# The 'evil empire' is next door



## brneyedgrl80

This is interesting...

The 'evil empire' is next door, youth say
Poll finds teens view some U.S. actions as global threat

Misty Harris  
The Ottawa Citizen 


June 27, 2004


Evil is a word usually reserved for serial killers, Austin Powers villains, and kids who tear the legs off baby spiders.

But, a new poll shows a significant number of young Canadians would use "evil" to describe their U.S. neighbours.

In a telephone poll of 500 teens aged 14 to 18, more than 40 per cent of respondents saw the U.S. as an evil global force. Among French-Canadians, that number jumped to 64 per cent.

Ontario proved the most conflicted on the issue; there, nearly one-fifth of youth were on the fence.

"Teens have taken (Ronald) Reagan's concept of the Soviet Union as an evil empire and turned it back on the U.S.," says Rudyard Griffiths, director of the Dominion Institute.

"Clearly, the anti-American sentiment isn't just something coming from 30-somethings or even 20-somethings."

Read more here: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawa....html?id=9848cd3a-c74a-41ee-8595-ddaa9c40ba0e


----------



## Annie

And we are surprised? Or should care? Why?


----------



## dilloduck

500 teens aged 14-18 ? Wow (I guess)


----------



## freeandfun1

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *500 teens aged 14-18 ? Wow (I guess) *



500 teens that are like many of the teens on here.... they have no idea about the world and they only repeat what they hear their parents blabbing.


----------



## brneyedgrl80

I didn't put a lot of stock into it simply because of such a small number polled.  But I thought it was interesting enough to share.


----------



## insein

When MTV is a mouth piece for the left, what did you expect?


----------



## Hobbit

Since when do we care what Canada thinks, anyway?  They're the ones with the lax security that lets terrorists into our country.  They haven't (as a whole, mind you) been much use to us since D-day, other than hockey and cheap movie filming.  If some Canadian thinks I'm evil because I want the government to defend my country from future attacks, let him say it to my face.


----------



## 007

Most canadians suffer from "Cabin Fever". The super long winters, the bitter cold and the isolation drives many of them to the brink of madness. They drink too much and keep themselves locked up in their houses for far too long. What they think of anyone is utter jiberish coming from the mouths of half insane idiots. Add to that this was canadian teenies giving prompted opinions, and the fact that someone thought anyone would give a shit boggles the mind.


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Most canadians suffer from "Cabin Fever". The super long winters, the bitter cold and the isolation drives many of them to the brink of madness. They drink too much and keep themselves locked up in their houses for far too long. What they think of anyone is utter jiberish coming from the mouths of half insane idiots. *



Thanks.


----------



## lilcountriegal

> When MTV is a mouth piece for the left, what did you expect?



I saw a commercial on MTV the other day for kids getting tested with their significant others for AIDS, STDs etc.  the kids were in a gym class playing basketball while the boy/girl were talking.  The name of the high school printed on the hats?  Clinton HS.


----------



## dilloduck

> _Originally posted by brneyedgrl80 _
> *This is interesting...
> 
> The 'evil empire' is next door, youth say
> Poll finds teens view some U.S. actions as global threat
> 
> Misty Harris
> The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> 
> June 27, 2004
> 
> 
> Evil is a word usually reserved for serial killers, Austin Powers villains, and kids who tear the legs off baby spiders.
> 
> But, a new poll shows a significant number of young Canadians would use "evil" to describe their U.S. neighbours.
> 
> In a telephone poll of 500 teens aged 14 to 18, more than 40 per cent of respondents saw the U.S. as an evil global force. Among French-Canadians, that number jumped to 64 per cent.
> 
> Ontario proved the most conflicted on the issue; there, nearly one-fifth of youth were on the fence.
> 
> "Teens have taken (Ronald) Reagan's concept of the Soviet Union as an evil empire and turned it back on the U.S.," says Rudyard Griffiths, director of the Dominion Institute.
> 
> "Clearly, the anti-American sentiment isn't just something coming from 30-somethings or even 20-somethings."
> 
> Read more here: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawa....html?id=9848cd3a-c74a-41ee-8595-ddaa9c40ba0e *



Hopefully the more mature and educated Canadians will see this crisis and inform these misguided youths as the errors in thier thinking and educate them to the incredible positive influence that America has been on the world AND Canada.


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Hopefully the more mature and educated Canadians will see this crisis and inform these misguided youths as the errors in thier thinking and educate them to the incredible positive influence that America has been on the world AND Canada. *



Anti-Americanism is taught in the schools here. I can't speak for all schools, but there is a big anti-USA sentiment at the university I attend, which is not discouraged by professors or TAs. I also find the media here to be very anti-American,  I can't speak for the whole country on that either.


----------



## 007

> _Originally posted by Said1 _
> *Anti-Americanism is taught in the schools here. I can't speak for all schools, but there is a big anti-USA sentiment at the university I attend, which is not discouraged by professors or TAs. I also find the media here to be very anti-American,  I can't speak for the whole country on that either. *



Well then why don't you pussy's just attack us and take us out? Oh wait... you can't do that. Number one, you don't have a fucking Army worth spit. Number two, you blood suckers have been riding on the back of America like ticks on a hound for a couple hundred years now, and you're at least smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds you.... or are you?

Bring it ice boy. We'll kick you're asses back to france where you belong.


