Difference between Canada and the US

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jjones
Canada has always been a follower, never a leader; the ultimate fence-sitter. It's much easier to criticize when you never put anything at risk. The only way that a nation such as Canada can survive without a strong leader to follow is if the entire world consisted of an assortment of Canadas. Nice to think about but not going to happen on this planet.

Tell that to out WW Vets.

That just reinforces what I stated. Canada followed Britain into both world wars. Without Britain's lead, Canada would have been content to sit at home.

Yet, where was the US?

BTW, Canada was obligated in WW1, in WW2 Canada chose on it's own volition. Canada has put much at risk many times, perhaps you should study up on Canada's contributions before speaking.

I'm well aware of Canada's contributions over the years. But there's a world of difference between leading and the nature of your risk, and following and what is at risk. Why don't you study up on Canada's contributions and show us where they've taken the lead and at what risk?

How do you define "leadership"? The willingness to start a war?

If you insist on willingness to start something, how about 10 years back. Canada sent a Destroyer to the Grand Banks in the Atlantic to enforce/expose illegal fishing in International waters. After stopping some Spanish fishing boats, which required some shots across the bow, they boarded the vessels. Spain was infuriated and sent some Destroyers of their own and a standoff ensued. Nothing came from the standoff however. Canada's Minister of Fisheries(Brian Tobin) displayed the concrete evidence(something your leader doesn't understand) of the illegal activities in a news conference held on the docks in New York. Spain backed down.

Rwanda: A Canadian was in charge of the UN Peace Keeping force in Rwanda prior to and during the massacre. 6 months before the massacre, he began pleading for increased Forces, as he could see the massacre was going to happen soon. The UN, in large part due to US resistance, refused to increase it's presence. The massacre occured. Again towards the latter half of the massacre, Canada lead the call to increased presence to bring an end to the massacre and address the looming refugee disaster, agaian it was nixed in large part due to US resistance(Somalia was fresh on the US's mind).

The Montreal Protocol: This is the ban on Landmines, started and promoted by Canada.

Even the Kyoto Accord was started in large part due to Canadian leadership. A few years earlier, a Conference in Brazil came up with a Kyoto like plan that seemed to be dead in the water due to the lack of support from Industrialized nations, Canada stepped up to the plate and threw it's support behind the plan. The EU, US, and others reluctantly joined their support. Later, the US and some others would back out as the details of the Kyoto Accord were being settled. After the US had abandoned it, Canada and others renegotiated some of the details and the Accord became more like what the US insisted on. However the US had no interest in it anyway. Canada has ratified Kyoto and is currently working on complying with it.

Back in the 50's, Canada was one of the first nations to publicly renounce the desire to acquire Nuclear Weapons. This won the PM of the day(Lester B Pearson) the Nobel Peace Prize.

In WW1, the French, British, and US forces were unable to take Vimy Ridge, an important strategic location. The Canadians volunteered for the job, completed it at great cost, but they got the job done.

If you insist that "Leadership" requires one to start a war, well, yes Canada has no "Leadership". I put to you though, that a group of armed monkeys could start a war, sometimes Leadership requires non-violent solutions.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: da loser

maybe you canadians can give more insight. also explain why canadians have so much faith in their government.

We don't. Despite our reputation for being such a socialist country, we're aren't nearly as politicized as the United States. Politics isn't the religion here that it is in the States. About the only time poltics comes up is when we're once again getting screwed by the Americans, which lately appears to be a daily occurance.

Or when the notion of Qubec (the nation of ) comes to the floor... eh?

Not the issue it once was. Even then, not a big deal to the average Canadian.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jjones
Canada has always been a follower, never a leader; the ultimate fence-sitter. It's much easier to criticize when you never put anything at risk. The only way that a nation such as Canada can survive without a strong leader to follow is if the entire world consisted of an assortment of Canadas. Nice to think about but not going to happen on this planet.

Tell that to out WW Vets.

That just reinforces what I stated. Canada followed Britain into both world wars. Without Britain's lead, Canada would have been content to sit at home.

