IMHO the US is losing even more credibility

[90's sc vet]

Re: Before you start to pillory Africa

Remember that no nation in the world spends as much on the military as the US. Meanwhile, tens of millions of its citizens have no health care. Millions starve every day. Health care is not is a basic right in this land of plenty.

I guess, like Africa, the US would like to spend money on its military rather than its citizens.

Oddly enough, I think we agree. The US has lots of problems right now, so many problems that I disagree with *d* that the US should be spending $3B per year on HIV problems in Africa, especially when the Africans have the money and the technology (i.e. condoms) to solve the problem themselves.

BTW, there aren't millions starving in the US. I think you'll find that the US population is the most obese population on earth. Curiously, obesity seems to be inversely linked with income, probably because higher income people can afford to join a gym and buy exercise equipment.

Welfare rates are designed to *barely* keep people going. That's because taxpayers don't like to pay more in welfare than they have to. If you examine starvation in North America though, you'll find that it's also a voluntary act. Sometimes irresponsible parents will spend money on alcohol or drugs instead of feeding their children. Talk to any caseworker in the Children's Aid Society (as I did) and you'll find the hard truth about starvation in Canada and the US. It's not because there isn't enough money to feed everyone.

But slagging the US really wasn't the point of this thread. It's examining why Africa can't get its act together to solve their own HIV problem, as every other region and nation on earth has done.

 

[DenWa]

How is Iraq an even fight, and how did we almost lose it? One of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard in my life. WWII was going great before we got involved. Just ask the French. You would never be mistaken for an American where I live...we'd see your mullet a mile away.

DW

 

[submissivedave]

Each year Toronto's Indian (from India; not native) celebrate the independance of India from Britian in 1947. I always find this celebration deeply ironic given these people left India for Canada (a UK colony that didn't kick the British out.) I think if the British hadn't been kicked out, India today would be an economic powerhouse like China. India's greatest assets seem to be the rail infrastructure, English langauge, legal system, and education system - all left behind by the British. India could have been amazingly developed by now.

I definitely think that national and cultural pride and honor are more important then economic growth and modernization. And yes, India may of been more developed under British political and economical tutelage, yet, the people would still have a sense of resentment in them being ruled by a foreign people. Yes, some Indians embraced the Brits because it gave them a chance to enjoy prosperity, yet, there were also others who did not like them because they (the Brits) treated the Indians like shit. Those who were treated well were the Indians who were sent to Oxbridge, as such received "superior" English civilization. When these grads. went back to India they were but into the colonial administration and collaborated with the Brtis to rule India. So yes, in terms of numbers, the Raj was runned by Indians, yet, the top dude of every department as well as the Governor were always English ...

As a person born in Hong Kong, a former British colony, I was very happy when HK reverted to Chinese rule. Yes, our family came to Canada to avoid the Communists, and yes a large majority of HK people have no love for the Commies, yet, every single HK person was happy that HK was being handed over to the Chinese because HK is Chinese land and should be ruled by the/a Chinese.

 

[90's sc vet]

As a person born in Hong Kong, a former British colony, I was very happy when HK reverted to Chinese rule. Yes, our family came to Canada to avoid the Communists, and yes a large majority of HK people have no love for the Commies, yet, every single HK person was happy that HK was being handed over to the Chinese because HK is Chinese land and should be ruled by the/a Chinese.

You have one point of view. I can give two others.

My parents did come to Canada to avoid the Communists and I was very sad to see HK turned over to the Communist Chinese.

My business partner's extended family still lives in Hong Kong but his parents came to Canada. Both of them were very sad to see HK revert back to the Communists.

For you, self rule would appear to be more important than economic development. I have the opposite opinion, that the Communists were probably going to ruin a vibrant economy and curtail freedoms that the residents of HK were used to having. I think both of those things are happening and IMHO, that's not good.

For me, the issue of race isn't relevant. Or, to out it another way, merit trumps race. If the British ruled HK and did a good job, that's a good thing. If the Chinese Communists degrade HK's economy and take away personal freedom, that's a bad thing. To me, just because Chinese people are now governing HK doesn't absolve them from criticism if they do a bad job.

Or, to suggest a really extreme example, I'd rather have had Ghandi running Germany instead of Hitler before 1939.

 

[Don]

ya... ok....