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Well then why don't you pussy's just attack us and take us out? Oh wait... you can't do that. Number one, you don't have a fucking Army worth spit. Number two, you blood suckers have been riding on the back of America like ticks on a hound for a couple hundred years now, and you're at least smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds you.... or are you?
> 
> Bring it ice boy. We'll kick you're asses back to france where you belong. *



Being a jerk doesn't make you correct, it only makes you a jerk. BTW, that's IceWOMAN to you :


----------



## Hobbit

Well, Ms...uh...Icewoman, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the media and professors there and here.  In fact, I've had a hard time convincing my friends that any Iraqis like us, despite have several friends who were recently in Iraq.  The reason?  The media and the Middle Eastern studies teachers claim they all hate us, despite having never been anywhere near the place.  It's so dumb.  Everything is so political.


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by Hobbit _
> *Well, Ms...uh...Icewoman, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the media and professors there and here.  In fact, I've had a hard time convincing my friends that any Iraqis like us, despite have several friends who were recently in Iraq.  The reason?  The media and the Middle Eastern studies teachers claim they all hate us, despite having never been anywhere near the place.  It's so dumb.  Everything is so political. *



Pale Rider called me Iceboy......I'm not a boy  

I agree, and it's not just the war in Iraq, it's just about anything from environmental policies, trade ect it's all "blame, blame, blame" it gets very repetative and boring, and I get tired of arguing.  I did a paper on sustainable development last year, and the only marks I lost were for silly things unrelated to the info and arguement within the paper. The TA wrote snide little remarks all over the place, but was unable to reduce my grade for it. I still argued with her about the marks she deducted, and she re-graded my paper.


----------



## Hobbit

Typical.  I once had to get an academic appeal because somebody who would've fit in with the "Black Panthers" graded my paper on how the Civil War was fought over unity, federal power, and economic strength, with slavery as more of a side issue.  I got an F.  After the appeal, I got it graded by a Ph.D. in Civil War history.  I got an A.  I've also gotten poor marks on papers written about media spin and pervasiveness, the increasingly out of control feminist and minority rights movements, and the injustice and implausibility of general Democratic economic policy.  It's all bull.


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by Hobbit _
> *Typical.  I once had to get an academic appeal because somebody who would've fit in with the "Black Panthers" graded my paper on how the Civil War was fought over unity, federal power, and economic strength, with slavery as more of a side issue.  I got an F.  After the appeal, I got it graded by a Ph.D. in Civil War history.  I got an A.  I've also gotten poor marks on papers written about media spin and pervasiveness, the increasingly out of control feminist and minority rights movements, and the injustice and implausibility of general Democratic economic policy.  It's all bull. *



It's a shame, I can't believe you got an F, although that does sound a lot like the stuff I've studied. I guess I should keep your experience in mind if I have to write a paper about that subject


----------



## Zhukov

> Among French-Canadians, that number jumped to 64 per cent.



What a surprise.


----------



## Said1

I was gonna mention that, but I was distracted by Pale Riders rage


----------



## 007

> _Originally posted by Said1 _
> *I was gonna mention that, but I was distracted by Pale Riders rage  *



Sorry... I've been a little on edge with this whole mickey moore thing. I can actually say I "hate" the rotten bastard, and all the other posting about him had me in a minor rage.


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by Pale Rider _
> *Sorry... I've been a little on edge with this whole mickey moore thing. I can actually say I "hate" the rotten bastard, and all the other posting about him had me in a minor rage. *



Sure, we all love our countries. There are a lot of debates I stay out of simply because I live here, and really wouldn't know. I don't like to read generalizations, insults or bashing of my country any more than you do. You just have to remember who is doing the bashing, and in this case, it wasn't me


----------



## Annie

> _Originally posted by Hobbit _
> *Typical.  I once had to get an academic appeal because somebody who would've fit in with the "Black Panthers" graded my paper on how the Civil War was fought over unity, federal power, and economic strength, with slavery as more of a side issue.  I got an F.  After the appeal, I got it graded by a Ph.D. in Civil War history.  I got an A.  I've also gotten poor marks on papers written about media spin and pervasiveness, the increasingly out of control feminist and minority rights movements, and the injustice and implausibility of general Democratic economic policy.  It's all bull. *



I hear ya. I went through history degee, having already completed studies in pol. sci. and sociology. In US cannot teach with those on secondary level. So, history we go. First to bat, Democracy in America. I was the only one who read it before class started, first time in jr. in high school. 3 times since the class. I knew and could cite quotes. Teacher and I diametrically opposed, but I could defend my position. He gave me an A in all 5 classes I had with him.


----------



## Isaac Brock

I think people here are blowing the perceived anti-americanism out of proportion here in Canada.  Many Canadians dislike or disagree the current administration, social policy or foreign policy.  I count myself as one of them.  This shouldn't come as a surprise since Canadian policies are, simply, different.

However, an American in Canada will hardly be lynched and most likely will be treated with upmost hospitality.  To equate Canadian disapproval with US administration to the blind hatred seen in some countries in the middle east or otherwise, simply isn't true.

And for those detractors who believe Canada is a parasite to the US, one needs to look no further than who is the US's largest trading partner and who shares the longest undefended border.  We need the US as much as the US needs Canada.


----------



## Annie

An American in Canada probably agrees with you Issac. I haven't heard a soul claim that Canadians hate Americans in general. Just irrational hatred of GW.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Kathianne _
> *An American in Canada probably agrees with you Issac. I haven't heard a soul claim that Canadians hate Americans in general. Just irrational hatred of GW. *



I certainly would hope so as I know the reverse (ie Canadian in the US) is true.

