians, including those least able to bear the effects. Because of this, we cannot pursue mindless neutralist, isolationist or anti-US policies domestically or abroad. Many in our left-wing constituencies (including the pink end of the Liberal spectrum) would have us follow a plicy of "_damn the US, full speed ahead....over the cliff_." As a small power we must sail between two icebergs and keep our ship afloat. There is nothing new about this dilemma: it is a part of our politcal culture and our history. Some Americans may not like the sentiments expressed in the article, but I suggest that they are bland and tame as compared to some of the commentary emanating from the anti-Bush, anti-war sectors of US society. Cheers.


----------



## Goober (7 Dec 2004)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> The problem with this type of "Documentary" is that it always gets to an "either us or them argument."   The words do have a slant to them as well, anyone with a touch of neutrality could see that.     There are several factual inaccuracies with the article as well....weaponization of space?   What is that?   BMD does not have interceptors in space, a fact that seems lost on the writer of the "Documentary."     ...



I agree with you, the articles comments on BMD make it seem that BMD == Weaponization of space. And I think thats many of the public think the same thing. (perhaps because of reports such as these)

Noone has come out in the media and separated the two. It is possible that the BMD _might_ lead to the weaponization of space in the future, but its possible it might not too.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

No fan of CBC or left-wing fanaticism I.

But if, as pbi points out, you get past the Anti-American hyperbole of the opening paragraph posted by Matt, the body actually contains a fairly well reasoned analysis of where we are and what needs to be done.

It essentially says that short of running a ditchdigger along our border and cutting us loose from the Americans, an ultimately self-destructive act that would result in loss of trade, loss of jobs, loss of influence and a hugely expensive defence budget, then we must sign up for Missile Defence and increased Defence Budgets and find a rationale that fits the Anti-American bias of the "Political Elite" that constitutes the CBC's clientele.

If you are inclined to accept that the CBC is more than just a national sounding board, that Peter Mansbridge's oft-repeated question "What are we to make of this?" is more than just a rhetorical flourish, then you might view this as a method to swing over some of those Anti-American's to the need to give the Government some slack on Missile Defence and Defence in general.

We consider the Anti-American invective to be bitter and the pro-defence stance to sound sweet.

The Political Elite will find the invective sweet, possibly, hopefully allowing enough of them to swallow or at least consider the bitter medicine of a stronger Defence policy and support for the Missile Defence.

But that would be to read too much into the situation.

For we are all aware that the CBC is an icon of independent thought and journalism and is beholden to none, including the Government and the Political Elite.

PS and by the way, for a change I find myself in agreement with Maj. Baker.


----------



## JBP (7 Dec 2004)

Call me "ignorant" as in "not knowing" by the dictionary but I thought that we were going to go with the BMD. I knew it hadn't been approved yet but I thought almost for sure it would have been a "yes". Apparently from what I've read over the last while about the meeting between Martin and Bush, Martin seems withheld and kind of scared of BMD. I thought he was all for it?!?!

It's safe to say now I'm confused. And is there a deadline we've been given to either sign by or go fly a kite?

For the most part I am one of those people against BMD as most of you probably know but I thought we were already going up that creek without a paddle.

Joe...
 :crybaby:
 ???


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

Joe,

He was all for it until he won/lost the election.   Now he is scared of the political consequences and his future job prospects and we are all confused.


----------



## Disillusioned (7 Dec 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Joe,
> 
> He was all for it until he won/lost the election.   Now he is scared of the political consequences and his future job prospects and we are all confused.




I know it's so rare. Fo once, a politician is actually risking something if he doesn't do what Canadians want:

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4060825.stm

www.canadians.org/display_document.htm?COC_token=coc_token&id=885&isdoc=1&catid=245


----------



## Marauder (7 Dec 2004)

I wouldn't mind America swallowing Canada just for the mass ritual suicide of ignorant whackjob lefties, radical commie acedemics, and squeege punks that would follow. Then maybe the country would be a little more sane and common sensical.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Dec 2004)

Meh....