Yet, where was the US?

BTW, Canada was obligated in WW1, in WW2 Canada chose on it's own volition. Canada has put much at risk many times, perhaps you should study up on Canada's contributions before speaking.

I'm well aware of Canada's contributions over the years. But there's a world of difference between leading and the nature of your risk, and following and what is at risk. Why don't you study up on Canada's contributions and show us where they've taken the lead and at what risk?

How do you define "leadership"? The willingness to start a war?

If you insist on willingness to start something, how about 10 years back. Canada sent a Destroyer to the Grand Banks in the Atlantic to enforce/expose illegal fishing in International waters. After stopping some Spanish fishing boats, which required some shots across the bow, they boarded the vessels. Spain was infuriated and sent some Destroyers of their own and a standoff ensued. Nothing came from the standoff however. Canada's Minister of Fisheries(Brian Tobin) displayed the concrete evidence(something your leader doesn't understand) of the illegal activities in a news conference held on the docks in New York. Spain backed down.

Rwanda: A Canadian was in charge of the UN Peace Keeping force in Rwanda prior to and during the massacre. 6 months before the massacre, he began pleading for increased Forces, as he could see the massacre was going to happen soon. The UN, in large part due to US resistance, refused to increase it's presence. The massacre occured. Again towards the latter half of the massacre, Canada lead the call to increased presence to bring an end to the massacre and address the looming refugee disaster, agaian it was nixed in large part due to US resistance(Somalia was fresh on the US's mind).

The Montreal Protocol: This is the ban on Landmines, started and promoted by Canada.

Even the Kyoto Accord was started in large part due to Canadian leadership. A few years earlier, a Conference in Brazil came up with a Kyoto like plan that seemed to be dead in the water due to the lack of support from Industrialized nations, Canada stepped up to the plate and threw it's support behind the plan. The EU, US, and others reluctantly joined their support. Later, the US and some others would back out as the details of the Kyoto Accord were being settled. After the US had abandoned it, Canada and others renegotiated some of the details and the Accord became more like what the US insisted on. However the US had no interest in it anyway. Canada has ratified Kyoto and is currently working on complying with it.

Back in the 50's, Canada was one of the first nations to publicly renounce the desire to acquire Nuclear Weapons. This won the PM of the day(Lester B Pearson) the Nobel Peace Prize.

In WW1, the French, British, and US forces were unable to take Vimy Ridge, an important strategic location. The Canadians volunteered for the job, completed it at great cost, but they got the job done.

If you insist that "Leadership" requires one to start a war, well, yes Canada has no "Leadership". I put to you though, that a group of armed monkeys could start a war, sometimes Leadership requires non-violent solutions.

I thought Canada was also the driving force behind the creation of the International Court, the one that the Americans insisted that they be immune from.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Warin

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: jjones
Canada has always been a follower, never a leader; the ultimate fence-sitter. It's much easier to criticize when you never put anything at risk. The only way that a nation such as Canada can survive without a strong leader to follow is if the entire world consisted of an assortment of Canadas. Nice to think about but not going to happen on this planet.

Tell that to out WW Vets.

That just reinforces what I stated. Canada followed Britain into both world wars. Without Britain's lead, Canada would have been content to sit at home.

Yet, where was the US?

BTW, Canada was obligated in WW1, in WW2 Canada chose on it's own volition. Canada has put much at risk many times, perhaps you should study up on Canada's contributions before speaking.

Actually, Canada coould have stayed out of WW 1 had it chosen to. As it is, nearly 10 percent of the Canadian population went to war, and 60,000 died. All volunteer, no conscription. And we started 3 years earlier than our friends to the south.

WW 2 is a similar situation. Canada could have sat out until 41 like it's isolationist neighbours to the south, but we chose not to.

And in 2001, when called, The Princess Pats went to Afghanistan to help our neighbours to the south. What did we get for it? Four body bags.

You can call into question our governments spending on defence matters. I'll be the first in line to agree that it's shameful. But please dont call our courage or determination into question. When a cause is just, we're not afraid to give what we can.

