Author Topic Options
Offline

Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2066
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:16 pm
 


<strong>Written By:</strong> whelan costen
<strong>Date:</strong> 2005-08-08 16:16:00
<a href="/article/161650973-rebuttal-to-byfields-inciting-destruction-of-confederation">Article Link</a>

I am no fan of the Liberal government with their financial fiascos, secret meetings and handling of trade issues in Canada. However, that doesn’t mean I would ask another country to "thump Ontario" as Mr. Byfield has suggested. Fanning the east vs west anger once again, divide and conquer theories have worked in the past. Obviously this man has stated his loyalties.

Mr. Sapolsky’s remarks about Canada impeding the U.S. military’s objectives, by promoting the Land Mine treaty, and International Court are truly as arrogant and inhumane as one can achieve in one column. Any country that believes and acts as though they are above the law, the moral authority for the entire planet, and capable of using WMD to achieve their goals of total dominance, including the weaponization of space, has nothing to offer Canadians. To suggest that our trade and very economic viability is so dependent upon the U.S. is to call to mind our own governments’ inability to govern in the best interest of this nation. Both Conservative and Liberal decisions to enter into FTA, NAFTA and WTO, which has proven to be one sided, and anything but fair, have weakened this nations economy. Is he suggesting they will stop trading in our energy? How well have they honoured trade agreements in Canadian beef, softwood lumber, steel, pork etc?

That this man suggests Canada has given up on warfare is ridiculous. We have certainly not funded our military as well as we could have to serve and protect Canadians, however should we have invested in nuclear bombs, when the world including the U.S. had signed on to a non-proliferation of WMD treaty? Of course they have changed their minds on blowing up the planet if necessary, to fulfill their export of democracy, as they define it!

Link to Byfield’s Column: <a href="http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Ted_Byfield/2005/08/07/pf-1162621.html">http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Ted_Byfield/2005/08/07/pf-1162621.html</a>





[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on August 8, 2005]



"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere


Offline

Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2066
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:22 pm
 


I also sent this letter to the Calgary Sun in response to Mr. Byfield's column.

Dear Editor
Mr.Byfield's column, 'American sends us an ominous message' is more pathetic than scary. 'Canada has given up on Warfare' it states, We wish? Statistics show landmines kill, and disarm children, more than they save any soldier. Saying that the West didn't elect the current government is also wrong, we did,by default, because we are so complacent, that nearly more than 40% of voters chose not to vote! Canada ought to get its tongue off U.S. boots, and start walking erect before we are permanently crippled, by fearmongering and rhetoric! How about some facts for a change?

yours truly
Catherine Whelan Costen
Canadian Action Party Vice President and Candidate

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?



"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere





PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:03 pm
 


Maybe it is time for Canada to increase it's military spending. Historically, we've done so for two reasons:

1) response to international crises (WWI,WWII) a.k.a. international peace and security
2) response to national security threats

Hopefully Mr. Sapolsky is a relative nobody and a doddering old crank in the U.S. security apparatus, since he's essentially making the case that Canada's efforts internationally pose a threat to U.S. national security, at which point the associated pre-emptive doctrine kicks in. If he's the real deal, we've got to take reason #2 seriously. Correct me if I'm wrong, but historically there has only been one nation that has demonstrated a direct military threat to Canada. Since we're quickly working our way back to 19th century economic models, how long until political notions of Manifest Destiny start to appear again? Or have they already, and is Canada fast asleep?

So, who is this writer? Is he just some no-account right-wing crank, or the next Wolfowitz?


Offline

Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2066
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:02 pm
 


Here is a link to I believe the orginal article, which Ted Byfield was alluding to in his column, which I am refutting.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20050801145953535&query=nuisance%2Bneighb">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20050801145953535&query=nuisance%2Bneighb</a><br />
<br />
I don't think he would be called a nobody, but a U.S. think(or not)tank rep, perhaps.<p>---<br>If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?