In the end, the average Canadian or American would just go on getting up, driving their SUV to work, talking about the latest _Survivor_ episode at the water cooler, gripe about the expense of Christmas, look forward to the next promotion, go home and eat dinner with their 1.5 children, enjoy a beer, watch ESPN, worry about cholesterol, and go to bed - ready to do it all again the next day.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

Has it occurred to anyone else that the Blue States are the home of the News/Entertainment industries which have all been subverted by CBC trained individuals?  Saturday Night Live, Second City, Michael MacNeill, Peter Jennings, Pamela Anderson.....and all their anchors get taught how to talk like those folk from Minnesota (upper mid-west) which is indistinguishable from Canajan eh?

Is there in fact an ongoing Canadian conspiracy to subvert the United States?

Enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Acorn (7 Dec 2004)

Dammit Kirkhill! The question now is whether you should meet with an "accident" or just be discredited as a conspiracy-theorist/crank.

Acorn


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2004)

On behalf of my family I would request the "crank" option - they already consider me that anyway and university has yet to be paid for.

But by the bye when do we know if we've won.  We got them to watch Hockey.  We followed that up with the Figure Skating offensive.  Will victory be final when they interrupt regular programming for the Brier?


----------



## Disillusioned (8 Dec 2004)

Marauder said:
			
		

> I wouldn't mind America swallowing Canada just for the mass ritual suicide of ignorant whackjob lefties, radical commie acedemics, and squeege punks that would follow. Then maybe the country would be a little more sane and common sensical.




I'm relieved to know that enlightened ones like you are defending Canada. :


Sane? George "Mission Accomplished" Bush, that's sane? hahahahahahahahahaha.


----------



## Disillusioned (8 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Meh....
> 
> In the end, the average Canadian or American would just go on getting up, driving their SUV to work, talking about the latest _Survivor_ episode at the water cooler, gripe about the expense of Christmas, look forward to the next promotion, go home and eat dinner with their 1.5 children, enjoy a beer, watch ESPN, worry about cholesterol, and go to bed - ready to do it all again the next day.




I live in Toronto, take the subway and read books. Most Canadians don't own SUVs.

I think sex is about where the parallels with other people ends.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2004)

And then there is the Universe OUTSIDE of Toronto.......


----------



## Disillusioned (8 Dec 2004)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Dammit Kirkhill! The question now is whether you should meet with an "accident" or just be discredited as a conspiracy-theorist/crank.
> 
> Acorn




What I don't understand, is how is the Council of Canadians and the BBC a conspiracy theory? What about Ipsos-Reid and Ekos? Are they conspiring to turn Canadians into evil lefties? > > > > >


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2004)

> Insert Quote
> Quote from: Acorn on Today at 22:45:52
> Dammit Kirkhill! The question now is whether you should meet with an "accident" or just be discredited as a conspiracy-theorist/crank.
> 
> ...



Maybe you won't have to "top" me after all Acorn.


----------



## pbi (8 Dec 2004)

> (especially when CDN politicians step on a effigy of our president) because security trumps everything.



Drop the "s" on "politicians". It was one well-known idiot who is now out of the Liberal caucus: she was too much even for them. Cheers.


----------



## Slim (8 Dec 2004)

> I'm relieved to know that enlightened ones like you are defending Canada.
> 
> 
> Sane? George "Mission Accomplished" Bush, that's sane? hahahahahahahahahaha.



 I live in Toronto, drive an SUV and can't stand people who trash G Bush and don't know what they're talking about...That would be you Mr "I amaleftwingcommiejustlikemyuniversityprof" Dissilusioned. Go read some more Karl Marx and stay away from all the normal people here please.


----------



## pbi (8 Dec 2004)

> Go read some more Karl Marx and stay away from all the normal people here please.



I disagree. While I don't share _Disillusioned's_ apparent viewpoint (still not sure we're not just having the piss taken out of us...), I don't think it hurts us to have dissenting points of view expressed here. Sometimes there is a bit too much preaching to the choir around here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if we kicked out everybody who made an inaccurate or irritating statements, I would have been gone before I got my second leaf. Cheers.


----------



## Goober (8 Dec 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> > Go read some more Karl Marx and stay away from all the normal people here please.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. While I don't share _Disillusioned's_ apparent viewpoint (still not sure we're not just having the piss taken out of us...), I don't think it hurts us to have dissenting points of view expressed here. Sometimes there is a bit too much preaching to the choir around here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if we kicked out everybody who made an inaccurate or irritating statements, I would have been gone before I got my second leaf. Cheers.



Couldn't have said it better myself (I've tried...)


