Waiting for the world to form a consensus
that the Arab genocide in Sudan was evil
cost hundreds of thousands of human lives.

I find it impossible to justify that cost;
just so the United States was hated a little
less by the 'anti-American' street.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of
evil is that good men do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke

I'm one of those "conservatives" --- I'm certainly not a Burkean conservative, I'm more of a suspicious libertarian, but let that pass --- I'm one of those conservatives who came to a distrust of the UN rather late. I was very much pleased by the UN's action in 1991 on the Kuwait invasion, because I felt like it was finally doing what it was promised to do.

Then we had the Balkans, Somalia, Ethiopia/Eritrea, the Sudan, the UN's inability to act toward the good in Korea, during Tien an Min, ... followed by the increasingly clear fact that Saddam Hussein and Iraq managed to so thoroughly corrupt the whole process that he came damn near to buying his way out of the requirements of the treaties he signed.

On the other side, as I mentioned, I watched Reagan be reviled --- but the Iron Curtain fall. (I lived in Germany during that time, and I had friends and family who were on the other side of that border. People who didn't live through the raising and razing of the Wall don't remember what a relief that was.) I've watched Bush(43) be reviled --- but seen fifty millions be liberated from fascism of the worst sort, and great indications that a lot more is coming.

Specifically with Bolton, he apparently had a lot to do with eliminating the "zionism is racism" resolution, and with Libya's sudden opening and elimination of their own WMD programs.

So, do you suppose you could explain to me what these things we wanted to get done might have been? Right now, the cost/benefit ratio looks pretty much in Reagan's, Bush's, and Bolton's favor.

You may be looking at the wrong order of magnitude of cost to the US in anti-Americanism. Overcoming skepticism at the UN is one thing; sending back embassy personnel and restricting trade or sniping at the border is another. You may be looking for a level of happiness that isn't worth the cost it would take to maintain.

Especially when you really think the benefit is worth it--and know that if you're right, others will follow.

'I've watched Bush(43) be reviled --- but seen fifty millions be liberated from fascism of the worst sort, '

Bush wasn't reviled (well, almost not at all) for liberating Afghanistan, he was reviled for Iraq, and that is still very, very much a work in progress. I hope for success there, but there is still much work to do.

'o, do you suppose you could explain to me what these things we wanted to get done might have been?'

Well, for starters, we might have been able to share some of the huge cost of the war (Gulf War I was pretty cheap). , of the casualties. We might have been able to stem the tide of anti-Americanism (it is unisputed, even the CIA chief acknowledges that new terror networks sprang up as a result of the Iraq invasion). Even in Easr Europe and Ireland, very friendly to the US, large majorities opposed the US action in Iraq. We might have been able to get India to send an entire division to Iraq, as they were considering. We know that 90% of people in democratic Turkey opposed us. And so on ..

Also, if we're embarked on a grand plan to build the ME (and that is the only rationale left for the war), then that definitely requires help. Maybe not military, but financial help from other G-8 countries. Part of the reason that Syria left Lebanon so easily was that a broad international coalition (the US, France, Egypt, the UN, Saudi Arabia) all pressured it. Certainly few think that we can go it alone in all cases without bankrupting ourselves.

Overcoming skepticism at the UN is one thing; sending back embassy personnel and restricting trade or sniping at the border is another. You may be looking for a level of happiness that isn't worth the cost it would take to maintain.

Certainly we're never going to make North Korea happy, nor should we. But if our policies make a lot of people in traditional allies like Ireland unhappy, then that should be a matter of concern. It may be worth it to make Ireland happy not because Ireland is important in and of itself but because it represents a group of people who are and should be our friends. Similarly, if politicians who support the US are damaged in democratic elections, then we should be concerned. After all, we would never ask a democratic leader to go against the will of his people, right ?

Especially when you really think the benefit is worth it--and know that if you're right, others will follow.

No one is infallible. Any plan (business or otherwise) should always have fallbacks, scenario analysis and the like, rather than relying on faith only (useful, but not a complete substitute).

Well, for starters, we might have been able to share some of the huge cost of the war (Gulf War I was pretty cheap). , of the casualties.

Whatever it is that you're on, could I have some?

In the face of multiple billions of dollars in bribes, do you really imagine that we could have gotten the bribed to end the gravy train and chip in to the war that would eventually reveal their perfidy?

Also, if you don't think Bush was reviled and being reviled before and during the Afghanistan Campaign, you're either a prodigal four year old who didn't actually watch politics then, or afflicted with a conveniently short memory.

