Re: [A-List] US imperialism: another Canadian view

["Christopher Black" <bar@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The real problem is that despite what Prime Minister Chrètien says Canada
does have soldeirs taking part in the war and naval forces. He refused to
fromally take part in the war to mollify public opinion but in the dark is
helping the US and yesterday he came out said he hope the US wins the war.
So much for being against aggression. He is as corrupt as Bush and Blair as
if this wasnt proven by Canada taking part in the aggression againt
Yugoslavia as well.

Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 6:01 AM
Subject: [A-List] US imperialism: another Canadian view


> Carlo Allegri / National Post / CP
>
> U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci says the American government is
> disappointed in Canada's refusal to participate in the U.S. war against
> Iraq.
>
> Dear Mr. Cellucci:
>
> Remember WWII? Canada has always been there whenever the U.S. truly needed
> us. But when we went to war twice in the last century, America hesitated.
So
> don't lecture us about freedom, democracy and friendship.
>
> By Silver Donald Cameron
> To: Ambassador Paul Cellucci, Embassy of the United States
> of America, 490 Sussex Dr., Ottawa, Ont.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR:
> Your recent remarks about Canada's policy with respect to Iraq were
> inaccurate, inappropriate and offensive. Prime Minister Chretien is
> maintaining a delicate balance between U.S. pressure and Canadian
opinion -
> a familiar position for Canadian prime ministers - and he will not tell
you
> to go pound sand. But someone should.
>
> Fundamentally, you argue that the United States would instantly come to
the
> aid of Canada in an emergency, and Canada should therefore participate in
> your ill-advised attack on Iraq. "There is no security threat to Canada
that
> the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with," you
> are quoted as saying. "There would be no debate. There would be no
> hesitation. We would be there for Canada, part of our family." Codswallop.
> And that's being diplomatic.
>
> The primary threat to Canadian security has always been the United States.
A
> monument in Quebec honours my earliest Canadian ancestor for repelling an
> invasion from your home state of Massachusetts in 1690. The very first
> instance of military co-operation among the 13 colonies occurred in 1745
> under the leadership of James Shirley, your predecessor as governor of
> Massachusetts, whose army invaded Nova Scotia and captured the Fortress of
> Louisbourg. Thirty years later, during the American Revolution, your
> privateers sacked our ports. We were at war once more in 1812-15. The
birth
> of Canada in 1867 was prompted by fears of a U.S. invasion. That's why our
> railroad runs along the Gulf of St. Lawrence, far from the U.S. border.
>
> Do you remember manifest destiny, the 1840s U.S. doctrine which held that
> your country had a God-given mission to rule all of North America? Do you
> remember "Fifty-four-forty or fight," the slogan that rallied Americans to
> threaten an invasion in 1902 over the Alaska boundary? Yours is the only
> country that has ever invaded ours, and it would do so again in a wink if
it
> thought its interests here were seriously threatened.
>
> And how does your sentimental mantra of perpetual willingness to spring to
> our assistance apply to the First World War, which we entered in 1914,
while
> you stayed out for three years? We went to war against
> Hitler in 1939, while you were moved to join your sister democracies only
> after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor two years later. A million
> Canadians fought in the Second World War, and 45,000 died. We
> need no lectures from Americans about the defence of liberty and
democracy.
>
> Nevertheless, despite the strains of our history, we are probably as close
> as any two nations in the world. Many Canadians - I am one - have family
> members who are American citizens. Our two nations fought together not
only
> in two World Wars, but also to repel the invasions of South Korea in 1949
> and Kuwait in 1991. And when great catastrophe strikes without warning,
our
> people have indeed been there for each other. As governor of
Massachusetts,
> you must have been present at the lighting of the Christmas tree in Boston
> each year - an annual gift from Nova Scotia to commemorate the immediate
and
> massive assistance of Massachusetts after the Halifax Explosion in 1917.
Our
> chance to reciprocate came on Sept. 11, 2001, when Canadian communities
took
> in, on an instant's notice, 40,000 passengers from U.S. planes forced down
> by the terrorist attacks. Halifax alone hosted 7,200. We housed them in
our
> homes and schools and churches, fed them and comforted them and treated
them
> as family. We probably gave more immediate and practical assistance to
> Americans than any other country. Yet when your president later thanked
> nations for their help, he did not mention Canada.
>
> The Iraq conflict, however, is not an unforeseen disaster, but a
deliberate
> choice. Your president has squandered a worldwide outpouring of sympathy
and
> solidarity in less than two years - an astounding diplomatic debacle. Your
> own remarks, with their dark hints of economic revenge, are entirely
> consistent with the Bush administration's policy of diplomacy by bullying,
> bribing and threatening. A huge body of opinion, even in the U.S. and
> Britain, judges this war to be illegal, reckless and irrelevant to the
fight
> against terrorism. Your government appears to have forgotten Osama bin
> Laden, and not to have noticed that the Sept. 11 terrorists were mostly
> Saudi, not Iraqi. They lived not in Baghdad but in Hamburg and San Diego.
> The Iraq campaign is a sideshow, a grudge match, a distraction. It will
> breed more martyrs, and more terrorists.
>
> Back in Massachusetts, in 1846, a young man was arrested and jailed for
> refusing to pay taxes, to avoid supporting his government's deplorable
> policies. He explained this in an essay, On the Duty of Civil
Disobedience,
> which has ever since inspired people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
His
> name was Henry David Thoreau, and no doubt the governor of Massachusetts
> thought he was a pretty poor American. He was not; like King, he was a
voice
> for what is finest in American life and
> values. And the issue on which he took his stand may sound a bit familiar.
> He was opposed to an imperial war - the unprovoked U.S. invasion which
> stripped Mexico of 40 per cent of its territory.
>
> Good citizens - and good friends - oppose bad policies. By telling you the
> truth, they strive to save you from folly. They may be mistaken, but they
> are not your enemies. That is the message you should take
> back to the White House, whether or not there is anyone there who will
> understand it.
>
> Sincerely,
> Silver Donald Cameron
>
> Award-winning author Silver Donald Cameron lives in D'Escousse.
>
> Copyright © 2003 The Halifax Herald Limited
>
>
>
>
>