"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere





PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:37 pm
 


Here's Saplosky's bio:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://web.mit.edu/polisci/faculty/H.Sapolsky.html">http://web.mit.edu/polisci/faculty/H.Sapolsky.html</a><br />
<br />
"Harvey M. Sapolsky is Professor of Public Policy and Organization in the Department of Political Science and Director of the MIT Security Studies Program."<br />
<br />
He's got his lips firmly affixed to the military-industrial teat. A quick Google audit shows his name also appears in meeting minutes from the Council on Foreign Relations and other military-industrial hug-fests, often across the table from Frank Gaffney and others from the rightwing think tanks. He seems to be nominally more moderate than AEI (american enterprise institute, the friends who brought us the iraq invasion) types, though his bent towards military bean-counting (dollars, not lives) suggests we shouldn't be suprised at his disdain for the Landmines treaty.<br />
<br />
This guy is one to be taken seriously. If he can say this in print, he's likely up to far worse when the doors are closed.<br />
<br />





PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 6:29 am
 


Saplosky's original article is based on the following U.S. misconception:<br />
<br />
"Canada was not going to contribute anyway, and we were going to go ahead whether or not Canada agreed. No one much cared what Canada said or did."<br />
<br />
From replies to the following article, a common misconception from american trolls:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050804201918868">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050804201918868</a><br />
<br />
"... Besides, do you Canadiens have the balls to go protect a country other than your own, one that could in NO way repay you for the loss of life and limbs? Hmm? Didn't Think so."<br />
<br />
Many U.S. visitor/posters, troll or otherwise, seems to subscribe to the notion that the above is true for Canada. Without offending our American friends, your "Canada is weak" FAQ might be improved to show how Canada, while we have never (as far as I know) unilaterally invaded another nation, whether Boer war, WWI/II, Korea, etc., has contributed in precisely the manner above. Also, we often made the decision to do so long before the U.S. did. A brief tale of Vimy, Juno beach, or links to same, would help. <br />
<br />
So would a cursory look at the Diefenbaker/Pearson era, when modern-day revisionists like Saplosky are accusing us of wilfully neglecting our military and capability for self defense, when in reality the U.S. considered a Canada that could defend itself it a national security threat and actively discouraged it. The Avro Arrow story is a good example, since it actively refutes Saplosky's notion that Canada never prepared for its own defense and that the U.S. never cared if we did. We had the only fighter aircraft that could take down an american U-2 (not to mention any other aircraft), and the U.S. would not abide Canadian air superiority in North American airspace. It used everything short of direct military threat to ensure the project died. Saplosky can't have it both ways: accusing us of delegating our national/continental security issues to the U.S., and then considering us a security threat when we attempt otherwise.<br />
<br />
I know your site tilts to anti-war, and well it should. However, in doing so it should not bury or avoid Canada's military past, since in many (if not most) cases the decision to participate demonstrates our dedication to international peace, not the penchant for aggression or narrow self-interest which propels anti-war sentiment.<br />


Offline

Forum Super Elite

Profile
Posts: 2234
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:09 am
 


Harvey M. Sapolsky is a(nother) armchair separatist. He (and I would bet money on this) would be content to "lead from behind", but would definitely be loathe to expose his precious body on any kind of "front line". So typical of those who have others do their fighting for them.

The one thing that people of this ilk never seem to consider is that separation, should it come to fruition, could well take the path of the US insurrection of the late 1700's. They think that thesis and other publications will be sufficient. But will Canada simply say "Be off with you then", given the energy supply that Alberta sits on?

---
RickW



You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me


Offline

Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2066
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:18 pm
 


I believe the issue that disturbs me most about Mr.Byfield's column is that he is an Alberta columnist, (Sun, Alberta Report etc) and he is suggesting, "the Alberta government to quietly draw to the attention of Americans that the West elected neither the Chretien nor the Martin governmets" then he closes with this, 'when it comes time for big Ontario to thump Alberta again,...good for Alberta to have an ally that could thump Ontario even harder."

Those statements are in my opinion, an attempt to cause the destruction of our country. When you invite a foreign power in to assist in causing harm to another part of Canada, whether that is through sanctions, or tariffs, or military, or simply mindset,(he is rather vague about what a thump means) I believe you are acting against the country. It is one thing for a letter to the editor to contain such irresponsible remarks, but a high profile columnists?

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?



"aaaah and the whisper of thousands of tiny voices became a mighty deafening roar and they called it 'freedom'!"' Canadians Acting Humanely at home & everywhere





PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:10 pm
 


Harvey M. Sapolsky, as I noted above, is a U.S. military strategist based at MIT, and one with an unhealthy Nixon-era attitude towards Canada.

You mean Ted Byfield.





PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:19 pm
 


So is anyone in mainstream journalism or politics covering this, are our other international allies apprised of this talk (not Byfield, he's not worth it--Saplosky), or are we all going to just sit back and hope we don't get a taste of how the Czechs felt? It couldn't happen here? Given Saplosky's sphere of influence, I'd need some proof (not to mention if you described the global climate today to me fifteen years ago I'd have laughed and said you were nuts).