See, this is the thing that I find so amazing about even the most reasonable of the anti-Bush people: one ends up seeing statements made that simply can't be supported without ignoring mere inconvenient facts.

"We could have gotten more support in the Gulf War" --- but ignore the Oil-for-Food bribes, and the direct connections to the political class in Russia, France, and (amazingly!) even Canada. Not to mention the bribery of the UN apparat, some of which wasn't even covert --- the UN had no reason to see the sanctions end when they were getting a cut of every Oil for Food dollar over the counter, as well as the personal payments that were happening under the counter.

"Bush lied about WMD" --- but forget the explicit regime-change goal supported by the Clinton Administration, or that the source of the intelligence failures were Clinton appointees ... as if the notion that Saddam had WMD suddenly appeared in 2002.

Honestly, doesn't this eventually get to be just embarrassing?

I emphasize again that anti-Americanism is not one thing. It has many different causes which are expressed both in different and similar ways at once, and those change over time.

Furthermore American policy does cause some of it - overthrowing what is an unacceptable status quo for us is guaranteed to rouse opposition from, and anti-Americanism in, those for whom such change is uncomfortable. Which is not to say that we shouldn't do overthrow such status quos, but that there most definitely are some varieties of anti-Americanism which we cannot even assuage, let alone eliminate.

But we can and should avoid giving needless offense, and do such placation as is (a) feasible and (b) worth the price in terms of our interests.

Suzanne, keep in mind that overcoming initial inertia and opposition to what is needful, particularly domestic political inertia and opposition, is more important than placating foreigners. The latter comes after we've started moving.

And we started moving with Iraq's elections.

Ms Nossel

You indicated on DA that:

“I think most progressives tend to think there are fairly low-cost ways of mitigating a portion of anti-Americanism, and that doing so would make it a lot easier to achieve policy goals.”

What are these low cost means that you speak of?

IMO, nothing short of abandoning our position on Israel and following the lead of the French would have real effect on reducing the anti-American sentiment across the ME & Europe.

Ms. Nossel,
It appears that you got hit with a few factors: slow news cycles for the past few days; a general quieting, but not resolution, in the discussion of the war in Iraq; and a juicy set of questions (for which you should congratulate yourself). Good luck trying to read through all the answers.

My (probably duplicate) $.02. Good point about the anti-Americanism possibly removing easy opportunities to advance our interests. If true, it's a serious, strategic concern. As I said before, I wasn't able to click through on the "rise in anti-Americanism" link, but I've been of the opinion that things like the war for liberation of Iraq do more to lessen rather than increase the overall pool of anti-Americanism. I could be wrong about that. (This optimism stems from the idea that doing obviously good things like saving the Iraqis from Saddam simply cannot be overshadowed by overheated, nearly-baseless anti-Americanism. The notion that the good we do will be self-evident in time may be hopelessly idealistic.)

But if our policies make a lot of people in traditional allies like Ireland unhappy, then that should be a matter of concern.

Hold it. Ireland, for all the cultural friendliness between our countries, is a neutral, not an ally. Ireland is NOT a member of NATO, it's exempt from the military aspects of the EU, and I am unaware of ANY military operation where Irish troops have fought alongside American forces. Ever.

Why are you referring to them as an ally, much less a 'traditional' one?

Charlie is right- whatever you're on, it's affecting your memory.

There's something somewhat condescening about the idea that American popularity qua popularity changes the policy of other nations. For popularity to matter, countries must be acting against their own national interests because of their public's hatred of America.

In the face of multiple billions of dollars in bribes, do you really imagine that we could have gotten the bribed to end the gravy train and chip in to the war that would eventually reveal their perfidy?

Let me put it this way. The vast majority of countries in the world opposed the Iraq invasion. Not just the politicans, the people. Politicians in Easr Europe took the decision to support the US over the will of their people. You can contine to believe that this was all because of a few oil for food bribes or you can face reality. The US was willing to grant $30 Billion to Turkey for troop transit, and still the Parliament refused to grant it. $30 billion sounds like a lot of money to me.

But yes, it must have been oil for food that caused the large majority of Irish to oppose the war. And the Turkish parliament to turn us down. Yup, thats it.

Also, if you don't think Bush was reviled and being reviled before and during the Afghanistan Campaign, you're either a prodigal four year old who didn't actually watch politics then, or afflicted with a conveniently short memory.

And if you think the reviling of Bush before or during the Afhganistan war (where were the mass protests in Europe then ?) was remotely comparable within an order of magnitude to the reviling during iraq, then you're the one who lacks the ability to count beyond 10 without taking off his socks.