Good post.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

This guy's expressing his views, but that does not seem to be agreeable to those who are so eager to rally and march to wherever and whatever they're told, without question. It's funny how the U.S. evangelizes democracy all over the world, teaching other nations what's right and wrong, professing free speech and free spirit; and yet whenever someone else dares to use the simple, fundamental objectivity offered by their "outside" position to do the same thing, but aimed at the United States instead, they're being slapped for "envy", "sour grapes", and so on. To those I can only say: keep thinking yours is the best nation on earth - because it might be the most precious illusion of your lives. Too bad that's all there is to it. Sadly, all the bin Ladens of the world can't match the hurt you inflict upon yourselves every day, and your obsession with Saddam, Milosevic and others like them is just a facade, behind which, perversely, your elites maintain their supremacy by offering bread and circus to those who might no longer literally be "the great unwashed", but nevertheless think only with their stomachs: lying in front of the TV, being lulled into a false sense of security and self-admiration, watching revisionist history/celluloid junkfood like "Pearl Harbour" and "Tears of the Sun". I am really sorry for many of my American friends - and some of those on this board - who dare to think different than the rest. The pitfall of this type of democracy is that there is a "dictatorship of the majority" (even if it only means "economic majority")... and it's just as frail as other forms of government.

As for the other Canadians here: time and time again, the neighbours in the south keep waving a big stick at us, and unfortunately some of us are much too willing to overlook it, in the name of friendship. What did we get in the last year? four body bags in Afghanistan, being screwed over lumber taxes and now it also seems that the new mad cow disease outbreak actually has its origins in the States... As for SARS, I can say, as one who's been in Torronto at the peak of the entire hysteria, that it was all just media hype. And those of you who live there permanently may be able to confirm it. Should Atlanta, Miami or Los Angeles be next, I bet they'd do much worse, despite their "superior", "non-socialist" health system.

LOL< this sounds like a rant, but y'all know what? I'm being honest, which is more than others can say about themselves.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Anita, remember that this board has more than it's share of US asses who need to ridicule others to make themselves appear larger. There are those of us who keep them in check though. So they will boast and brag and moan about Canadians, but we'll do our best to keep them harmless.

 

[glenn1]

It's funny how the U.S. evangelizes democracy all over the world, teaching other nations what's right and wrong, professing free speech and free spirit; and yet whenever someone else dares to use the simple, fundamental objectivity offered by their "outside" position to do the same thing, but aimed at the United States instead, they're being slapped for "envy", "sour grapes", and so on.

I doubt he would have gotten the same reaction from Americans if he offered constructive criticism, but instead, his piece just reads as one more anti-American rant. We're all stocked up on those here, thank you very much.

I am really sorry for many of my American friends - and some of those on this board - who dare to think different than the rest. The pitfall of this type of democracy is that there is a "dictatorship of the majority" (even if it only means "economic majority")... and it's just as frail as other forms of government.

Those who criticize should learn that the privilege runs both ways. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee one a receptive, approving audience. What it seems some want is the freedom to criticize others, yet not be subject to it themselves. Words have consequences, so deal with them if you want to exercise your free speech rights.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: glenn1

It's funny how the U.S. evangelizes democracy all over the world, teaching other nations what's right and wrong, professing free speech and free spirit; and yet whenever someone else dares to use the simple, fundamental objectivity offered by their "outside" position to do the same thing, but aimed at the United States instead, they're being slapped for "envy", "sour grapes", and so on.

I doubt he would have gotten the same reaction from Americans if he offered constructive criticism, but instead, his piece just reads as one more anti-American rant. We're all stocked up on those here, thank you very much.

I am really sorry for many of my American friends - and some of those on this board - who dare to think different than the rest. The pitfall of this type of democracy is that there is a "dictatorship of the majority" (even if it only means "economic majority")... and it's just as frail as other forms of government.

Those who criticize should learn that the privilege runs both ways. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee one a receptive, approving audience. What it seems some want is the freedom to criticize others, yet not be subject to it themselves. Words have consequences, so deal with them if you want to exercise your free speech rights.