All the U.S. needs is one dangerous incursion across our border (or believable tale of one, from Gulf of Tonkin to Iraq we've seen it doesn't have to be true, just fast), to create a new "fact on the ground" just like Iraq.

The American security apparatus is apparently playing "what if" games about Canada. Are our planners playing "what if" or "please don't"?


Offline

Active Member

Profile
Posts: 145
PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:42 pm
 


Thanks for posting this article Catherine. Byfield appears to be another on those anti-Canadian Canadians who can't wait to bash the country. I don't understand why they don't have the gumption to leave !.Unfortunately a lot of these folks have a platform from which to speak. I wonder if the editors of the Calgary Sun concur with his opinion. Years ago this type of article served a useful purpose but with the demise of outdoor toilets that use has disappeared.

Frank





PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:16 am
 


I'm sure they would love to leave, unfortunately they can't. They simply have no talent and few skills. Therefore, they are deemed unacceptable candidates for a Green Card. The U.S. has enough journalist hacks already, witness FAUX News.





PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:15 pm
 


The simple reality is that Alberta does not share your central Canadian hatred of the United States and unequivocally sees itself has having more of a shared history, culture and kinship with the Americans than it does with Ontario/Quebec. Furthermore, when it comes to matters such as liberty, democracy and property rights, Alberta and the other western colonies are growing increasingly disenfranchised with the introverted Liberal east paying lip service to these concerns. Statements such as those by Mr. Byfield are growing in the West and will continue to so long as those of you who define your nationhood through social programs and what you are opposed to sanctimoniously try to impose your “just society” on the West. Ironically, the values you’ve chosen to espouse are the catalyst for the growing Alberta and Western Independence Movements. Maybe just a bit more self-serving paternalistic rhetoric from the East and we in the West will see the light.

Additionally, in response to: I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow? If the country is Canada and your not part of the Liberal/NDP/PQ consortium, the answer is NO!





PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:49 pm
 


Do we (in the east) "hate" the United States? No (at least not all of us). Wary, when openly threatened as Saplosky has done? Damn straight, and shame on any Canadian, Albertan or not, who thinks otherwise.

Many of us share one thing with Americans that a vocal minority of Albertans apparently do not: we're prepared to defend our country when called up to do so, just like god-fearin' republicans were even when arch-enemy Clinton was in power.

Sad that the Canadian patriot has always had to watch his back, once it was the Montreal annexationists, now it's the western independence movement.

Disenfranchied? So are the rural and less populated areas of Ontario, not to mention the maritimes. You'd have more of a political force if it weren't for these constant attempts at "eastern alienation" (which, as we've seen from the recent rhetoric, is part of an American divide-and-conquer strategy--anyone who believes an independent Alberta will be anything more than a trained poodle for the U.S. is kidding themselves).

Kinship and shared history with the Americans? With the "blue states"? California? Hardly. Both the U.S. and Canada share one thing: we're federations of regions with varying culture and history that need to get along. Why not tone down the spoiled-rich-brat routine, fight the good fight (*in confederation* and with inter-regional support) and maybe let the poorer provinces get a complaint in edgewise? Tip your hat to Danny Williams on the east coast, he deserves it. Klein, to his credit, seems more capable of this kind of statesmenship than many he represents would have him be.

"... those of you who define your nationhood through social programs"

Or opposition thereto for that matter. These programs came from the west and east of the halls of power, and the same garden variety Ont/Que powerbrokers you hate now opposed them every step of the way. And it's not like Tommy Douglas got his ideas from the corner of Yonge & Bloor. And would you liberty-loving Albertans prefer to forget Emily Murphy? The rest of Canada certainly doesn't.

Alberta is a wonderful province and a source of national strength. I was out at stampede (first time) and had a blast. Everyone was really friendly and welcoming, not what a fellow from the east expects given all the loudmouths and reactionary pundits in the media (then again, by that measure we're all tea-sipping, bespectacled bean counters back here in Ontario, right?).

It will be too bad for this nation if we can't stick together, sadder still if a more than capable province forgets its roots and won't "stand on guard" with the rest of us. Canada has always had to defend itself from its own elites.





PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:07 pm
 


Your comments prompt me to take up residence in Alberta when I move back from the U.S. next year. Just to let you know, I’ll be voting for any party you disapprove of.

Your statements are absolutely ridiculous. Stop buying into manufactured right-wing propaganda. Move to the U.S., share your Western culture and ideals. Live the American dream, but do it from here, and please let us know how well you integrate.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  1  2  3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Vive Le Canada.ca. Powered by © phpBB.