As for irrational hatred of GW?  Well perhaps.  Though bear in mind Canada, is a socially minded nation of pacifists and peacekeepers (for better or for worse) with a high penchant for democracy.  I think you can understand that the means GW goes to promote his values is contrary to some fairly core Canadian ideals.  

Whether he's right or not in his approach, there is very little support it in Canada.  In addition, since the current administration came into office, US policies have negatively affected Canadian interests (BSE, softwood lumber, missle defence, immigration policy, environmental legislation).   Plus, not since the days of LBJ and Trudeau have our nations been in such a political cooling.   As such, you must understand that it is hard to sympathize with his administration, as a Canadian.


----------



## Annie

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *I certainly would hope so as I know the reverse (ie Canadian in the US) is true.
> 
> As for irrational hatred of GW?  Well perhaps.  Though bear in mind Canada, is a socially minded nation of pacifists and peacekeepers (for better or for worse) with a high penchant for democracy.  I think you can understand that the means GW goes to promote his values is contrary to some fairly core Canadian ideals.
> 
> Whether he's right or not in his approach, there is very little support it in Canada.  In addition, since the current administration came into office, US policies have negatively affected Canadian interests (BSE, softwood lumber, missle defence, immigration policy, environmental legislation).   Plus, not since the days of LBJ and Trudeau have our nations been in such a political cooling.   As such, you must understand that it is hard to sympathize with his administration, as a Canadian. *



I hear all you are saying and I think it sad. We may not be as environmentally sound as Canada, but you are lacking on immediate threats to both of us. France is one problem, Canada I am concerned about.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Kathianne _
> *I hear all you are saying and I think it sad. We may not be as environmentally sound as Canada, but you are lacking on immediate threats to both of us. France is one problem, Canada I am concerned about. *



Perhaps, but there is also a general disagreement between our countries on how to best go about dealing with these threats.

Agreeing on increased and co-operative security/intelligence collaboration as well as airport screening is one thing.  Easily agreed to.

Agreeing on a doctrine of pre-emption and agressive foreign policy is another.


----------



## Annie

_[posted by Issac_


> Agreeing on increased and co-operative security/intelligence collaboration as well as airport screening is one thing. Easily agreed to.



So what has Canada done about the open immigration/alien thing? How many from ME still coming in without vetting?


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Kathianne _
> *[posted by Issac
> 
> So what has Canada done about the open immigration/alien thing? How many from ME still coming in without vetting? *



As per the new National Security Policy instituted in April of 2004 and the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 to a total of 7.7 billion:

- The integrated threat assessment centre in co-operation with the United States
- 300$M into marine security and institution of joint custom agents with US (ie US customs officers in Canadian ports)
- Overhaul of Canadian passport with increased security features
- Creation of CATSA an airline security division with the RCMP with non-uniformed air marshalls on flights
- CSIS nows does full security checks with host nations and US on all new immigrants to Canada
- 34 agencies with frozen terrorist assets including Hezbollah
- Increased funding of customs agencies with more spot checks

More can be found at:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/can-am/menu-en.asp?act=v&mid=1&cat=1&did=1684
and
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/securitypolicy.html

Of note, there has yet to have been a terrorist entering the US from Canada that has not been caught of Canadian officials before entering the US including Ahmed Rassm who plotted the bombing of LAX.


----------



## Annie

Issac, sounds like we're more together than apart. Now mind you, tomorrow I might go looking for more, but for now, we're buddies.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Kathianne _
> *Issac, sounds like we're more together than apart. Now mind you, tomorrow I might go looking for more, but for now, we're buddies.  *



Indeed we are!  A lesson served well to both of our countries.


----------



## Merlin1047

> _Originally posted by Said1 _
> *Anti-Americanism is taught in the schools here. I can't speak for all schools, but there is a big anti-USA sentiment at the university I attend, which is not discouraged by professors or TAs. I also find the media here to be very anti-American,  I can't speak for the whole country on that either. *



That's a hoot.

The same thing is going on at many universities here in the US.


----------



## Annie

> _Originally posted by Merlin1047 _
> *That's a hoot.
> 
> The same thing is going on at many universities here in the US. *



No Shi*! To a degree that is unbelievable!


----------



## Merlin1047

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *
> As for irrational hatred of GW?  Well perhaps.  Though bear in mind Canada, is a socially minded nation of pacifists and peacekeepers (for better or for worse) with a high penchant for democracy.  I think you can understand that the means GW goes to promote his values is contrary to some fairly core Canadian ideals.
> 
> Whether he's right or not in his approach, there is very little support it in Canada.  In addition, since the current administration came into office, US policies have negatively affected Canadian interests (BSE, softwood lumber, missle defence, immigration policy, environmental legislation).   Plus, not since the days of LBJ and Trudeau have our nations been in such a political cooling.   As such, you must understand that it is hard to sympathize with his administration, as a Canadian. *



I have to take issue with you on these statements.

First, seems to me that the "socially minded nation of pacifists and peacekeepers" needs to take a refresher lesson in history.  It won't take long.  You need look no further than Neville Chamberlain to see the fruits of such policies.

Second, had Canada been attacked by muslim idiots, Americans would most likely be helping you find and eliminate those responsible instead of engaging in whiney nit-picking about the methods used.  Further, we would respect your right to do what is necessary to defend your country.

Finally, may I point out that it was, in fact, the USA who was attacked.  That gives us the right to do whatever is necessary to assure it won't happen again.  If that bothers the delicate sensibilities of some Canadians - tough shit.