It was neither "Anti-American" or without "constructive criticism", you are just unable to see it.

 

[glenn1]

It was neither "Anti-American" or without "constructive criticism", you are just unable to see it.

"in the U.S. democracy is largely derailed."

"...such insights call into question the capacity of the American public to hold its government to account."

"the average American... has long since been disabused of any conviction that government can be trusted to work for the public good."

Yes, very constructive, and not a hint of anti-Americanism at all. But then you'd probably consider a mob hit "constructive criticism." Now let's cut to the chase of his real point:

"government may ? within certain bounds ? promote the public good, through the provision of essential public services, and provide a safety net of last resort for the elderly, the ill, and the downtrodden.

Vast swathes of America appear to lack this elementary faith."

This is an political advocacy piece that doubles as a hacket job on the United States. You just don't wish to see it as that because the author's advocacy point fits with your worldview.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: glenn1

It was neither "Anti-American" or without "constructive criticism", you are just unable to see it.

"in the U.S. democracy is largely derailed."

"...such insights call into question the capacity of the American public to hold its government to account."

"the average American... has long since been disabused of any conviction that government can be trusted to work for the public good."

Yes, very constructive, and not a hint of anti-Americanism at all. But then you'd probably consider a mob hit "constructive criticism." Now let's cut to the chase of his real point:

"government may ? within certain bounds ? promote the public good, through the provision of essential public services, and provide a safety net of last resort for the elderly, the ill, and the downtrodden.

Vast swathes of America appear to lack this elementary faith."

This is an political advocacy piece that doubles as a hacket job on the United States. You just don't wish to see it as that because the author's advocacy point fits with your worldview.

? Ok then.

 

[Warin]

Originally posted by: glenn1
This is an political advocacy piece that doubles as a hacket job on the United States. You just don't wish to see it as that because the author's advocacy point fits with your worldview.

I am not sure I agree with you. I think that most Americans seem to think that any 'Big Government' is an essentially bad thing. If you asked most Americans if Washington has their best itnerests at heart in the things they do, I think the overwhelming answer would be no. And that opinion is based on the thousands of posts I have read here and elsewhere. Doesnt make Americans bad, or wrong. It just means that the average Joe Sixpack doesnt think that big government (or: *gasp* socialism) is a great idea.

Pointing out facts isnt always a hachet job. Pointing out that Canadians are different than Americans isnt exactly American bashing either.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Warin

Originally posted by: glenn1
This is an political advocacy piece that doubles as a hacket job on the United States. You just don't wish to see it as that because the author's advocacy point fits with your worldview.

I am not sure I agree with you. I think that most Americans seem to think that any 'Big Government' is an essentially bad thing. If you asked most Americans if Washington has their best itnerests at heart in the things they do, I think the overwhelming answer would be no. And that opinion is based on the thousands of posts I have read here and elsewhere. Doesnt make Americans bad, or wrong. It just means that the average Joe Sixpack doesnt think that big government (or: *gasp* socialism) is a great idea.

I don't think that big government is a great idea either, so why is that that Americans don't practice what they preach when dealing with their foreign policy? Empire building is not a "big government" program? These same people that rightly knock government are the same ones pushing them on to invade other people's countries.

 

[montanafan]

As for SARS, I can say, as one who's been in Torronto at the peak of the entire hysteria, that it was all just media hype. And those of you who live there permanently may be able to confirm it. Should Atlanta, Miami or Los Angeles be next, I bet they'd do much worse, despite their "superior", "non-socialist" health system.

I'm not really interested in the general debate at hand because it seems to be a matter of "whose country is better" and that's just ridiculous. I do have a problem with the statement quoted above.

These are the statistics from the World Health Organization and show that Canada is one of the least effective countries in the world when it comes to preventing deaths from SARS. Don't you think it just maybe could in some way have some little something to do with the country's health care system?

I believe the U.S. needs some sort of universal health care for its citizens, but I do not think that Canada's system is a very good role model. And no, not just because of the SARS results, there are a lot of problems with Canada's health care system and if this thread had not become so jingoistic on both sides, I believe many Canadians would second that.

