Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
As evidenced by the opinion of our neighbours to the south, it is time for Canada to build up a punative deterrant towards America.
Canada is the US's largest supplier of energy. We should leverage this. If we have to, threaten to pull out of NAFTA -- it has a 1 year sunset clause, but really we could just cut off all exports unilaterally.
|
Spoken like a true ally of the US rather than an antagonist. You know the Canadian economy is largely dependent on the American economy. We buy 85% of your exports. Canada could hurt the US economically, but would probably hurt itself more in the process.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
Thirdly, a nuclear deterrant may be called for. The USA seems to be hung up on a nation's ability to harm them more than anything else, and as noted realpolitik doesn't admit the concepts of 'contract' and 'fairness' -- power flows from the barrel of a gun under that world view.
|
I am not quite sure what you are suggesting here. You think Canada should threaten the US with nuclear weapons? You really think this is a good idea? I hope that is sarcasm.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
Of course, there are benefits to living next to another nation in a peaceful, friendly, non-coersive relationship. However, if our neighbour to the south doesn't want a friendly, peaceful, non-coersive relationship, it doesn't work if it is only one way.
|
So, the US doesn't allow Canadian beef in and that means we don't want a friendly, peaceful, non-coersive relationship? Do you really think the US is the root of all evil or something? Disputes happen and they get worked out (usually without nuclear weapons involved). Have you ever had an arguement with a friend? Americans want a friendly relationship with Canada, it is in both our interests.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
Playing the game of realpolitik is dangerous, and pushing on comprimises leads to people no longer being willing to comprimise with you. The USA is pushing. If it keeps it up, Canada will have to start pushing back, or just bend over and take it.
|
Or Canada and the US will come to compromise (and take it).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
The current US administration considers international agreements to be worth less than the paper they are written on, only to be followed if it suits their short term goals. If the most powerful nation in the world continues along this line, the rest of the world will either have to oppose it militarially, bend over and take it, isolate and punish it economically, or follow suit. This is a medium to long range problem, not a short term one - a single administration probably can't reverse 50 years of increasing international cooperation.
|
I am really not sure what agreements your talking about so it would be unfair for me to comment on them. Regardless, you seem to have a view that conservatives are usually stereotyped with- an inability to see the grey area. You have this "fight them, or get fucked by them attitude." I don't see it that way at all. Many accuse the current American administration of lacking dipomacy, I think your charictarization of the situation also shows a surprising lack in that department.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
I don't want another cold war (or worse), but appeasement isn't safe either.
|
I don't want another cold war either. And you are right, appeasement isn't safe.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daoust
lol. Just a little poke at Texans there. Which I think should be allowed in the Canada thread, also because he was a little out of line there with his "kid calling his mom a bitch and then asking for his allowance" crack.
HEY! Billy Joe Bobby or whatever your name is... You ain't nobody's momma. Technically Britain is our mother country... but I suppose that's beside the point, ain't it, cowboy?
|
I don't mind people poking fun of Texas or Texans. I think we have a pretty good sense of humor down here, but we are fiercely proud.
And I am curious what Canadians think of Texas and Texans.
The kid/mom analogy is perhaps a bad analogy. It was just an example, not an actual metaphor. It was not meant to be an insult. Perhaps I could have better characterized it as a despute with two friends, and one of them insulting the other. Then the insulted one is expected to still be friendly to the insulter despite being insulted. I guess it was just easier to use the mom/kid thing.
PS. If you think Texas is full of rednecks, you should probably do a little research. Texas is quite urban. You might be surprised to hear that:
Quote:
Using comparable figures, one will be able to list three U.S. states (California, New York, and Texas) among the 10 largest nationstates in the world—with New York and Texas each producing more than Canada, and California producing more than Canada and Mexico combined.
source:http://www.usembassycanada.gov/conte..._csis_0703.pdf
|