----------



## Merlin1047

> _Originally posted by Kathianne _
> *No Shi*! To a degree that is unbelievable! *



LOL - did you intend that pun?


----------



## Annie

> _Originally posted by Merlin1047 _
> *LOL - did you intend that pun? *



No, but at least it wasn't Freudian! :


----------



## MrMarbles

> _Originally posted by Merlin1047 _
> *I have to take issue with you on these statements.
> 
> First, seems to me that the "socially minded nation of pacifists and peacekeepers" needs to take a refresher lesson in history.  It won't take long.  You need look no further than Neville Chamberlain to see the fruits of such policies.
> 
> Second, had Canada been attacked by muslim idiots, Americans would most likely be helping you find and eliminate those responsible instead of engaging in whiney nit-picking about the methods used.  Further, we would respect your right to do what is necessary to defend your country.
> 
> Finally, may I point out that it was, in fact, the USA who was attacked.  That gives us the right to do whatever is necessary to assure it won't happen again.  If that bothers the delicate sensibilities of some Canadians - tough shit. *



Hind sight is 20:20. Appeasment didn't work. How was he to know? England, and definitley France were in no way ready for war. The people would not allow it. Standing up to Hitler, would have been a good thing. Invading a country that had nothing to do with attacking you, not such a good thing. That is were Canada, in general, disagrees with th US.

The biggest factor to the contributing rise in anti-americanism, (in my opinion, and on me personally,) is the fact we are told to do something we don't want to, and is not beneifical to us. Then when we refuse we're scolded like a child. In this case, the parent has alot to learn.


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *Hind sight is 20:20. Appeasment didn't work. How was he to know? England, and definitley France were in no way ready for war. The people would not allow it. Standing up to Hitler, would have been a good thing. Invading a country that had nothing to do with attacking you, not such a good thing. That is were Canada, in general, disagrees with th US.
> 
> The biggest factor to the contributing rise in anti-americanism, (in my opinion, and on me personally,) is the fact we are told to do something we don't want to, and is not beneifical to us. Then when we refuse we're scolded like a child. In this case, the parent has alot to learn. *



The problem is in your line of thinking.  You feel that Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with North America when it clearly had ties to many terrorist organizations including Al Queda.  The same orgs that have cells in the US and Canada.  The same Cells that use Canada's lax immigration laws to sneak into the US and cause damage.  

The child thinks they know best when the parent makes a decision that contradicts them.  Quite often the Parent is right.


----------



## Merlin1047

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *Hind sight is 20:20. Appeasment didn't work. How was he to know? England, and definitley France were in no way ready for war. The people would not allow it. Standing up to Hitler, would have been a good thing. Invading a country that had nothing to do with attacking you, not such a good thing. That is were Canada, in general, disagrees with th US.
> 
> The biggest factor to the contributing rise in anti-americanism, (in my opinion, and on me personally,) is the fact we are told to do something we don't want to, and is not beneifical to us. Then when we refuse we're scolded like a child. In this case, the parent has alot to learn. *



Apparently hindsight is less than 20-20 in your case specifically and in the case of many Canadians as well as liberal idiots here in the US.  If hindsight was as good as you claim, then why is it that SO MANY OF YOU LIBERALS ARE TOTALLY UNABLE TO LEARN ANYTHING FROM IT?????????

Regarding your claim that "we are told to do something we don't want to", I can't recall our government attempting to "tell" your's to do anything.

As far as your claim that we were "Invading a country that had nothing to do with attacking you" you are guilty once again of burying your head in the sand.  Saddam attacked Kuwait.  We kicked him out.  I didn't hear you whining about that.  He repeatedly violated the cease-fire agreement for TWELVE YEARS.  That was more than sufficient justification to kick his ass.  And while he may not have been directly responsible for the Sep 11 attacks, he certainly was a major sponsor of terrorism.  If taking out Saddam serves no purpose other than as an object lesson for other muslim dictators, then it was worth it.

Here's a thought on terrorism for all you libs, Canadian or otherwise - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.  If you can't get up the guts to help fight the problem, at least do us the courtesy of getting the hell out of the way.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Merlin1047 _
> I have to take issue with you on these statements.
> 
> First, seems to me that the "socially minded nation of pacifists and peacekeepers" needs to take a refresher lesson in history.  It won't take long.  You need look no further than Neville Chamberlain to see the fruits of such policies.


While your example of Neville Chamberlain is indeed valid, pre-emptive striking as a doctrine has not always gone well by any means.  What about the French who pre-emptively struck the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian war to be routed and sent back to Paris?  The Japanese pre-emptively stuck the USA countering US deterrance policy in Asia in 1940.  The result was two devastating nuclear weapons.  Could you imagine if either the USA or USSR had struck eachother to counter eachother strategic positions?  The result is unthinkable.  Pre-emption is not an end all and be all strategy.  Did it work in Iraq?  The future will tell us, but until then, the jury is still out.



> Second, had Canada been attacked by muslim idiots, Americans would most likely be helping you find and eliminate those responsible instead of engaging in whiney nit-picking about the methods used.  Further, we would respect your right to do what is necessary to defend your country.


Canada has not been attacked by Muslims.  Our ally, being you, has.  There was a clear and present link with Afghanistan and we were there right beside you from day one and we still are.  For some reason, the point alway seems lost.



