Re: How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?
 

>>Isn't it good that your allies point out that your current way of conducting foreign policy is unsustainable? <<

Wow. Our "foreign policy" is unsustainable? I can understand how there might be some disagreement about elements of US foreign policy, but this kind of blanket statement seems absurd.

Re: How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?
 

Friends don't let friends kill innocent people.

Re: How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If a friend treated me the way the US treats Canada with respect to trade agreements, I would find some new friends.

[/ QUOTE ]HAHAHA, yeah right. You serious???

Re: How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?
 

The US and Canada have always had spats throughout history. Border disputes, and Indian issues have long been an issue between the US and our neighbor to the north.

Like it or not the US/Canadian border is the largest land border in hte world. This pretty much makes us partners for the long haul. Relations may chill or thaw but we will never be enemies with Canada. Whats the point?

Re: How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
>>Isn't it good that your allies point out that your current way of conducting foreign policy is unsustainable? <<

Wow. Our "foreign policy" is unsustainable? I can understand how there might be some disagreement about elements of US foreign policy, but this kind of blanket statement seems absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is unsustainable since the US is not powerful enough in itself to succeed in its agenda, and thus conducting it in a way tht creates anti-US sentiment makes it doomed to fail.

Re: How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
>>Isn't it good that your allies point out that your current way of conducting foreign policy is unsustainable? <<

Wow. Our "foreign policy" is unsustainable? I can understand how there might be some disagreement about elements of US foreign policy, but this kind of blanket statement seems absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is unsustainable since the US is not powerful enough in itself to succeed in its agenda, and thus conducting it in a way tht creates anti-US sentiment makes it doomed to fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll show you whose powerful enough to do stuff! The US agenda will never "fail" it will simply be modified to a sucessful version. This is obviously failure to most, but politically speaking its not.

And your right, the US hegemony will not last long if we insist on pissing away resources in long winded wars of imperialism.

Re: How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?
 

I don't like nationalism. Philosophical positions such as leftwing versus right wing transcend national boundaries. Although it is fun to make fun of each other as cultures, when we are talking about serious political topics, nationalism just leads to things like WWI. Prime Minister Martin does not speak for every Canadian just like President Bush does not speak for every American.

I still say we get rid of borders and create countries based on philosphical positions rather than territorial boundaries.

Re: How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The US agenda will never "fail" it will simply be modified to a sucessful version.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a history of managing that, so I don't doubt it will happen again. This whole debacle is probably the natural beginning of that process, it most certainly needs new politicians though to remove the pride factor.

Re: How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?
 

>>It is unsustainable since the US is not powerful enough in itself to succeed in its agenda<<

Specifically, what "agenda" are you referring to? Your previous comment addressed the totality of US foreign policy.

Re: How Good of A Friend is Canada to the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
>>It is unsustainable since the US is not powerful enough in itself to succeed in its agenda<<

Specifically, what "agenda" are you referring to? Your previous comment addressed the totality of US foreign policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am not backpedalling [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. I meant what I wrote then. The cumulative level of ambition is higher than resources available (creating stability in the Middle East, financing global antiterror operations, balancing China in Asia etc.).