See, this is the thing that I find so amazing about even the most reasonable of the anti-Bush people: one ends up seeing statements made that simply can't be supported without ignoring mere inconvenient facts.

See, this is what I find so amazing about some of the unreasonable pro-Bush types (including you). They make statements that bear no relations to the facts at all (such as the implicit assertion that Bush was reviled equally before Iraq) and go off on tangents (probably because their basic case is so untenable).

but ignore the Oil-for-Food bribes, and the direct connections to the political class in Russia, France, and (amazingly!) even Canada.

You forgot to mention the US -- that Texan businssman. Yes, a few businessmen with political links were getting money, Any international contract in 3rd world countries involves some bribery, I can assure you. its deplorable, but to be suddenly shocked, shocked by it is .. well .. not all that believeable. Its even less believable when those who are so shocked and horrifed seem to be totally unconcerned about well documented reports (some from the GAO) of large sums lost in Iraq and reports of widespread corruption in the interim Iraqi government. That is (largely) American money involved, not (as oil for food was) Iraqi money.

Incidentally, I did not even mention the UN. I simply mentioned the possibility of some international support. I have no particular liking for the UN (and yes, I think Oil For Food is disgraceful). But people like Charlie conveniently forget that the WMD inspections actually worked. They also forget that Oil For Food (despite the bribery) did work in its major goal of providing food to the Iraqi people. For people like Charlie, its all Oil For Food, there is no other conceivable reason why anyone could be anti-American.

Hold it. Ireland, for all the cultural friendliness between our countries, is a neutral, not an ally. Ireland is NOT a member of NATO, it's exempt from the military aspects of the EU, and I am unaware of ANY military operation where Irish troops have fought alongside American forces. Ever.Why are you referring to them as an ally, much less a 'traditional' one?

Talk about silly nitpicks. Its obvious that I was not referring to military actions. I picked Ireland simply because its a close friend.This is a country that has traditionally sent huge number of immigrants to the US and is a major contributor to American culture (especially in Boston). This is a country that should be, and is, very friendly to the US.

But if you like, substitute practically any NATO country from Western Europe, and most from Eastern Europe if you like. The majority of people in almost all of these countries opposed the war in Iraq. Several governments supported us, but the people opposed us Even in Britain, it was evenly split at best. Do these meet your nitpicky definitions of ally ?

Charlie is right- whatever you're on, it's affecting your memory

Ah, insults. The last refuge of the nitpicking incompetent. If a country as friendly as Ireland strongly opposes US actions, then that may be a barometer for public sentiment in other countries. You may or may not care about this sentiment, but certainly nitpicking about whether Ireland is an ally in the military sense is not exactly a good way to prove your point. Besides, I pointed out the case of NATO 'allies' above. Do try more misdirection such as the debate over what an ally is -- that'll show us who's on something.

Talk about silly nitpicks. Its obvious that I was not referring to military actions. I picked Ireland simply because its a close friend.This is a country that has traditionally sent huge number of immigrants to the US and is a major contributor to American culture (especially in Boston). This is a country that should be, and is, very friendly to the US.

You mistake cultural affinity for common interests. The former makes for friendship, the latter makes allies.

But if you want to continue saying that the US should be concerned that public opinion in a traditionally neutral country is opposed to the use of force, please, make your case.

If a country as friendly as Ireland strongly opposes US actions,

When has Irish public opinion not strongly opposed the use of force? Afghanistan? Got any other examples?

then that may be a barometer for public sentiment in other countries. You may or may not care about this sentiment, but certainly nitpicking about whether Ireland is an ally in the military sense is not exactly a good way to prove your point.

...and picking a non-allied nation with a long tradition of neutrality doesn't exactly support your point, either. Would you care to re-state it?

Besides, I pointed out the case of NATO 'allies' above. Do try more misdirection such as the debate over what an ally is -- that'll show us who's on something.

You call Ireland an ally and accuse *me* of misdirection? What chutzpah!

But please, explain what other kinds of allies there are, and what Ireland could contribute to advancing US interests that makes appeasing Irish public opinion worth the effort. I'm willing to consider the possibility that I missed something, or erred somewhere in my analysis- but be aware that you are the one with the burden of proof.

In another context, Malcolm, the difference between "friend" and "ally" might be a quibble. But the very topic under discussion here is the extent to which warm fuzzies conduce to material aid. Can you really come up with no better examples than (1) a country which has always been friendly but has never lifted a finger to help us (sending us our original urban underclass doesn't count), and (2) a group of countries which have been real and effective allies despite the domestic unpopularity of the war they helped us win?

