Anti-Americanism in Canada?

Lets not forget the Anti-Canadian Americans out there as well, and while we're at it, lets not forget that the US depends on Canada as much as we depend on them.

You obviously haven't seen that hatred thrown at Canada for refusing to get involved in Bush's Iraq attack.

What goes around, comes around!

Word up, Montana.

Just to add, what does the editor being Pakistani have to do with anything? I thought they were your allies.

Good question Cav. I was wondering about that myself.

The link doesn't work Marcoo.

The link doesn't work because it appears that some people don't realize that many news sites auto-archive old pieces. Anyhoo, here is what I found, make up your own mind (he's not the best writer, but I hardly find this column an excuse for flagrant accusations):

9/11 Commission Tells Truth, but Not Whole Truth
HAROON SIDDIQUI

Of all the autopsies performed on 9/11, the most revealing is the one conducted by the commission assigned to dissect it.

More than enumerating the administrative failures that led to the tragedy, and making sensible suggestions to rectify them, the 9/11 Commission has said something more profound:

America remains ill-informed about the people and places that pose the greatest danger to it.

War alone will not defeat terrorism.

That all 19 Sept. 11 terrorists were Al-Qaeda Muslims does not mean all Muslims are Al Qaeda.

America defeats itself when it abandons its moral core.

The 10-member panel also faults George W. Bush for abandoning Afghanistan too soon.

On Iraq, the panel speaks volumes with its silence on Bush's claim that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism, which it demonstrably is not.

America must rethink its approach to the Muslim world, especially failing states that can become terrorist havens. Afghanistan was. Parts of Pakistan, West Africa and Southeast Asia are, particularly slivers of Philippines and Indonesia.

All these ideas would be very familiar to readers of this column over the last five tumultuous and tragic years.

Yet the commission does not go far enough. Not so much in faulting Bush more, but in shying away from pushing its own assessments to their logical conclusions.

For example, the spectacular failure of America's $40 billion (U.S.) a year intelligence operations cannot be explained solely by bureaucratic silos and ineptitude or the shortage of spies because of too much reliance on satellites and pilotless drones.

The larger point has to be that you cannot possibly comprehend the intelligence from a country, a culture and a people if you don't have a clue about them or their language. Or you are hostile to them for religious, racial or ideological reasons.

Post-invasion Afghanistan and Iraq prove the point.

I will cite other examples as we go through the commission's key findings sideswiped by the ones that were headlined.

Rather than the Bush formula of going guns blazing hither and yon, the commission says we need a "global preventive strategy that is as much, or more, political as it is military." Amen.

That's exactly what Jean Chrétien said, and got pilloried for it.

On Muslims, the panel says: "The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of Islam." Correct.

"The enemy is the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, by Osama bin Laden and others who draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within a minority strain of Islam that does not distinguish politics from religion, and distorts both."

That's only half true.

The intolerance does not emanate from a failure to separate religion and state. Theologically, they're inseparable. Many Muslim-majority nations are constitutionally Islamic. That does not make them all terrorist.

Bin Ladenism is a political polemic, violent and terrorist, wrapped in religious terms.

The commission ignores the issues that won bin Laden many adherents. It tiptoes around the occupation of Iraq, which has spawned a wave of scarier bin Laden clones.

It is not surprising, then, that the panel ends up prescribing a vacuous PR initiative:

"The U.S. must define its message .... Communicate and defend American ideals in the Islamic world, through much stronger public diplomacy to reach more people, including students and leaders outside of government."

But no amount of propaganda can cure the problem of America not living up to its ideals. You cannot soft-sell the double standards that mark most of your dealings with the Muslim world.

It's not enough to say in the abstract, as the panel does, that "we should offer an example of moral leadership in the world," but stay silent when America invades Iraq unilaterally in the face of worldwide opposition.

Or kills thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of freeing them.

Or violates human rights by being a direct or indirect party to torture and, worse, whitewashes an Abu Ghraib.

Or arrests thousands and deprives them their day in court.

Such of my reservations aside, the panel comes as close as any American group can in taking on a "war president." No wonder the White House is peeved.

The commission is right to assert that America is still vulnerable, more than any other open democratic society, but that it is safer now than before 9/11, having rightly attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and captured or killed most Al Qaeda leaders.

The panel is also mostly right in its analysis of the countries where the war on terrorism is being waged.

