Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> -Marc-
> > No part of Zion has lived up to the contract in Ether and we're
> > all corrupt. Much as we would love to take a higher ground, it
> > is too expensive for us.
>
> Yes, you would be moral if only it weren't for the US. Darn them!
>
Your caricature does not accurately represent what I wrote. Whether we're "moral"
or not is totally within our control. But it has consequences, like any decision
does.
>
> -Marc-
> > My reasoning is that we are being hammered enough by US
> > protectionism as it is -- if we upset the US it could get worse.
>
> So what? Don't sell to US markets. Take your ball and go home. The US
> can't really do much about Canadian trade with other countries, can it?
>
We're an export-dependent economy -- 80% of what we make gets exported, and most
of that goes to the U.S. Why would we go back to the stone age just to retain the
moral high ground (note I said, "why *would* we..." not "why *should* we..."
>
> > Better to be taken for granted and forgotten about than to
> > become an item on US network news.
>
> Or discussion lists.
>
Now, don't flatter yourself ;-)
>
> -Mark-
> > I'll slightly violate a personal (temporary) rule of mine and
> > ask all on this list who think that Canada needs the US to
> > protect it:
> >
> > Please send me a list of Canada's enemies who could invade
> > Canada. Your list will be empty. There is no one.
>
> Any country that desires Canada's resources or location, and that has
> resources sufficient for such an invasion. Currently, I believe that
> list consists of exactly no one. It used to consist of the Soviet Union,
> which would absolutely have loved to own Canada the way it owned eastern
> Europe, and would doubtless have invaded had they believed they had any
> chance whatsoever of success. But your big, mean, smelly neighbors to
> the south scared them off. (To be fair, it was your big, mean, smelly
> southern neighbors who gave the Soviets the desire to possess Canada;
> but judging from European and Asian locations, the Soviets might have
> wanted to march into American Siberia anyway, just because they could
> have.) In the future, it might well consist of China, a country with
> great resources and vast potential they are beginning to develop.
>
Not badly put, actually.
>
> > As you know, we were also pressured by Kennedy to station Bomarc
> > nuclear missiles on Canadian soil. When we refused, the US
> > dismantled our aerospace industry (remember the AVRO Arrow
> > scandal?)
>
> No kidding? The US actually invaded Canada and took apart the aerospace
> factories? Wow.
>
Who wrote that? Not I. The pressure was, again, exports. I don't think you have
any idea how much of your military equipment is built in Canada. For instance,
almost all your armoured personnel carriers, your army radios, a lot of your F-18
avionics, Cessna is a Canadian company, etc., etc. So Kennedy said, in effect,
"if we can't dominate NATO and do things our way, for the benefit of our
companies, then you guys won't get any business and you're on your own."
>
> > and violated our sovereignty by stationing nuclear submarines with
> > nuclear missiles aboard in the straits of the Arctic Archipelago.
>
> That's one side. The other side is: If your neighbors are carrying
> typhoid or have rats or mosquitos or some such thing, and refuse to (or
> perhaps cannot) observe basic hygiene, you (or some other vested
> authority) might be fully within your rights to demand and enforce a
> standard of cleanliness that ensures your own safety.
>
We've tried that. The US sent a supertanker called the Manhattan, a ship with a
specially reinforced hull, through the Northwest Channel about 10-15 years ago to
show that they felt the Northwest Channel is international waters. We finally
compromised on having an icebreaker (the Louis St. Laurent, iirc) precede the
ship. But they have not accepted our claim to sovereignty. Even the Inside
Passage, where in some cases Vancouver Island is less than 2 km from the
mainland, they claim is an international passageway. If the Manhattan had spilled
oil, whose environment would have been harmed, who would have had to clean it up,
and who would have refused to foot the bill, dya think?
>
> > Hence, Canada does not need _any_ form of US protection. Not
> > economic, not from ballistic missiles (who would launch against
> > us?), not from land invasions, not from sea invasions, not from
> > air invasions, not from no one no how.
>
> Currently, I think you're probably correct. For now. Will that be the
> situation tomorrow? Are Canadians righteous and God-fearing enough to
> stand alone against the world, if it comes to that? Will God fight your
> battles for you?
>
If we're righteous. But we're not.
>
> > However, here's the kicker: I don't think it's anyone's military
> > we have to worry about, but the US economic might which is
> > steamrolling over us in absolute blatant hypocrisy even now;
> > imagine if we had someone like Paul Martin, who at least speaks
> > one of our official languages, as PM, who told the Pentagon to
> > stuff it. What do you think would happen to Nortel, Canadian
> > Marconi, Spar Aerospace, etc., etc.?
>
> I suppose the US would invade Canada, seize control of them, and
> forcibly dismantle their factories and research facilities, as it did
> your aerospace industry?
>
The least you could do is make your caricatures funny.
>
> > I only pray that we become Scotland to their England and not
> > Romania to their Soviet Union.
>
> If you quit your bellyaching, we may allow you to catch the anchovies
> for our pizzas. No promises, comrade.
>
Spasibo.
>
> Stephen
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and
falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
--Michelangelo Buonarroti
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
==^^===============================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^^===============================================================