I'm afraid Paul and rosignol have you on this one, malcolm, and I have to say you walked right into it. In a debate about anti-Americanism and the advancement of American interests, you deliberately picked as an example a country that is "friendly" to the US but has never contributed anything to the advancement of America's global interests. Which begs the question: what good does it do America to have countries "like" us if they never actually do anything that supports us? Are you really suggesting that we should sacrifice some of our own interests and appease the Irish simply so we can walk around with the warm fuzzy feeling you get when someone likes you?

Tn some cases, the fairly "low-cost" policies used in coalition-building turn out to have very high costs. For example, during Gulf War I, we built the coalition that everyone points to as the grand example of multi-lateral collective security. In order to sign on Syria, a major Arab partner, GWI acquiesced to the Ta'if Accord and a de facto Syrian occupation of Lebanon. 15 years later, it was much easier to pressure the Syrians out, not just because of 1559 and the French (who deserve much credit I should add), but because we were not obligated to repay the Syrians for totally pro forma participation in a coalition to which they added absolutely zero value.

Suzanne, I find your response to the points raised by the folks on this board to be essentially useless. I don't think any commenter denied that Anti-Americanism Is Bad, nor did they deny that Anti-Americanism Can Make It Harder To Get Things Done, which was basically the gist of your reply. Agreed -- anti-Americanism is bad and it can make it harder to get things done. Next let's debate whether puppies are cute.

The rest of your response was a useless platitude that We Should Do More to reduce anti-Americanism, and you backed that up with the further platitude that We Should Do Diplomacy Better. I don't think any commenter would disagree with the notion that when our government does something, it should try to do it well. But I suspect that most people in senior positions in government are hard-working and good at their jobs. So I assume you're not suggesting we need to eliminate lunchbreaks and threaten floggings at the State Department unless people start "doing more diplomacy."

So given that, what's your point? You natter on and on in vague generalities about Things We Can Do to reduce anti-Americanism but the devil is in the details. What did you have in mind? Tell me about some of that "low-hanging fruit" we're missing. Get more specific about the "plenty we can do." Tell me why those things are going to make a difference.

The point most commenters raised on your previous post was that a very significant element of anti-Americanism, indeed the majority of it, is unavoidable simply due to America's power and status in the world. Which suggests that -- absent sacrificing American power and interests -- we're not going to be able to reduce anti-Americanism in the world by a significant amount regardless of how much diplomacy we do or how much "concern" we express.

Do you disagree? Well then, let's hear it. That would be a reply worth reading, and a debate worth having.

Patrick,

Very good point. I too was quite surprised by Suzanne's view that other countries can be "force multipliers" for the US. I think a number of joint operations over the last few years, including Gulf War I and the actions in the Balkans, demonstrated quite clearly that the participation of other nations provides little or no benefit (and in many cases detracts from the effort), yet comes at an extremely high price.

For example, only the British can reasonably contribute alongside America on the battlefield -- other nations tend to get in the way, interfere with and delay operations, and create PR nightmares (increased anti-Americanism) in the inevitable friendly fire accidents. And moneywise, if it isn't Japan, another country's funding contribution is probably NPV negative after you account for all the concessions and favors they'll demand in return.

I'm not sure if it rises to the level of outright contradiction, but it's at least ironic that an argument which urges Americans to swallow their resentments and make nice with foreign opinion should also rely so heavily on the assumption that anti-Americanism abroad will have its influence no matter what. If we in America can be expected to suck it up, wear the mask, deal with it-- why can't they?

I think there is a lot to be said for doing diplomacy better.

I'm a Canadian who has lived in the United States for several different stretches. My brother was born in Denver. We visit often and have many friends there.

I was very upset when ambassador Paul Celucci threatened to punish Canada for refusing to go along with the Iraq war. I really couldn't understand where he was coming from. (Nowhere it turns out, as the threat was empty). It was like we were some vassel which had failed to pay enough tribute.

It is especially irritating since the feeling in Canada at the time, and now, was that the Bush Administration was lying. The case for war wasn't made. In fact, I would say, the administration barely tried.

I guess I don't like being bullied. Something, maybe, I learned in the US.

So what?

In the grand scheme of things, not a big deal. Canada, as always, just wants things to be calm. We have our own crooked and incompetent politicians to worry about.