As a person born in Hong Kong, a former British colony, I was very happy when HK reverted to Chinese rule. Yes, our family came to Canada to avoid the Communists, and yes a large majority of HK people have no love for the Commies, yet, every single HK person was happy that HK was being handed over to the Chinese because HK is Chinese land and should be ruled by the/a Chinese.

I'm sure Taiwan feels the same way too.

 

[submissivedave]

Well, for me, I rather live in an indepedent country that is poor then to live in a rich country that is only a mere proxy in service of another country/empire.

And yeah "90's SC Vet", ever since 1997, nothing has been good in HK. But yet, HK is no longer a colony like it used to be. And that in itself is worth celebrating ...

Because I was born in HK when it was a colony, I am theoretically/legally speaking born British (in terms of nationality). But now, after 1997 people are born Chinese.

If economics and cosmopolitanism is THAT important than many former colonies would of not rebelled to declare independence. I mean why would any country want to become a province of another country when they can be independent?

To take it to the extreme, why were other European countries pissed when Napolean conquered them? And France under German leadership and technology would of been a wonderful German "province" ... or how about the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere the Japanese tried to create? With Japanese technology and know how's and with China's vast human resources and natural resources, China would be an ideal Japanese "province" in which all parties would benefit? But why? Why fight them? Why did Koreans and Chinese fight the Japanese? Why did Europeans fight the Nazis?

They did so because of national honor and pride and want to function as an indepedent country. Somethings are just more important then economics and development and being rich ... its about honor, national honor ...

Just to bring the topic back to Asia, why do you think the Chinese were so desparate to overthrow the Mongols and the Manchus? Why do you think the Indians (Hindus) were willing starve themselves to kick out the Brits? Why do you think Africans want to be independant for?

Well, its simple ... its about "self-determination", which ironically came from the West, who were the colonialists ...

As for Taiwan, the only problem I see is only a matter of political ideology. In fact, I would consider Taiwanese to be "real Chinese" because they are more willing to embrace Chinese traditionals as well as respect it. But on the Mainland, many bad things have happened to destroy Chinese culture, notably the Cultural Revolution ...
If you ask the Taiwanese, the vote seems to be half and half whether they want total independence or not. Besides, the current Taiwan Pres. is an idiot ... the Nationlist on the other hand still want re-unification because they can see beyond the political and recognize their "one-ness" with the Mainland ...

 

[90's sc vet]

Well, for me, I rather live in an indepedent country that is poor then to live in a rich country that is only a mere proxy in service of another country/empire.

And yeah "90's SC Vet", ever since 1997, nothing has been good in HK. But yet, HK is no longer a colony like it used to be. And that in itself is worth celebrating ...

If economics and cosmopolitanism is THAT important than many former colonies would of not rebelled to declare independence....

I remember a quote from Chou En Lai when someone asked him "What do you think about the French Revolution?" and his reply was "It's too soon to tell".

The point was that in political thought, just like science, some ideas take time to develop and prove to work or not. An example would be Communism. For about 70 years it was thought to be a wonderful thing, but eventually it was shown to be a disastrous idea responsible for the deaths of about 100 million people. Or a better example would be fascism and appeasement. Before Hitler, both concepts were regarded as good ideas, but afterwards, no one thinks that they're anything but self destructive.

Similarly, I think that the idea that race automatically should be the only factor in determining if the ruling party is good is an idea that is probably on the way out, in exactly the same manner that colonialism is no longer fashionable.

In all of the historical examples you mentioned, France under Germany, the Japanese domination of Asia, the local population was under the thumb of a murderous foreign dictatorship. It's no wonder that they got rid of them. I would argue that they weren't getting rid of foreign rulers, they were just getting rid of horrific rulers. Which was my point, that merit trumps race.

You see that operating today, the Liberians are asking the US to intervene, the Afghans want more US forces, the Congo asking for French assistance. If a region is facing chaos, people will want good management regardless of the origin. But that's not to say that they want permanent rule, that's colonialism and that's not a good idea in the long run either. That's why the US is so reluctant to get involved, unless their national security is involved. I think the current thinking is that foreign good management is better than horrid indigenous management, but only for a short time, maybe a few decades at most.

On the issue of HK and Taiwan, I would argue that HK is now under the rule of foreigners who are just as alien to the HK people as the British. The British were white rulers in a yellow city but the Chinese Communists are red rulers. The ideology of the Communists is just as foreign to the HK and Taiwan people as a graduate of Eton College was.

