Since JD pointed out that Chrenkoff is still chugging along, I came across these posts:
Energy self-sufficiency in two easy steps (although I'd like to point out that Canadian oil does not make the U.S. self-sufficient, especially when Washington begins ignoring NAFTA)
Hitch = Hitler (always a favourite subject here on Big Tent; check out especially the comments after the linked post)
6 comments:
Montana National Guard seizes Alberta's oil sands?
Mark,
You keep harping away at the lumber deal, and yeah, we probably screwed up on that one. However, the oil issue is far more important, especially when it comes to issues of our shared self defense.
I'll say it again, on that front of shared self defense, Canada has so much making up to do for its cowardice in the war on terror that the whining and thinly veiled threats over soft lumber ought best be kept to a real low. Considering its actions (inaction) on the war, Canada is lucky that it flies below the radar for most Americans. If it starts becoming a pain-in-the-ass on more high profile issues--like oil--then Americans might start asking why it is, exactly, that Canada hasn't been much of a friend in a time of real need.
Tom,
I figured it'd take something like that to provoke a response. Guess I was right.
Actually, I don't at all favour linking the oil and lumber issues, and neither do most of the rest of Canadians, except for the stupid ones. Obviously, it's in our best interests to continue to export oil as freely as possible, both in terms of economic and security areas. There's been a lot of ambassadorial rhetoric traded over the past few days, but the word oil has not been a part of it. Instead, the retaliatory focus right now looks to be on corn and other like products, if there is a retaliatory response at all. My own favoured outcome of this dispute would not be a trade war involving oil (or any other commodities), but Bush turning to the lumber interests in the Southeast and saying: "You guys have got to find ways to compete with or adjust to better Canadian lumber, because it's in our economy's best interest to let free trade continue as it should." Instead of simply caving to their demands to ignore a major trade agreement that has immensely benefited all parties.
And keep those Montanans on their side of the border.
On the other hand, I think you're out of line to call my country cowardly. I may not agree with the political decision not to join the war in Iraq, or with the public's acceptance of that decision, but it was not a decision made out of cowardice. As I pointed out earlier, Canada is involved in the War on Terror, and is even beginning to take up more dangerous positions in that fight. We have never been cowards (in fact, if you want to look at policy decisions that way, then Canada was less cowardly than the U.S. in both World Wars), and we will continue to bravely confront (most) terrorists as best we can.
I still think Canada has a lot of making up to do over the war before Canadians can get too fired up over some much smaller issues, but I'm all about free trade, especially in North America.
We can't control those folks from Montana. They're crazy.
On the question of cowardice:
If you do not like heated rhetoric when it comes to these issues, then stop making threats to the U.S. over trade issues.
And since I specifically said Canada was being cowardly in the war on terror, your bringing up Canada in the World Wars is irrelevant. That said, cowardice probably was the wrong way to describe Canada's abandoning the U.S. in the war on terror. There is only a little evidence that Canadians are afraid (mostly from those who worry about the terrorists' response to any kind of action). So instead I'll go with duplicitous and morally bankrupt.
Either way, my larger point still stands: Americans (including this one) will overlook Canada's lack of effort, and celebrate its minor efforts, unless Canadians want to go overboard in making an issue out of comparatively minute things like soft lumber.
Post a Comment