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2004)

Having a different point of view is one thing, but pimping the same marginal political party, some zany economic view (which Torlyn called you on), and notions of an "evil, aggressive American imperialist state" over and over again gets exasperating.

This is Army.ca - talk about tanks or something for a change.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2004)

Since America is not an Empire in the traditional sense (no Procouncls collecting taxes and tribute), then what does that make us really? A satellite state? Associate member? That annoying guy who introduces David Letterman?


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since America is not an Empire in the traditional sense (no Procouncls collecting taxes and tribute), then what does that make us really? A satellite state? Associate member? That annoying guy who introduces David Letterman?



I remember being "graced" by Llyod Axworthy's presence at a lecture; he called us a "Satrapy" - how's that sound?

Can you picture it, Paul Martin, Satrap of Canada!

What do you think there, SufferingFromIllusions?


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2004)

Great picture! Too bad Lloyd didn't pay attention in history class though, a "Satrap" was a Persian noble serving as a (what was that word again...oh yes!) Proconsul collecting taxes and tribute.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2004)

Disclaimer:  Yes, the sculpture is Assyrian; but when I googled Persian all I got was images from CIV III.  Damn pop culture....


----------



## Disillusioned (10 Dec 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since America is not an Empire in the traditional sense (no Procouncls collecting taxes and tribute), then what does that make us really? A satellite state? Associate member? That annoying guy who introduces David Letterman?




I wish we weren't a satellite country, but I can't find a reason that we aren't, although we are big and still have some independence politically.

The media does often misrepresent figures of Canada-U.S. trade, but here's a statistic that should blow people's minds: 

*50% of Canadian export to the United States is intra-firm, that is, from the Canadian subsidiary of a U.S. transnational to the U.S. parent company at home.*

Here is the source:   

Intrafirm Trade of Canadian-based Foreign Transnational Companies 
by Richard A. Cameron, Industry Canada, December 1998

(only the HTML link works, PDF doesn't)

www.google.ca/search?q=cache:gHY8GOgmtlIJ:strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/ineas-aes.nsf/vwapj/wp26e.pdf/%24FILE/wp26e.pdf+Intrafirm+Trade+of+Canadian-based+Foreign+Transnational+Companies+&hl=en

http://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/cagoio/26.html


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Dec 2004)

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> I wish we weren't a satellite country, but I can't find a reason that we aren't, although we are big and still have some independence politically.
> 
> The media does often misrepresent figures of Canada-U.S. trade, but here's a statistic that should blow people's minds:
> 
> ...



Holy blah blah blah.....dude you need to lighten up.


----------



## Disillusioned (11 Dec 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Holy blah blah blah.....dude you need to lighten up.




Find a girlfriend, yeah yeah alright...... :-* :-*


----------



## JBP (11 Dec 2004)

Although I have been spanked by Infanteer and others on this site when I first arrived too, and I do see why and how it was well deserved by me. I would have to agree that BY GOD you folks are sure slamming the poor fellow hard! I know, I know, your sick of the immediate anti-US rhetorical BS from all the newbies, did you ever think your all getting OLD then? LOL... I'm honestly just kidding!  

Really though, some folks who posted here (no to mention anyone in particular, it's obvious as hell) really actually insulted him I'm sure and others who would consider themselves appropriately labelled "Left-Wing Commie Tinfoil Wearing Phsyco's!"....  :warstory:

All in good taste I'm sure he quite possibly offended some of you with his comments on the site at various times and he's got his recorded warning...

Infanteer, I'm sure you can come up with such better wit than:



> What do you think there, SufferingFromIllusions?



By god lad! That's just _mean_... Well, I suppose it was comming eventually with a nick like that but hey... Just tryin' to help keep the peace a bit is all.

Last time I stuck up for someone I was severly insulted by a staff member almost in a racial manner and freaked out sort of. Remember, sometimes it really may be just a puff of smoke to you but might be a jab to the heart with a sword to someone else. And how does the law of harrassment work in Canada kiddies? "Oh, but Sir, I just grabbed her ass once! It was nothing really..." Just an example of differing opinions you see?
 :

Anyway, I'm done. You right wing phsyco's can start loading your  :bullet: to  :skull: me now...