Edit: link fixed

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: montanafan

As for SARS, I can say, as one who's been in Torronto at the peak of the entire hysteria, that it was all just media hype. And those of you who live there permanently may be able to confirm it. Should Atlanta, Miami or Los Angeles be next, I bet they'd do much worse, despite their "superior", "non-socialist" health system.

I'm not really interested in the general debate at hand because it seems to be a matter of "whose country is better" and that's just ridiculous. I do have a problem with the statement quoted above.

These are the statistics from the World Health Organization and show that Canada is one of the least effective countries in the world when it comes to preventing deaths from SARS. Don't you think it just maybe could in some way have some little something to do with the country's health care system?

I believe the U.S. needs some sort of universal health care for its citizens, but I do not think that Canada's system is a very good role model. And no, not just because of the SARS results, there are a lot of problems with Canada's health care system and if this thread had not become so jingoistic on both sides, I believe many Canadians would second that.

Here's the updated info.

Also note: These are all based on "probable" cases, not confirmed.

Where Canada messed up was in the early recognition of SARS and the underestimation of how contagious it was.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: montanafan

As for SARS, I can say, as one who's been in Torronto at the peak of the entire hysteria, that it was all just media hype. And those of you who live there permanently may be able to confirm it. Should Atlanta, Miami or Los Angeles be next, I bet they'd do much worse, despite their "superior", "non-socialist" health system.

I'm not really interested in the general debate at hand because it seems to be a matter of "whose country is better" and that's just ridiculous. I do have a problem with the statement quoted above.

These are the statistics from the World Health Organization and show that Canada is one of the least effective countries in the world when it comes to preventing deaths from SARS. Don't you think it just maybe could in some way have some little something to do with the country's health care system?

I believe the U.S. needs some sort of universal health care for its citizens, but I do not think that Canada's system is a very good role model. And no, not just because of the SARS results, there are a lot of problems with Canada's health care system and if this thread had not become so jingoistic on both sides, I believe many Canadians would second that.

Here's the updated info.

Also note: These are all based on "probable" cases, not confirmed.

Where Canada messed up was in the early recognition of SARS and the underestimation of how contagious it was.

And how were we to do that with a new, unidentified disease? British Columbia actually acted quickly to SARS, and it was contained to a few cases, whereas in Ontario, they didn't have nearly the success in containment.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: montanafan

As for SARS, I can say, as one who's been in Torronto at the peak of the entire hysteria, that it was all just media hype. And those of you who live there permanently may be able to confirm it. Should Atlanta, Miami or Los Angeles be next, I bet they'd do much worse, despite their "superior", "non-socialist" health system.

I'm not really interested in the general debate at hand because it seems to be a matter of "whose country is better" and that's just ridiculous. I do have a problem with the statement quoted above.

These are the statistics from the World Health Organization and show that Canada is one of the least effective countries in the world when it comes to preventing deaths from SARS. Don't you think it just maybe could in some way have some little something to do with the country's health care system?

I believe the U.S. needs some sort of universal health care for its citizens, but I do not think that Canada's system is a very good role model. And no, not just because of the SARS results, there are a lot of problems with Canada's health care system and if this thread had not become so jingoistic on both sides, I believe many Canadians would second that.

Here's the updated info.

Also note: These are all based on "probable" cases, not confirmed.

Where Canada messed up was in the early recognition of SARS and the underestimation of how contagious it was.

And how were we to do that with a new, unidentified disease? British Columbia actually acted quickly to SARS, and it was contained to a few cases, whereas in Ontario, they didn't have nearly the success in containment.

That certainly is the big question, especially since BC was muuch more successful than Ontario. I don't know how many carried SARS to Ontario(only 1 came to BC, IIRC), an important piece of info, but there seems to be some concern which will be addressed.

 

[hagbard]

Actually, the numbers of initial SARS cases were higher than that, though I don't recall the exact number. I've been following this since the reports first appeared (my wife sent me Health Canada updates).