On Afghanistan, the U.S. mission is "overwhelmingly orientated toward military and security work," not civil institutions. And the troops are "narrowly focused on Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants," not on stabilizing the country, so life can improve.

On Pakistan, the panel urges continued support for President Pervez Musharraf, a man of "enlightened moderation" who urges his people to shun extremism.

"It's hard to overstate the importance of Pakistan in the struggle against Islamist terrorism," the panel says.

It suggests money for military and education. But what about leaning on the general to bring democracy?

On Iran, it says there's "strong evidence" that up to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers transited through that country, but "there is no evidence" Iran was aware of their plot.

Saudi Arabia, from whence hailed 15 of the hijackers, had no involvement in 9/11 or financing Al Qaeda. But bin Laden did raise money there.

However, Saudi Arabia remains "a problematic ally," in that both sides "prefer to keep their ties quiet." Better to "confront problems in the open and build a relationship beyond oil, a relationship that both sides can defend to their citizens and includes a shared commitment to reform." Well said.

The commission's report ?- more than 500,000 copies of which are in bookstores ?- is not only a useful but also a highly readable document (http://wid.ap.org/documents/911/finalreport.html).

Too bad the commissioners couldn't bring themselves to telling the whole truth.

Doesn't sound real anti-American to me...

Nope, it sure doesn't.

Not to me either. It's nothing I haven't seen many Americans say themselves.

In an odd sort of way that would be a step up. Most Americans are barely aware Canada exists other than as that big blank area on the upper portion of the daily weather map.

Just to add that Haroon Siddiqui is the Canadian PEN Vice President and Toronto Star editorial page Editor Emeritus .
He's not a Pakistani, btw, but a Canadian, who "worked for more than three decades for a broader and more inclusive definiton of Canadian identity" (got the Order of Ontario for having challenged "Ontarians to make newer immigrants and minorities an integral part of our civil society").
[Quotations from Government of Ontario websites]

LOL! Oh they know we exist, but most think it snows every day, all year long. We live in shacks in the middle of the woods and we get around by dog sleds. Since we don't have grocery stores, the men go out to hunt and fish so we can eat. Of course we have to make our own cloths as well.

I was born and raised in the US and since I worked a lot with the public over there, I was amazed at what little people knew about their Canadian neighbors. When I was getting ready to move here, people were shocked that I was moving to a place that was so primitive and cold, haha!!!!

It is evident from this and many other threads that Canadians appear to worry more about the United States than do Americans about Canada. Perhaps that is understandable considering the relative impacts the two countries have on each other.

Canada enjoys a very favorable balance of trade with the U.S. Economically at least, Canada needs the United States far more than the U.S. needs Canada. If there arose tensions between the two countries that affected movement and trade across the border, Canada would be the loser.

Considering the ubiquity of U.S. media and entertainment products it is easy to believe that Canadians think they understand the U.S. better than do Americans understand Canada. To the extent that these media represent the whole reality of America perhaps this assertion is even true. However, my own observations, in both countries, strongly suggest that ignorance and a willingness to prejudge others are about equally distributed on both sides of our commn border.

The most prominent difference on these threads seems to be the much greater inclination of Canadian posters to criticize the United States for faults they don't acknowledge in Canada.

Perhaps, George, you missed, what the creator of this thread posted with his first and until now only post on A2K:

Walter,

Actually I read it and all the subsequent posts. My point was to return the dialogue to the original precept from which it had evidently departed.

Canada and the US need eachother equally and to say they don't is nonsense.

Haven't you noticed all the threads loaded with Americans bad mouthing Canada? I've seem plenty of them!

I guess it depends on how you define "need". My reference was only to its economic aspect. The greater economic dependence of Canada on the U.S. can be readily verified by the hard economic data published by both governments and several international organizations.

I have not noticed the "Americans bad mouthing Canada" to which you refer. Instead I have noticed several threads started and sustained by Canadians all dedicated to various defects of America and Americans. There have indeed been several American respondents on these threads who have countered with verbal attacks on Canada. Some of these have been intemperate had reflected ignorance and prejudgement on the part of the poster. Generally however this was no worse, and usally much less, than that which characterized the Canadians who started it.

I generally like Canadians that I know and have felt no animosity toward Canada or Canadians until I feel my country and fellow Americans are unfairly smeared. It is difficult not to bristle at those times.

One things that I wonder about though is why A2K Canadians are so much more fascinated with American politics than they are their own, especially when they seem to universally hold the current U.S. administration in extremely low regard?

I like Canadians. Does that count?