However, there has been a hardening toward the US here that has made it harder for politicians who want to co-operate with the US across a wide variety of sensible fronts (from immigration, to boarder controls, closer integration, BMD, etc...) to do so.

Canada and the US have many common interests. There are many North American problems which can only be solved through our two countries co-operating. The Bush Administration has made this co-operation more difficult to achieve. Even among people who travel to the US often and know the country well many -- ridiculously I would add -- regard with suspicion any Canadian politican who dares co-operate with the Bush Administration.

This is true in many countries. Nobody wants to be seen as close to the Bush Administration. Even if the Bush Administration is pursuing something sensible.

It strikes me as less than competent when an administration's macho posturing makes it harder for its foriegn friends to co-operate with it.

And in a broader sense, it makes me think, if you guys are so worried about anti-americanism spreading, why do you so often treat the world like we're a bunch of assholes?

The US rightly lashes out at Canadian figures, no matter how minor, who verbally attack and downgrade the US. Why would you expect other countries to act differently?

No two countries could be culturally more similiar, nor have more interests in common, than Canada and the US.

Of course, if all you understand is hard power why bother ...

I'm surprised at not seeing this link or it's arguments here:
http://www.policyreview.org/dec02/harris.html

Jonny,

I think your post is a perfect example of why anti-Americanism is probably an unavoidable problem. You freely admit that the feeling in Canada was that the government of the United States was lying and that it was made up of a bunch of liars and bullies. You are then apparently honestly surprised and offended that Americans would respond to that attitude by thinking that Canadians are a bunch of assholes.

You honestly feel that Canada should have perfect freedom to ignore the wishes of the US and yet you feel genuinely annoyed and bullied when the US says Canada may feel some consequences as a result, like not getting US cooperation on the things Canada wants.

You openly admit that Canada refuses to cooperate with the US on sensible policies -- yet you apparently honestly believe that this is America's problem to fix.

This is the kind of unavoidable resentment, anger and abdication of responsibility that I think must inevitably develop in a one-superpower world. Regardless of US actions or inactions, every weaker country (and they're *all* weaker) will inevitably feel threatened, bullied, or disparaged by the US any time the US doesn't do what they want. And every weaker country (and they're *all* weaker) will feel that the main responsibility for solving any problem lies with the superpower, with the US. So to the extent there are problems in the world that aren't being solved, they'll inevitably blame the US for it.

I will compliment you though for the honesty of your post, which essentially concedes that other countries feel they should be able to disparage the US, hold negative feelings toward it, and refuse to cooperate with it -- but that they expect to be able to do so with no consequences and with the expectation that the US will take the high ground.

I agree with there are some pychological affects of the one-superpower world that are probably unavoidable. Canadians act as badly and sometimes seem as willing to indulge in crass 'anti-Americanism' as the citizens of Britian, Spain, France or any of the other countries who seemed so bothered by the style with which the Bush Administration pushed its invasion of Iraq.

I don't see pointing this out as brave, or even particularly honest, it's rather obvious. People can be dumb.

I think there is a question of style at play here. Clinton didn't engender nearly as much, nor as emotional, opposition.

What I was trying to highlight was what I thought was avoidable. It is, I guess, a style point.

Ambassador Celluci threatening to punish Canada acted as a tipping point. This is bad style. This is white socks before labour day.

Again, like every country, including the US, Canada has its Chomsky fringe who distrust the US on principle, merely for being powerful.

What was different about Celucci was how deeply his statement penetrated mass opinion. It made it acceptable to mock president Bush in ways it wasn't before. It gave some legitimacy, however briefly, to the views of hard-core nationalists who are always looking to weaken the relationship between the US and Canada. And it emboldened those who would exploit such anger for their own ends. (Like the Quebec seperatists)

I mention it because I think Canada's experience was typical. It didn't have to happen.

All we did was disagree. Post Sept 11th, are disagreements no longer allowed? They didn't seem to be.

That, at least, was how it seemed from up here.

Canada was not the only country to complain of high-handed ambassadoral treatment during the build up to the Iraqi invasion. Did the Bush Administration think this would work? I think they did. But it didn't. They screwed up.

That is why I started my post by pointing out diplomacy could have been handled better.

Looking back I doubt that Canada would have participated in the invasion of Iraq. My point was that a portion of hostility which arose belongs with the Bush administration.

I'm sorry if it bothers you, but Canadians reacted badly to what they percieved as being bullied.

Better Canadian leadership would have been helpful. Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister at the time, could have done more to calm emotions. In fact, he did very little, finding it politically expedient to do nothing. He lost a lot of respect.