> Finally, may I point out that it was, in fact, the USA who was attacked.  That gives us the right to do whatever is necessary to assure it won't happen again.  If that bothers the delicate sensibilities of some Canadians - tough shit. [/B]



Agreed, the USA was attacked, but that does not mean the USA now determines the foreign policies of its allies.  That there is the real bone of contention.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by insein _
> *The problem is in your line of thinking.  You feel that Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with North America when it clearly had ties to many terrorist organizations including Al Queda.  The same orgs that have cells in the US and Canada.  The same Cells that use Canada's lax immigration laws to sneak into the US and cause damage.
> 
> The child thinks they know best when the parent makes a decision that contradicts them.  Quite often the Parent is right. *



But the parent isn't always right.

I'll reiterate again, that Canadians have no doubt on Afghanistan by any stretch.  In fact, most of the world agrees with the USA 100% there that Afghanistan supported terrorists.  The evidence was clear and we were with you guys like a dirty shirt.  

Iraq, however, is not so clear by any means.  Because of that lack of clarity, the casius belli given by the US to invade Iraq was not convincing enough to garner the same international support.  In addition, while Afghanistan war was widely recognized as necessary in most of the Muslim world, the lack of clear evidence is would seem to be driving more popular support to the very terrorists that the US want to weed out.


----------



## Merlin1047

disregard.

anti-virus program giving me a fit.

not going to re-type the whole thing


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Merlin1047 _
> 
> Here's a thought on terrorism for all you libs, Canadian or otherwise - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.  If you can't get up the guts to help fight the problem, at least do us the courtesy of getting the hell out of the way. [/B]



But I think you're missing our point and I do say this with upmost respect.  Canadians do not feel that the new solution brought forth by the US administration is helping the problem.  In fact, I don't think that it would be unreasonable to say that in the short term, the US actions have increased support of terrorism in the middle east.  In the long term, the US may very well be correct, but I have my doubts, along with other Canadians.  

If we are proven to be incorrect, then our turn will change accordingly and history will vindicate you and chastize us.  If not, well, the reverse will be true.

We know terrorism is a threat, make no mistake about it.  However, to quote a popular Canadian saying:
"You don't put out a fire by throwing gas on the flames."


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *But the parent isn't always right.
> 
> I'll reiterate again, that Canadians have no doubt on Afghanistan by any stretch.  In fact, most of the world agrees with the USA 100% there that Afghanistan supported terrorists.  The evidence was clear and we were with you guys like a dirty shirt.
> 
> Iraq, however, is not so clear by any means.  Because of that lack of clarity, the casius belli given by the US to invade Iraq was not convincing enough to garner the same international support.  In addition, while Afghanistan war was widely recognized as necessary in most of the Muslim world, the lack of clear evidence is would seem to be driving more popular support to the very terrorists that the US want to weed out. *



Iraq is clear and if it wasn't for this being an election year would have been even more clear from the start.  Iraq has been in lead with terrorist organizations for decades.  Al Queda being one of them.  There is plenty of evidence out there to support this.  Saddam had WMD's.  Every country prior to 2002 had said so plain and simple.  Due to the tenuous nature of an election, one party has made every effort to mislead the American People into believing Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WOT.  

I don't blame you for being fooled Issac.  I Blame the liberal Media for misleading the public as to the real threat that Iraq truly was all for the sake of removing George Bush from office.


----------



## dilloduck

Ok--we are used to the criticism---What do Candians think the answer to terrorism IS ?  ( Don't wanna hear what will not work)


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *But I think you're missing our point and I do say this with upmost respect.  Canadians do not feel that the new solution brought forth by the US administration is helping the problem.  In fact, I don't think that it would be unreasonable to say that in the short term, the US actions have increased support of terrorism in the middle east.  In the long term, the US may very well be correct, but I have my doubts, along with other Canadians.
> 
> If we are proven to be incorrect, then our turn will change accordingly and history will vindicate you and chastize us.  If not, well, the reverse will be true.
> 
> We know terrorism is a threat, make no mistake about it.  However, to quote a popular Canadian saying:
> "You don't put out a fire by throwing gas on the flames." *



I would think that this is more like throwing water onto a fire.  At first it shoots back violently and creates steam that appears to be dangerous.  After a few minutes though, the steam disapates and the fire is out.  I feel that this is how the WOT is going.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by insein _
> *Iraq is clear and if it wasn't for this being an election year would have been even more clear from the start.  Iraq has been in lead with terrorist organizations for decades.  Al Queda being one of them.  There is plenty of evidence out there to support this.  Saddam had WMD's.  Every country prior to 2002 had said so plain and simple.  Due to the tenuous nature of an election, one party has made every effort to mislead the American People into believing Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WOT.
> 
> I don't blame you for being fooled Issac.  I Blame the liberal Media for misleading the public as to the real threat that Iraq truly was all for the sake of removing George Bush from office. *



Perhaps I am being fooled.  However, remember the 9/11 commission was then also fooled.  The weapons inspectors were also fooled and a great many other people were too.  There has also not been any real smoking guy to speak of.

Logically I have to assume that either we in the West are being manipulated quite cleverly by Saddam or some conspiratist liberal, or that there is indeed real confusion surrounding the mattter.  

Perhaps it is this confusion that is of the greatest concern to Canadians.  

Though culturally quite similar, the US and Canada have very striking differences in certain views.  One of which is war.  The difference is best shown on how we celebrate our holiday to respect soldiers who faught in war.  Perhaps this is the best way to give you in better insight into Canadian ideology.

In the US, I believe you have Memorial Day and Veterens day which is a time of thanks and celebration of the contribution your soldiers present, past, living and deceased.  The days, from what I've seen on TV has parades, bands and children waving American flags in celebration of their accomplisments and sacrifices.  Though there are no doubt solemn times, the general tone seems to be upbeat.