HK and Taiwan are capitalist nations and I would argue that a Chinese Communist overlord, forcing a doctrine onto the population that they don't want, is no different than the British forcing Chinese people to genuflect to the Queen of England.

I think the clash isn't between races but between ideas and ideology. A Chinese muslim who thinks 9/11 was great and is a member of al Qaeda to me is just as much an enemy as an bin Laden. Or in another example, a Soviet Communist in charge of HK to me is exactly equivalent to a Chinese Communist, they're both equally bad.

 

[Prophet]

I think the Marshall Plan was good for Europe - if you want to take a look at their other option, the Soviet suggestion would make you shudder.

Part of my studies had me interviewing former members of the 12th SS Hitlerjugend Division. At the time in 1945 - they were 14-17 years of age, and doing everything from commanding a squadron of tanks (from Czech Skodas to Tigers), to digging anti-tank defences. To hear them talk about what they thought of the American versus the Soviets - they were basically grateful - not only on the basis that the Americans were not as savage as the Soviets, but also that occupation under the Americans was just fine by them.

You fail to mention how the Germans completely razed western Russia, so its no wonder the Soviets, who lost the most people of any nation in WW2, took a no-holds-barred approach to fighting when they started back the other way.

And the German attack in the east was based on a racist attitude towards Slavic peoples, so I wouldn't give much creedance to the opinions of Nazi veterans as to the differences between Americans and Russians. The SS wasn't the boy scouts.

 

[gryfin]

Obesity, Starvation, and the US

While the US has some of the highest rates of obesity, that does not preclude it from have millions of citizens without food. It simply speaks to the vast disparity of wealth in this prosperous country. (If you can call it that when so many are hungry and have no health care)

The US Department of Agriculture estimated that in 2000, over 33 million Americans, including 13 million children, were never sure where their next meal would come from. Out of that number, over 9 million never had enough food.

As to the assertion that hunger is a voluntary act, I'm curious. 90's sc vet says: "If you examine starvation in North America though, you'll find that it's also a voluntary act."

Exactly what studying did you do for this and what are your sources?

 

[submissivedave]

I found this interesting article from the BBC. Be sure to click on the photos and to visit the website that's within in the page.

Here is the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3101563.stm

"90's SC Vet", although many would agree with your perspective on the "withering away" of the state in the name of cosmopolitanism and "internationalism", I still cannot accept it.

If one looses their land, they have lost everything. And as for comparing Russia and China just because they have similar ideologies, well, lets just say that it really does look like Chinese Communism is "working" as China's economy is still on the rise while other nations in the world are slugging. Yes, "Communism with Chinese characteristic" is nothing more then a Communist country with capitalistic cities, but, that has been the route China has taken since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Luckily, for the Chinese, if the Soviets did not screw up this bad, China would of never learned the lessons and might of suffered the same devastations as Russia ...

You mentioned a few countries starving for US/international help and attention. Personally, I believe in self relians and indepedence of a nation. But, if you are in the situation some of these countries are in, when worst come to worst one must choose between two evils and that is foreign assistance. However, the drawback is that you can't or it's really hard to "kick them out" once they've established a foothold, especially when foreigners are running your immigration department and collecting your taxes for you ... Yes, the Japanese and Germans are able to gain indepedence and even rival the States in terms of economics and leverage on international issues but the Japanese have been trying ever so hard to get US servicement out of Ryukyu islands even after many cases of rape and misbehavior of armymen.

Other examples include Korea, Taiwan, former HK when it was a Colony and Singapore. Korea and Taiwan are only regarded as US spheres of influence in East Asia because they need friends in that region. Furthermore, the Americans have invested heavily in both countries, especially the commitment of their military. As for HK and Singapore, some have noted that they are nothing more then outposts serving Western interest in Asia. Singapore is rich only because it's neighbours are poor. Singapore is definitely the model state, from a third world country to first as well as having no natual resouce has achieved world class status. But yet, Singapore is built on foreign investment and when your country is built on foreign investment it means that outsides are running your country. Yes, Singapore makes money, but ultimately the monet goes back to the UK and US.

In this age of globalization and and inter-dependence, foreign investment is a must. And as you have noted, it may even be more important then the indepedent, sovereign state itself. Yes, there are still many who argue that the nation is still the ultimate and last resort when it comes to political entities and I just happen to be one of them because nothing is beyond the nation.