Remember, the Bush administration wanted our support for the invasion of Iraq. And when it wasn't forthcoming, they decided to threaten us. We weren't the only country this happened to. How do you expect countries to react?

That's all I'm saying. Canada is far from perfect, as I noted our government could have handled things better as well. But we didn't send our Ambassador out to threaten punishment.

I also wrote the Bush Administration's macho posturing has made it harder to follow sensible policies where the US is involved, not it makes it impossible. Harder than it should have to be.

Canada is far from the only country finding this. Perhaps the next administration should learn there are better ways to achieve its goals.

As Grandma used to say....

"sometimes you are damned if you do and damned if you don't"

This is a concise description of foreign perceptions of the US.

Simplistic, sure. Accurate, yes.

I should make something clear.

I never wrote Canadians or anyone else should feel they shouldn't have to face consequences vis-a-vis the US. Actions have consequences, always have always will. What I meant was the Bush Aministration misjudged the consequences its bullying would elicit.

And not only in Canada.

The aftershocks of this have made it harder for the US to accomplish its goals, as electorates are understandably wary of an administrion which acts in such a high-handed manner. This is also sucks for Canadian policy makers, for example. It's makes it harder for them to work with the US, not only to forward our goals but for yours. Harder but not impossible.

Basically my point was, why did the Bush Administration make things harder than they had to be?

John,

Many of us feel that Prime Minister Cretien received a share of the oil for food bribes through his French son-in-law, just as French President Chirac did. I.e., that Canada's policy on Iraq was bought by Saddam Hussein just as France's was. This makes us unsympathetic concerning Canadian feelings.

Take bribes from our enemies to side against us, and we'll treat you that way.

If you don't like it, elect governments which don't take bribes.

And read your own headlines. Today.

This post analogous to arguing that football teams combat bribed refs by not playing as well so the other teams don't feel the need to buy bad calls.

John,

By all means, please provide me a Google link to Ambassador Cellucci's statement that Canada would be "punished." Not media paraphrases of what he said in Toronto, John -- an actual quote. I have a feeling the "bad style" and "white socks before Labor Day" was entirely in the minds of Canadians (who already thought the American government were a bunch of liars and bullies anyway, remember?).

As I said before, as resentment, anger, and abdication of responsibility grows among the weaker nations in a one-superpower world, these nations will more and more actively seek pretexts -- those white socks before Labor Day, if you will -- for anti-Americanism, regardless of US behavior, actions or inactions. It's a shame, but it's also unavoidable, and the US might as well get used to it. Beyond that, the US should not view it as a reason not to pursue US interests.

I should add, John, that this statement of yours is at the heart of inevitable anti-Americanism in a one-superpower world:

"Canada is far from perfect, as I noted our government could have handled things better as well. But we didn't send our Ambassador out to threaten punishment."

In what way could Canada possibly punish the United States? Given that we're not going to go to war -- mainly because neither side has any interest but which Canada would surely lose if we did -- the only things Canada could do is pursue economic punishments or refuse to support the United States on the world stage. Economic measures would hurt Canada vastly more than they would hurt the United States, so that's off the table, and as for refusing to support the United States on the world stage...

Oh, wait. You did do that.

Well, regardless, there's very little that Canada could ever do to the US that wouldn't hurt Canada even more. And at some level Canada knows it, resents it, and is angered by it. And so the anti-Americanism slowly, unavoidably festers.

"Hold it. Ireland, for all the cultural friendliness between our countries, is a neutral, not an ally. Ireland is NOT a member of NATO, it's exempt from the military aspects of the EU, and I am unaware of ANY military operation where Irish troops have fought alongside American forces. Ever."

Rossignol, although Ireland is a non-member they do have a military relationship with the NATO alliance. Unlike Switzerland they are not neutral. see below:

Speaking Points

by the Representative of the Republic of Ireland

PMF
We would like to record our satisfaction with the recently concluded review of the Political Military Framework for PfP operations. We believe that this should provide a good basis for non-NATO troop contributors to SFOR and KFOR to have an meaningful role in shaping operational decisions.

PARP
The first PARP assessment for Ireland has recently been completed. This is a matter of considerable satisfaction for us. We believe that our PARP participation will greatly enhance our ability to make an effective contribution to UN-mandated peace support operations. In that connection, I would recall that our contribution to the EU Headline Goal has been mirrored in the troops and capabilities which have now been declared under the PARP process.

