Policies and Politicians
It really doesn't affect me in a direct manner, the US border's closure to cattle trade; but since I live in the heart of Canada's ranching area, the decision to keep the border closed for the time being impacts my city heavily. The economy has really shifted in the past year or so since the first BSE case. Maybe thats just my cow town finally entering the 21st century, maybe it is the fact that businesses are diversifying in light of the economic impact one mad cow (or several, as the case may be) has. But I digress.
I have friends on both sides of the border. So I feel I am not entirely biased when I say both our respective governments need to take the sticks out of their arses with regards to foreign policy. The Bush government needs to learn to compromise and give a little before they take. Paul Martin needs to grow a backbone and take a stance that will best serve our countries interests. I'm not a big fan of missiles being put anywhere and Reagan's idea to test warheads over Canada strikes me as particularly self concerned but like it or not, America is a military focused country and Canada shares nearly ten thousand miles worth in border with it; eventually Canada is going to need to take a position on things of a militaristic nature and it ought to well do a better job than the waffling Martin's cabinet has done on the issue.
My personal thoughts on the Missile Defense project? Unecessary. Remember the last time the US went cuckoo for missile stuffs? You might have heard it called something like...oh yeah, the Cold War. Granted political tensions aren't what they were between Stalin and Truman/Eisenhower, but to me it seems this will only result in a new collective action problem, a "race to the bottom", if you will. What do I mean by that? Country A builds a missile supply, but says they are purely for defense only. Country B doesn't belive Country A's benign intent and builds a larger supply. Country A, percieving a threat in Country B's action increases its weaponry again. Rinse and repeat.
So yes, I support parliaments decision to back out of Bush's missile defense program. I also support our governments decision earlier to back out of the Iraqi conflict in terms of the initial assault. Canada has a history of being a peacemaker before a despot-toppler. But I think in light of recent insurgent attacks in the area, Canada should step up its military spending and take a more active role in that region. By no means do I have the desire to become a world super-power like the USA, but when we are sending our soldiers out with decades old vehicles that have the potential to turn into several thousand pounds of shrapnel in an armed conflict, and an airforce comprised of near-to-death craft, it says someting about how much we value our young men and women in the armed forces.
I think I'm losing my train of thought here and turning this into more of a rant. Whoops.
What that was a round about way of saying, Canada needs to lend a bit more support to the US, and since they are very active in military roles world wide, that is presumably the easiest way to do so.
But at the same time, I'm getting tired of US protectionism. I can appreciate where people like R-CALF are coming from. But honestly, it isn't as though the geological structure of the plains changes at the Montana border. An American rancher and a Canadian rancher are the same. Stop looking at things in terms of governmental affiliation. What hurts you hurts us and vice-versa.
Similar is the protectionism over soft wood lumber and fisheries. I can't understand why congress (my apologies if thats the wrong branch of government) wants to shut out or at least severely limit Canadian trade of these resources, and at the same time expect unconditional support for things on an international front.
Does that makes much sense? Not to me, it doesn't.
Well, thats my tirade for the day. I'd love some input as to your thoughts. I have fairly thick skin, so let fly with examples of how I am wrong. I'll still love you...
...probably.
I have friends on both sides of the border. So I feel I am not entirely biased when I say both our respective governments need to take the sticks out of their arses with regards to foreign policy. The Bush government needs to learn to compromise and give a little before they take. Paul Martin needs to grow a backbone and take a stance that will best serve our countries interests. I'm not a big fan of missiles being put anywhere and Reagan's idea to test warheads over Canada strikes me as particularly self concerned but like it or not, America is a military focused country and Canada shares nearly ten thousand miles worth in border with it; eventually Canada is going to need to take a position on things of a militaristic nature and it ought to well do a better job than the waffling Martin's cabinet has done on the issue.
My personal thoughts on the Missile Defense project? Unecessary. Remember the last time the US went cuckoo for missile stuffs? You might have heard it called something like...oh yeah, the Cold War. Granted political tensions aren't what they were between Stalin and Truman/Eisenhower, but to me it seems this will only result in a new collective action problem, a "race to the bottom", if you will. What do I mean by that? Country A builds a missile supply, but says they are purely for defense only. Country B doesn't belive Country A's benign intent and builds a larger supply. Country A, percieving a threat in Country B's action increases its weaponry again. Rinse and repeat.
So yes, I support parliaments decision to back out of Bush's missile defense program. I also support our governments decision earlier to back out of the Iraqi conflict in terms of the initial assault. Canada has a history of being a peacemaker before a despot-toppler. But I think in light of recent insurgent attacks in the area, Canada should step up its military spending and take a more active role in that region. By no means do I have the desire to become a world super-power like the USA, but when we are sending our soldiers out with decades old vehicles that have the potential to turn into several thousand pounds of shrapnel in an armed conflict, and an airforce comprised of near-to-death craft, it says someting about how much we value our young men and women in the armed forces.
I think I'm losing my train of thought here and turning this into more of a rant. Whoops.
What that was a round about way of saying, Canada needs to lend a bit more support to the US, and since they are very active in military roles world wide, that is presumably the easiest way to do so.
But at the same time, I'm getting tired of US protectionism. I can appreciate where people like R-CALF are coming from. But honestly, it isn't as though the geological structure of the plains changes at the Montana border. An American rancher and a Canadian rancher are the same. Stop looking at things in terms of governmental affiliation. What hurts you hurts us and vice-versa.
Similar is the protectionism over soft wood lumber and fisheries. I can't understand why congress (my apologies if thats the wrong branch of government) wants to shut out or at least severely limit Canadian trade of these resources, and at the same time expect unconditional support for things on an international front.
Does that makes much sense? Not to me, it doesn't.
Well, thats my tirade for the day. I'd love some input as to your thoughts. I have fairly thick skin, so let fly with examples of how I am wrong. I'll still love you...
...probably.
posted by Bray at 10:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home