 

[BlackKnight]

Re: Re: Before you start to pillory Africa

Oddly enough, I think we agree. The US has lots of problems right now, so many problems that I disagree with *d* that the US should be spending $3B per year on HIV problems in Africa, especially when the Africans have the money and the technology (i.e. condoms) to solve the problem themselves.

Unfortunately what little wealth Africans have is spent paying back exorbitant interest to the World Bank and the IMF. Westerners like yourself could probably help by asking your governemnt to forgive the debts owed which have been payed three or four times over in any event.

But slagging the US really wasn't the point of this thread. It's examining why Africa can't get its act together to solve their own HIV problem, as every other region and nation on earth has done.

No country has at this point solved the AIDS crisis, some have simply been able to better manage things. Given the shrinking nature of the globe the epidemic you ignore as "Their problem " today will be on your doorsteps tommorrow . Didn't the recent outbreak of SARS teach you anything?

 

[charno3]

Back to the original post....re. distribution of 15B....OTB and SDF
are correct..Our man "W" confirmed in his presser today that there is infrastructure to establish that will be better able to absorb and efficiently/effectively utilize larger amounts of $ further down the road. Re. US pharm. companies benefitting:
sounds like a win-win to me!!

 

[90's sc vet]

Re: Obesity, Starvation, and the US

The US Department of Agriculture estimated that in 2000, over 33 million Americans, including 13 million children, were never sure where their next meal would come from. Out of that number, over 9 million never had enough food.

As to the assertion that hunger is a voluntary act, I'm curious. 90's sc vet says: "If you examine starvation in North America though, you'll find that it's also a voluntary act."

Exactly what studying did you do for this and what are your sources?

All you have to do is check out the welfare expenditures in any city or in the US, examine the food stamp program on top of those welfare programs. You'll see that what welfare programs give to recipients is _barely_ enough to keep them in shared housing and with food and clothing. Like I said before, the other side of the coin is that taxpayers don't want to pay any more in taxes than they have to, so the welfare expenditures are very closely examined to make sure that it's barely enough. My argument is that welfare and food stamp programs are universally available everywhere in the US, in addition to private charities and food banks. If that is so, then structurally and financially there is no reason for anyone to go hungry.

Interestingly, that USDA study illustrates the point I was trying to make. Here's one quote:

"Research indicates that the relatively high rates of food insecurity among food stamp participants may arise from who choses to participate in the program rather than the effect of the program."

The key phrase was "who choses to participate", i.e joining the food stamp program is a voluntary act and for some reason, some people don't participate. But those programs exist for anyone who asks, subject to a means test.

I would concede the point if you could provide evidence that there are a lot of places in the US where the local welfare program is deficient and where the federal food stamp program isn't operating. There may be a place like that, but I'm not so sure, US federal programs are very pervasive. The US has had decades to get these programs operating properly and it isn't rocket science. But if you could find such a systematic and large scale failure of the US safety net, I'd be quite interested in reading about it.

IMO, the income equality advocates have propagandized the issue of hunger in the US, as if it were a deliberate attempt by the wealthy to starve out the poor. But I don't think that is the case. But it's absolutely true that people don't like to give away hard earned money for nothing.

I'll use myself as an example. About 30% of the City of Toronto budget goes to social programs, public housing and children's services, about the double what the City spends on firefighters and the police (BTW, interesting point there). I pay about $4400 in property taxes, so I'm paying about $1300 for social programs. Would I be willing to pay an additional, say, $400 a year so that welfare families can get an extra 30% more money each month? Well, I'm not aware of any serious welfare problems. To be sure, I'm certain those welfare recipients aren't happy, but I wouldn't be happy paying an extra $400 a year forever and ever either. I would decline to pay the extra. So welfare families can't go see movies and they have to choose between food and cigarettes? Fine by me as long as they can eat. How many people would choose to pay 10% more in rent or property taxes and get no additional policemen or firefighters but so that welfare families can have more interesting lives as opposed to bare subsistence? City council had a hard time getting the current 3% increase.

 

[90's sc vet]

I found this interesting article from the BBC. Be sure to click on the photos and to visit the website that's within in the page.

Here is the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3101563.stm

"90's SC Vet", although many would agree with your perspective on the "withering away" of the state in the name of cosmopolitanism and "internationalism", I still cannot accept it.

Actually, I didn't mean to say or imply that the state is going to wither away, the jury is still out on that concept.