In Canada, we have Remembrance Day, while takes on a similar tone to a mass funeral.  The day is solemn, rarely cheerful and marked by a reflection not so much on the accomplishment, but the price paid.  The two mottos that are repeated on this day is "Lest We Forget" and "Never Again".  These monicers were brought forth after there absolutely devasting cost to Canada after World War I in name of King and country and have ingrained themselves in much of the collective Canadian psyche.

So where am I going with this?  It all boils down to perspective.  An American, assumingly conservative for sake of argument, looking into Canada may see a nation that can't seem to reconcile the "What If's?" and perhaps of appeasment and cowardice.

However, in Canada you must understand the reluctance to go to war is great.  For if we go to war, we must say, irrecovably, that the price for our soldiers may have to pay with their lives is worth it.  There just must be some certainty.  Certainty that simply was not brought forth.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Ok--we are used to the criticism---What do Candians think the answer to terrorism IS ?  ( Don't wanna hear what will not work) *



A fair question.

Frankly, I think most Canadians thought you were doing an excellent job right up until Iraq.  The attacks on your country garned worldwide disgust at terrorism and terrorist states.  The Afghanistan war brought together many, often opposing, nations together in the WOT.  

To put it bluntly, the US was wining the war on public relations both in the leaders and people of the world.  Even in many Arab countries the disgust was present in the same degree.

I can't speak for all Canadians, and there is no doubt that how to solve terrorism is widely disagreed upon even in Canada, certainly now.  However, if I was calling the shots, I would have pressured the government of moderate and friendly (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, etc) with financial and perhaps politcal incentives to root terrorist cells from their host nations.  This aid would be a multi-national collaboration.

By increasing aid significantly, you're dangling the carrot for those countries to reform.  Add in clauses about democracy and I believe you have a strong market force driven way to improve security.

In addition, swing the Sword of Damocles over the terrorists by offering them free assistance for coalition troops and intelligence to root out radicals.  

Could be perhaps idealistic, but the US's greatest strength is not its military, but in its economic clout.  Having the world still on the US side, many other developped countries would presumably join the cause.  Think how much money was spent on the War in Iraq.  Offering just a piece of that to those countries harbouring terrorism, and I'd imagine reform the way the US wants would happen mighty quickly.  Money talks.


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *A fair question.
> 
> Frankly, I think most Canadians thought you were doing an excellent job right up until Iraq.  The attacks on your country garned worldwide disgust at terrorism and terrorist states.  The Afghanistan war brought together many, often opposing, nations together in the WOT.
> 
> To put it bluntly, the US was wining the war on public relations both in the leaders and people of the world.  Even in many Arab countries the disgust was present in the same degree.
> 
> I can't speak for all Canadians, and there is no doubt that how to solve terrorism is widely disagreed upon even in Canada, certainly now.  However, if I was calling the shots, I would have pressured the government of moderate and friendly (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, etc) with financial and perhaps politcal incentives to root terrorist cells from their host nations.  This aid would be a multi-national collaboration.
> 
> By increasing aid significantly, you're dangling the carrot for those countries to reform.  Add in clauses about democracy and I believe you have a strong market force driven way to improve security.
> 
> In addition, swing the Sword of Damocles over the terrorists by offering them free assistance for coalition troops and intelligence to root out radicals.
> 
> Could be perhaps idealistic, but the US's greatest strength is not its military, but in its economic clout.  Having the world still on the US side, many other developped countries would presumably join the cause.  Think how much money was spent on the War in Iraq.  Offering just a piece of that to those countries harbouring terrorism, and I'd imagine reform the way the US wants would happen mighty quickly.  Money talks. *



We have done alot of what you have just said.  It goes unnoticed because of the aformentioned Liberal Media Bias multiplied in an election year.  The US has contacted these nations and have spoken to them directly on the incentives of helping the US root out the terrorists.  Not everyone has listened.  But some have.  

Libya has acknowledged to the world that they have a Nuclear program and will begin disarming it for fear of US sanctions.  Pakistan has somewhat caved into the threat of sanctions as well.  Saudi Arabian government has always been helpful even if the people have not.  Jordan has helped thwart a major terrorist plot to kill 80,000 of their countrymen.  They've also pledged to send troops to Iraq within the next year.  

These are the things that don't make it to the publics eyes and ears.  The media is a dangerous thing when it decides to slant the view of the world towards one side of the spectrum.


----------



## MrMarbles

> There is plenty of evidence out there to support this. Saddam had WMD's. Every country prior to 2002 had said so plain and simple.



Prior, to 9/11, your own gov't said that Iraq was not a threat, and did not have WMD's.



> Ok--we are used to the criticism---What do Candians think the answer to terrorism IS ? ( Don't wanna hear what will not work)



Tough. Try not to create an atmosphere that will spread animosity towards you, e.g. agrressive foreign policy all about the money. Just remember, viloence begets violence.



> Apparently hindsight is less than 20-20 in your case specifically and in the case of many Canadians as well as liberal idiots here in the US. If hindsight was as good as you claim, then why is it that SO MANY OF YOU LIBERALS ARE TOTALLY UNABLE TO LEARN ANYTHING FROM IT?????????



What haven't we learnt. I've studied history, alot, to much maybe. And the actions in Iraq, do not resemble WW2 Germany. Germany started a world war in the name of self-preservation. Iraq was contained and under control.