PARP Ministerial Guidance
We look forward to the successful conclusion of discussions on the remaining issues in the PARP Ministerial Guidance. In that regard, I should like to echo the statements made by Sweden, Finland and Austria.

As this document will remain in effect for some time ahead it should reflect the future needs of those EU countries which are not members of the Alliance. In our PARP assessment we were very clear about our intentions on that aspect of the PARP and those intentions were acknowledged by the nineteen.

John,

Citizen's of nations having constitutional succession crisis because the ruling government refuses to recognize a parlimentary vote of no confidence are hardly in a position to whine about the politics of American foreign policy.

The phrase that comes to the mind of politically aware Americans about a nation having such a crisis is "Bannana Republic."

Oh, come on, manoppello- Switzerland, Sweden, and Russia are members of the PfP. Surely you can do better than that.

Regarding Ambassador's Celluci's comments- here is the CBC story about it-

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/26/libscellucci030326

and here is a link to the relevant speech-

http://www.usembassycanada.gov/content/textonly.asp?section=embconsul&document=cellucci_030325

I am forced to conclude that Candians find the truth offensive, even when it's buried in a large pile of niceness.

Except it wasn't a vote of non-confidence. A vote of non-confidence is like a pregnancy test, it's very specific in its outcome. The government still stands. The conservatives are saying the opposite. But of course they would. That's their job. Personally, I hope the Martin government falls. But, attempting to wiggle around parlimentary procedure is a sign of a Banana Republic? No it's not. It's politics as usual.

Political parties in the US also try and fanangle the rules to their benefit, don't they?What political system is free of corruption?

This thread is like the pot taking potshots at the kettle's solarium from inside a greeenhouse.

I wasn't trying to stick up for Chretien's government. I was pointing out one aspect of the dynamic which was self-inflicted. That some of the bad feelings could have been avoided. I think what we have seen is a by-product of the Bush administration's standard operating procedure.

Debate that. We can debate Canadian politics if that would be preferable, but I don't see how that gets us any closer to the issue here.

Simply put, things would have gone better if the diplomacy was handled better.

I fully agree that the US's position causes it to attract much undeserved resentment. I find the knee-jerk ant-americanism one finds deplorable. I don't think it is inevitable though. Firstly, governments, like the Canadian, should be more responsible about the relationship. We can still disagree.

But the Bush Administration hasn't been doing itself any favours. Their actions have made it harder for politicians to behave responsibly.

The US is essential to the present international system, which some seem to resent. They are idiots. Politicians sometimes seek to exploit this resentment. (Most notably in Germany recently). They should remember that this system has brought us all, at least to the west, prosperity for the last fifty years.

Canada, for example, owes much of its success to proximity to such a large and dynamic economy. We are lucky. Obviously a few dozen Canadians don't think so. They are idiots.

I would add, though, that the impression in Canada, Mexico, the UK, Spain, Australia, Italy, and elsewhere, that the Bush Administration is full of 'bullies and liars' is based on experience. This impression didn't spring fully formed from a vacuum.

Obviously some on this thread don't agree. How am I mistaken? I have been wrong before, show me how I am wrong on this.

There are many reasons why governments have found it more difficult to deal with the Bush Administration than it ought to be. Ought to be. Not is. The Bush Administration's macho posturing is one reason. Not the only one.

The world will never be perfect, there will always be idiots.

But, keep up the style of talk witnessed above and we'll stop sending you Comedians. Or Divas.

I can see I came to the wrong place to discuss an issue I think is important.

John

Here's a question.

From what country does the US buy a large percentage of it's oil? What country is in the process of negotiating a deal to sell more of its oil to China? Including building a dedicated pipeline to the pacific coast.

John,

The border will be closed for months if the next big terrorist attack in the U.S. is based out of Canada, and there is a fair chance it will be.

I repeat that your former Prime Minister was bribed by our enemies to side against us. Canada will be treated like it deserves. That's reality, not bullying. You guys have a major strike against you, and we're at war.

John,

I apologize that we're not an echo chamber for your beliefs that the US government is a bunch of bullies, liars and macho posturers. I'm also sorry that we're not an echo chamber for your beliefs that power relationships do not play the primary role in the attitudes countries hold toward one another, but rather that countries are like really big children in a really big kindergarten and the biggest child is a big bully and a meanie and if he'd only stop being such a macho, bullying liar all the other little kids would like him.

You might want to try dKos for that kind of thing, or, based on Suzanne's posts, Democracy Arsenal might also be a good place to go.

For clarity John, and with less snark, I believe that the reason anti-Americanism grew in relation to the Iraq war is the following:

The citizens of other countries didn't want the US to invade Iraq, but the US did anyway.