What I did mean to say was that bad management is bad management and just because a bad manager is a Chinese Communist instead of a British governor makes no difference to the people of HK. I would, however, say that in general, a Communist is worse than a capitalist. You only have to look at the mass deaths in Cambodia, China, Russia and the level of corruption that always seems to accompany totalitarian governments, whether they be Communist or Iraqi Baathists, to be convinced of that.

The issue of Russia vs China is also interesting. There is no doubt that the transition Russian endured was terrible, but it remains to be seen which way will be better in the end, a fast but painful transition to capitalism or the slow transition China has chosen. But interestingly, both countries are moving in the same direction, towards US style capitalism. I saw a Chinese man driving a Ferrari in a Bejing newscast the other day. That was a good thing, IMO.

Did you see the ruckus the US started in Korea when they threatened to pull out their 37,000 troops from the DMZ? If you read the latest issue of Time magazine, you'll see that the US is redeploying their troops out of Germany, Japan and Korea.

You're right, as long as the US feels their security requires it, it's hard to get them out. But I would say that it's even harder to argue that the US should willingly commit a form of national suicide by staying out of areas they feel they have a national security interest in.

As far as that BBC web page on horrible practices by the US on slaves. Sure, that happened and it was horrible. But by the same token, you would have to concede the many times more horrible things that Communist and totalitarian regimes have done over the past 70 years. You also have to remember that the Americans endured about 600,000 deaths and millions of wounded in the Civil War to get rid of slavery.

The Americans have done horrible things, so have the Germans the British, the Hindus and the Muslims. But I would make a blanket statement that Communist and totalitarian regimes have been many times worse than any Western liberal democracy.

The US isn't perfect by any means, either now or in its history. But on balance, they've done more good than harm and certainly less harm than their opponents.

 

[90's sc vet]

Re: Re: Re: Before you start to pillory Africa

No country has at this point solved the AIDS crisis, some have simply been able to better manage things. Given the shrinking nature of the globe the epidemic you ignore as "Their problem " today will be on your doorsteps tommorrow . Didn't the recent outbreak of SARS teach you anything?

BTW, I think you may have inadvertently entered your comment into the quoted section of my post.

Come to think of it, my argument can be boiled down to this:

The $15B US HIV program could be funded instantly by either Nigeria diverting its oil revenues or South Africa diverting their diamond revenues, or by all African countries cutting in half their military expenditures. So why should the US pay when an African solution is readily available?

As you say, other regions are effectively managing the problem, why can't Africa? And why must the US shoulder the entire responsiblity themselves? As you said, HIV is a global problem, so why can't the UN share the load among all the other industrialized nations?

 

[gryfin]

I think the figures indicate a problem

Your desire to see evidence of a systemic problem has already been provided. Over 30 million Americans are not sure where there next meal will come from, according to USDA figures.

If that's not evidence of a problem, what is? How bad does it have to get? Thirteen million children with insufficent food is not a national problem? What's your threshold for a problem?

BTW, that number of hungry in the US is greater than the population of many African countries that you like to lambaste.

 

[90's sc vet]

Re: I think the figures indicate a problem

Your desire to see evidence of a systemic problem has already been provided. Over 30 million Americans are not sure where there next meal will come from, according to USDA figures.

If that's not evidence of a problem, what is? How bad does it have to get? Thirteen million children with insufficent food is not a national problem? What's your threshold for a problem?

BTW, that number of hungry in the US is greater than the population of many African countries that you like to lambaste.

No, you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I didn't say that hunger in the US doesn't exist or that it's not a problem.

What I wrote and meant was that given the scope and depth of welfare and programs like food stamps, the reason for the existence of hunger isn't because there isn't enough food or because of unequal income distribution or because of a conspiracy against the poor in the US.

In fact, here are both my arguments, since you combined them in one post.

It is a demonstrable fact that what is paid out in welfare, available from food stamps and benefits from private charities and food banks, that there is enough money in the US safety net that no one needs to go hungry. Therefore, anyone who is "food insecure" as the USDA study said, isn't due to the existence or lack of funding of those programs. It seems to me that people must be going hungry for some reason other than a lack of money or resources. I think it's a voluntary act. Those people are likely taking the welfare money or selling their food stamps to buy other things, perhaps drugs or alcohol. Furthermore, I would say that you can't blame any level of the US government for either failing to provide enough money (which they are) or for failing to force people to spend the welfare money appropriately. Why? Because the US is a free country.