----------



## Merlin1047

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *I don't think that it would be unreasonable to say that in the short term, the US actions have increased support of terrorism in the middle east.  In the long term, the US may very well be correct, but I have my doubts, along with other Canadians.
> 
> If we are proven to be incorrect, then our turn will change accordingly and history will vindicate you and chastize us.  If not, well, the reverse will be true.*



Well it's fine for Canadians to wait and see who history will vindicate as long as it is Americans who are getting blown up while we're waiting around to see who is right.


----------



## Annie

> _Originally posted by Merlin1047 _
> *Well it's fine for Canadians to wait and see who history will vindicate as long as it is Americans who are getting blown up while we're waiting around to see who is right. *



No shi*! That's sounds very honest though, same thing France is doing. Gnaw at the heels of those carrying the water, while the grasshoppers play!


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Merlin1047 _
> *Well it's fine for Canadians to wait and see who history will vindicate as long as it is Americans who are getting blown up while we're waiting around to see who is right. *



With all due respect, I think you need to re-read what I wrote.   This isn't some, "Hey let's screw over the USA.".  This is "Hey I think what the USA is doing is only going to make things worse for them and us, we want no part.".  

This isn't indifference as you wrongly suggest and frankly, your suggestion that Canada is doing this to put the US in a worse-off position is very offensive and a gross misrepresentation of the facts.


----------



## dilloduck

The "aggressive" foreign policy to which you refer is simply America defending democracy when all diplomtic resources have failed. As has been already pointed out ad nauseum, America DID attempt diplomacy around the world .  Don't try to tell me different unless you can prove it. stop telling these lies. Right or not, America COULD have nuked Aghanistan AND Iraq and ANY OTHER country that suggested that America was an evil enemy. Lesson here is DON'T FUCK WITH OUR COUNTRY. We are not the wimps that some administrations have led you to believe. Sit there and watch if you like . Lucky for you we are fighting enemies that hate your way of life too.


----------



## Annie

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *With all due respect, I think you need to re-read what I wrote.   This isn't some, "Hey let's screw over the USA.".  This is "Hey I think what the USA is doing is only going to make things worse for them and us, we want no part.".
> 
> This isn't indifference as you wrongly suggest and frankly, your suggestion that Canada is doing this to put the US in a worse-off position is very offensive and a gross misrepresentation of the facts. *



A twist on an old saying: 

Those that can, do. Those that can't, criticize. 
IMHO.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Kathianne _
> *A twist on an old saying:
> 
> Those that can, do. Those that can't, criticize.
> IMHO. *



I'm sure that will be of great comfort to those Canadian soldiers and aid workers in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan.


----------



## Annie

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *I'm sure that will be of great comfort to those Canadian soldiers and aid workers in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. *



We were talking about Iraq. Geez. You're the one bashing what we're doing. You claim it's 'concern'  personally with the crack of, 'If we're wrong...' 

If you feel that way, just do so, don't keep posting same thing, getting it back, and then taking offense.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Kathianne _
> *We were talking about Iraq. Geez. You're the one bashing what we're doing. You claim it's 'concern'  personally with the crack of, 'If we're wrong...'
> 
> If you feel that way, just do so, don't keep posting same thing, getting it back, and then taking offense. *



I'm positing Kathianne, in regards to the original topic and indeed it is all linked.  I'm not taking offense to posters, my ego is hardly bruised.  I'm not bashing what you're doing anymore than you bashing what we're not doing.  I am trying to help you understand the prevailing Canadian position.  If people do not wish to listen, then I question the point of having a forum of debate on Canada. 

To sum up:

Iraq and Afghanistan are apart of the War or Terror for the United States.  Canada joined to War in Afghanistan as well as increasing security ties with the United States.  Canada did not enter the War or Iraq because of a lack of a presented evidence and concerns over future threats as a result of the war.

When Canada refused to enter and opposed the War or Iraq the US administration indirectly implied we were reneging our position of the War or Terror.  This sentiment has passed to a great deal of the US populus supporting the administration and the media.  As such, there is this feeling of "You're either with us or against us." and Canada popularly is seen more and more on the later.

In this case, neither is true.  It is that black or white notion that is seen as, if not arrogant, than certainly regressive to the previous actions already taken on the War on Terror.  This percieved slight has caused an increase in anti-americanism in Canada and with other traditional allies.

Hopefully, in time the rift will heal as it always does.


----------



## Annie

Issac, I will admit to being annoyed and for that reason lashing out, I apologize. :hail:  Now, I hear what you're saying, but I disagree with what the administration and Canada, through the elected leader at that time did. The administration's problems had little to do with your stance in Iraq, moreso the Cretin factor, I know the spelling.  

The reason the citizenry here, to some degree, have a problem with Canada-which is NOWHERE near the problem with France-has to do with security issues and a fake superiority on the part of some Canadian articles in papers, more than Canadians as a group.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Kathianne _
> *Issac, I will admit to being annoyed and for that reason lashing out, I apologize. :hail:  Now, I hear what you're saying, but I disagree with what the administration and Canada, through the elected leader at that time did. The administration's problems had little to do with your stance in Iraq, moreso the Cretin factor, I know the spelling.
> 
> The reason the citizenry here, to some degree, have a problem with Canada-which is NOWHERE near the problem with France-has to do with security issues and a fake superiority on the part of some Canadian articles in papers, more than Canadians as a group. *



Apology accepted, thank you. 

While there certainly was opposition from Chretien, the popular support for his decision was also very high.  The way he delt with it was admittedly questionable, but I suppose then again it did go both ways.