This meant that 1) the US did something that they didn't like, which generated anger; and 2) they had no power to stop the US from doing what it did, which generated resentment and fear.

You can dress it up any way you like but this is the heart of the matter. All your babbling about macho posturing and white socks before Labor Day as the cause of anti-Americanism is just that -- babbling. A contrived rationalization for anti-Americanism which is intended to disguise the reality -- that people hate the US because it does things they don't want it to do, and there's nothing they can do about it.

A terrorist attack coming out of Canada is among every Canadians worst nightmare. That's one reason the present Liberal government has been upping border security and cracking down internally.

But you seem to relish an attack happening. Why?

As for the bribes. Prove it. Saddam bribed Jean Chretien? Sure, it could have happened. Why not? But I doubt it.

You believe countries and electorates disagreed with the Bush Administration over Iraq only because Saddam had paid off some national leaders? Come on.

Okay.

It's all a big conspiracy.

John,

Here's a question in response to the question you posed:

What is the definition of a fungible commodity?

John,

Canada's only border is with the U.S., and we're not the source of the threat. I'm talking about lax immigration control and tracking of dangerous people inside Canada. Canada is more than a little pregnant in this regard. Letting known dangerous people in and ignoring them afterwards is a prescription for disaster.

It is much, much easier for terrorists to enter the U.S. from Mexico, but it seems safer and easier for them to operate in Canada in terms of setup, attack planning and attack preparation. IMO, if and when the next mass fatality terrorist attack occurs in the U.S., the shooters & material will have come from Mexico towards the end while the workup will have been done in Canada.

Saddam didn't bribe Cretien directly. I said the money went to Cretien's French son-in-law, just as Saddam's bribes to Chirac went to Chirac's relatives, not Chirac. And by money I mean "oil allocations" and sweet-heart contracts.

At a time when Canada needed to build up all the goodwill it could in the U.S., against a possible day when Canadian negligence might be found to have killed hundrefs or thousands of Americans, your former Prime Minister went out of his way to inflame American opinion.

This will be remembered. Pay-back is not bullying. You and your people tolerate political corruption, and defend its consequences. I sure hope you guys aren't mugged by reality, because that will happen only over several zeros of American bodies.

We won't be in a forgiving mood when that happens.

Point of Information:

Anti-Americanism in Canada has different connotations than it does elsewhere due to geographic proximity and Canada's having an efficient and heretofore remarkably honest government plus exceptional public order and physical safety for its citizens, especially in contrast to Mexico.

Both are capable of serving as bases for terrorist attacks on the U.S., but Canada is more likely to do so precisely because of its orderliness and safety. That permitted (and fostered) the creation of a foreign-born Muslim community within which terrorists are more likely to operate, plus the safety, security and privacy which terorrists need. This particular point is of major importance. Mexico does not have a Muslim community of any significance. Canada does.

Terrorist bases in Mexico run major risks of discovery due to Mexico's endemic random violence and chaos, plus the suspicions of Mexican organized crime and their corrupt police friends, as possible rival narcotics traffickers and/or sources of bribe/extortion money.

And Canada offers better and more secure communication than Mexico in country, to and from the U.S., and to and from overseas.

I.e., Canada has many advantages over Mexico as a long-term terrorist base from which to plot attacks on the U.S. That does not necessarily mean such attacks are more likely to be staged out of Canada (short-term covert movements of anything across the U.S. border are more secure coming from Mexico), but they are IMO more likely to have been planned in Canada than in Mexico.

Canada's problem here is that American expectations of its government's behavior concerning terrorism against the U.S. are higher than of Mexico's government, because Canada has a real government and Mexico doesn't.

If Mexico's so-called government fails to even notice terrorist bases, we are likely to excuse that on the grounds that (a) Mexico doesn't really have a government and (b) such as it does is thoroughly corrupt and incompetent.

But if evidence appears that a major successful terrorist attack on the U.S. originated in, or was planned in, Canada, prior anti-American statements and acts by the Canadian government will foster at least an American public suspicion that Canadian anti-Americanism was related to the attack's success.

At which point even stupid politically correct negligence by Canadian officials will seem sinister.

I repeat that I am talking about American public perceptions of Canadian culpability, not whether there is any realistic blame.

So YOO-HOO! CANUCKS! GET A CLUE! Anti-Americanism by you guys isn't safe at the moment! You're too far from God and too close to the United States! (paraphrasing President Porofiro Diaz of Mexico)