I'm not lambasting African countries. What I wrote is that it is incorrect to lambaste the US for not spending enough of a $15B on an HIV program (another poster correctly stated that the US isn't providing $3B in the first year so that the program can ramp up) in Africa when it is also demonstrable that Nigeria and South Africa have enough money to fund such a program. Not only that, but African nations are spending about double the $15B on military spending. And not only that, but Africans can solve the spread of HIV by doing what every poster in TERB does, practice safe sex.

If African countries freely chose to spend their money on things other than HIV programs and if they want to have widespread unsafe sex, that's their choice. But under those circumstances, if the African countries choose not to effectively manage their own HIV crisis, unlike every other region on earth, why should the US shoulder all the moral and financial responsibility for solving that problem for them?

I'm not blind to problems in the US or Africa. But I'm also not blind to the fact that choice appears to be a major factor in the existence of those problems. *d* criticism of the US spending only $2B out of $15B in the first year of W's announced HIV program must be considered with that fact in mind.

I'm not an apologist for the US, they have made a lot of major bonehead mistakes in the past. But I'm also not an apologist (actually, I think the more appropriate term is "enabler") for the poor in the US or for African countries.

If people are going hungry because of inappropriate spending, you're not going to solve that problem by giving them more money, you may make it worse because then those people have more money to spend on drugs or alcohol.

Similarly, if African countries are spending more money on arms than HIV, by funding an HIV program you may be enabling African countries to spend more on weapons, probably causing more deaths than due to HIV. Surely the experience in Rwanda and Liberia shows that is a real possibility.

Public expenditure programs have to be carefully considered. I remember a sign posted over the desk of my friend who works for the Children's Aid Society "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". You have to keep that in mind before handing out unconditional support.

 

[submissivedave]

Edward Said - RE: Orientalism and "The World Was Not Enough"

Said article:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1010417,00.html


"The World Was Not Enough" article:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=289_0_4_0_C

 

[submissivedave]

Although Canada is very dependent on other countries in terms of economics, Canada is indeed a soverign and independent country.

I think this point was emphasized when Trudeau "made" the Queen sign the sheets ...

But yeah, you are right ... Canada should be more independant both economically and politically ...

Jenn: you are right ... somtimes I have an urge to go to Thailand ...

 

[90's sc vet]

Dave, although we are sovereign and "independant" on paper politically, that does not mean that it is so in reality.

We are an economic colony of the US, and our policies under the current Liberal, and next Liberal government continue to integrate the 2 economies.

I remember a funny/interesting set of interviews of East Europeans (Poland, Czech, etc) taken throughout the late 80's and early 90's before and after the fall of the USSR. The question was, "Would you trade places with Canada?" As you can imagine, something like 80% or 90% of the respondents would gladly have been neighbours of the US.

What I find funny about Canada is that the north/south trade integration is actually better than east/west, trade barriers between the provinces (like movement of professionals, provincial government purchases and harmonization of stock and bond trading rules) are actually higher than between Canada and the US. Ottawa finds it easier to implement rules freeing up trade between Canada and the US than sorting out contractor licensing disputes between Ontario and Quebec.

It is absolutely true that the US/Canada economies are becoming closer every day. What most critics of that policy don't like to hear is that the integration is occurring voluntarily, if not eagerly.

For instance, the recent mad cow scare has caused all kinds of Canadians to squeal about the US closing down its border to Canadian beef. The softwood lumber dispute, same thing. And SARS, how many people are saying that SARS was a good thing, it kept out US tourists from coming to Canada? If Canadians felt that close proximity to the US was a bad thing, surely closing down the US border to tourists, beef and BC lumber would be regarded as a welcome thing, it enhances Canadian economic sovereignty. AFAIK, not one person has said publicly that the somewhat overblown mad cow crisis is a good thing for Canada.

I understand Submissive Dave's and your point of view, I used to be an ardent Canadian nationalist as well. But are you really prepared to lose 20% to 25% of your income just so that Canada has an increased measure of economic independence? Some people would accept that, but it's an unpleasant truth to Canadian anti-US and anti-globalization advocates that the majority of Canadians feel othewise, as the current mad cow incident illustrates.

However, that said, it's easy to see that the US has managed their foreign trading situation better than Canada. If you look at a chart of sources of oil for example, you'll see that all the foreign suppliers hover between 5% and 10% of US requirements. The US has been very careful not to allow any supplier to have a dominate position. Trudeau tried to reduce Canada's dependence on the US with his European Option, but discovered that the Europeans just weren't interested.