 ;D


----------



## Goober (11 Dec 2004)

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> Although I have been spanked by Infanteer and others on this site when I first arrived too, and I do see why and how it was well deserved by me. I would have to agree that BY GOD you folks are sure slamming the poor fellow hard! I know, I know, your sick of the immediate anti-US rhetorical BS from all the newbies, did you ever think your all getting OLD then? LOL... I'm honestly just kidding!
> 
> Really though, some folks who posted here (no to mention anyone in particular, it's obvious as hell) really actually insulted him I'm sure and others who would consider themselves appropriately labelled "Left-Wing Commie Tinfoil Wearing Phsyco's!"....   :warstory:
> 
> ...



Just as a note, with Disillusioned, the thread could be in the offtopic forum talking about cheeze, and he'll turn it into a conspiracy theory about how the US doesn't want anyone to each cheeze so they raise the alert level to AMBER and find a mad cow case so they can slaughter all the cows or something...

All joking aside, I have yet to see one of his posts NOT be about the US, no matter what the original topic.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Dec 2004)

Thanks for the notice Joe, I'll put that one in the day-planner.

Goober has identified the core of the issue.   67 posts and not one of them has made any meaningful contribution to Army.ca.   Rather, he's constantly blared the same stuff repeatedly while at the same time sticking a cork in his ears if anyone takes their time to respond to his posts.

Picture Army.ca like a house, owned by Mr Bobbitt who's hired the staff to keep an eye on the place.   This is not a "free-for-all" where anyone can wander in and do what they want.   Do you want someone to come into your house and take a big dump right on your living room floor - without even introducing themselves?

Sure, there is a certain overarching "direction" that most members of this board take on many issues, but I won't say that it is a monolith that brooks no dissention - hell, even some of our senior members have disagreed with many of the viewpoints on certain issues (Bruce and RCA come to mind).   Many of you have been keen to argue against the "established" view of the forum, and you are more then welcome to continue to do so in a clear and debatable manner; doing so only gives the forum more "cred" as a place for good, serious discussion.   Sure, the membership may "pile on" a person who takes a particularly contentious stance, but all is fair in love and war - if you find things are a little too hot in the house, maybe it is best to drop the issue and take your licks.

I will say now that there exists a good "balance" on any arbitrary misuse of moderator action on this forum - I will tell you all that Mr Bobbitt is very fair owner and will countermand his staff if he feels the integrity of the board will suffer.   We may take part in the mudslinging, but when we put on the "moderator" spurs, we adhere to the procedures that the site owner has layed out for us.   Trust me, any "warnings" or "bannings" are discussed and agreed upon prior to the act by both the staff and Mr Bobbitt.

Now, as to the final issue, Mr Disillusioned.

The bottom line is that there is going to be a certain "direction" here due to the theme (Army.ca) - if your topics are so off-kilter that all they lead to is flaming, bickering, and distraction then perhaps you should find another area of the Internet that is more conducive to your discussion.   You won't find alot of us going to protest forums and peace activist sites to pitch our ideas for increasing the defence budget to expand on expeditionary capabilities, so you can appreciate the same thing happening here.

Disillusioned, you have been warned multiple times on the content of your posts.   You have insisted from post 1 to post 67 on prostrating the same viewpoint with little variation on theme or delivery.   If you haven't figured out by now, most of the members of the board are not too keen on what you have to say - and they've taken the time to point that out with posts.   You've even appealed to the site owner and have got your "boundaries" layed out by him.

Yet you've failed to change your delivery.   As such, your posts are very distracting and incite only unneeded frustration when you continue to broadcast comments about "American imperialism" and "economic fraud" - you've managed to throw threads on Submarines off topic for the sake of pushing you political outlook.   Even when challenged by others on your prostrations - Torlyn and A Majoor have recently done good jobs of doing so - you simply ignore their statements and insult them by heaping ad hominem attacks on their background, saying their "education" is useless and they are unable of "seeing the obvious".

As I see you have no interest in changing your stripes, you are banned.   You obviously cannot appreciate the fact that you are degrading the discussions here with your disruptive and inflammatory posts.   You were warned following your previous appeal and yet you obviously did not take the warning to heart.

Don't bother to try and go over the staff here; Mr Bobbitt has signed off on this.   I am sure you will find a place on the internet that will rejoice with you in bashing Yankee Imperialists and the treacherous Bank of Canada, but for now, it won't be here.

Infanteer Out.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2004)

I wonder if we will all be welcomed on "Disillusioned.ca"


----------