I have to say though if the greatest problems the US has with Canada is security (which we can work on) and fake superiority, than I think we're not in such a bad shape over the long term afterall.


----------



## Annie

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *Apology accepted, thank you.
> 
> While there certainly was opposition from Chretien, the popular support for his decision was also very high.  The way he delt with it was admittedly questionable, but I suppose then again it did go both ways.
> 
> I have to say though if the greatest problems the US has with Canada is security (which we can work on) and fake superiority, than I think we're not in such a bad shape over the long term afterall.  *



Agreed.  , but you're still wrong!  :rotflmao: :rotflmao:


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *Prior, to 9/11, your own gov't said that Iraq was not a threat, and did not have WMD's.*



Since there is plenty of evidence to prove you wrong already on this board, how about you supply evidence that supports your claim instead of spouting off lies.




> *Tough. Try not to create an atmosphere that will spread animosity towards you, e.g. agrressive foreign policy all about the money. Just remember, viloence begets violence.*



How is negotiating through the UN for Iraq to disarm for 13 years agressive?  I call that Ludicrously patient.  And again with the money claims.  Who has profitted directly from our liberating Iraq?  The Iraqi People have.  They have gained freedom and their country back.  We have gained safety in that a despotic dictator has been removed from a position where he can spread weapons to terrorists that are then used against us.  I don't think you can place a value on that.  So if you don't have proof of money being exchanged, again don't spread lies.




> *What haven't we learnt. I've studied history, alot, to much maybe. And the actions in Iraq, do not resemble WW2 Germany. Germany started a world war in the name of self-preservation. Iraq was contained and under control. *



Perhaps you didn't pay attention to the part where Hitler invaded smaller neighboring countries because he said it was German land.  Sounds a little similar to Saddam invading Kuwait because he said it was Iraqi land.  Saddam was removed from Kuwait and told to disarm in 1991.  He had provided no proof that he had disarmed after 13 years so we went ahead and removed him.  If you call allowing the UN to syphon money off of a murderous dictator with the cost being millions of Iraqi citizens dead "control" then i think you need to reread the definition of the word.


----------



## MrMarbles

> Perhaps you didn't pay attention to the part where Hitler invaded smaller neighboring countries because he said it was German land. Sounds a little similar to Saddam invading Kuwait because he said it was Iraqi land. Saddam was removed from Kuwait and told to disarm in 1991. He had provided no proof that he had disarmed after 13 years so we went ahead and removed him. If you call allowing the UN to syphon money off of a murderous dictator with the cost being millions of Iraqi citizens dead "control" then i think you need to reread the definition of the word.



Well, first Germany occupies the rhineland (Mar7. 1936), then Austria (Mar 12 1938). The first one was German land, right of them to do so, no, their land, yes. The second was a germanic country in alot of trouble. The came Czechoslovakia, the invasion was for the good of the German people, apparently. More for he industry, and arms factories, essentila to germany, a lot like the oil fields of iraq. Then cam Poland (Sep 1939), which was made in the guise of protection, alot like iraq. Theres your lesson for today.


----------



## dilloduck

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *Well, first Germany occupies the rhineland (Mar7. 1936), then Austria (Mar 12 1938). The first one was German land, right of them to do so, no, their land, yes. The second was a germanic country in alot of trouble. The came Czechoslovakia, the invasion was for the good of the German people, apparently. More for he industry, and arms factories, essentila to germany, a lot like the oil fields of iraq. Then cam Poland (Sep 1939), which was made in the guise of protection, alot like iraq. Theres your lesson for today. *



Where is your evidence that America did not attempt diplomatic methods to disarm Iraq ? You have none because there is none.
Now you try to compare America to Nazi Germany? What is it that you're so afraid of that you have to trash America with lies like this ? Have we threatened Canada ?  Are you worried we will attack Canada ? Canada is not being linked to the action taken by the United States. Whats' the problem ??


----------



## MrMarbles

> _Originally posted by dilloduck _
> *Where is your evidence that America did not attempt diplomatic methods to disarm Iraq ? You have none because there is none.
> Now you try to compare America to Nazi Germany? What is it that you're so afraid of that you have to trash America with lies like this ? Have we threatened Canada ?  Are you worried we will attack Canada ? Canada is not being linked to the action taken by the United States. Whats' the problem ?? *



Settle down.....

Just argueing history here. I did't say America was Nazi Germany. Libs were attack, and it read 





> Apparently hindsight is less than 20-20 in your case specifically and in the case of many Canadians as well as liberal idiots here in the US. If hindsight was as good as you claim, then why is it that SO MANY OF YOU LIBERALS ARE TOTALLY UNABLE TO LEARN ANYTHING FROM IT?????????



I'm afraid of an overzealous America, one that might not no where to draw the line.


----------



## dilloduck

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *Settle down.....
> 
> Just argueing history here. I did't say America was Nazi Germany. Libs were attack, and it read
> 
> I'm afraid of an overzealous America, one that might not no where to draw the line. *



thanks for the answer but I'm not sure which line you are talking about and not sure we are the only ones in control of it.


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> Well, first Germany occupies the rhineland (Mar7. 1936), then Austria (Mar 12 1938). The first one was German land, right of them to do so, no, their land, yes. The second was a germanic country in alot of trouble. The came Czechoslovakia, the invasion was for the good of the German people, apparently. More for he industry, and arms factories, essentila to germany, a lot like the oil fields of *KUWAIT*. Then cam Poland (Sep 1939), which was made in the guise of protection, alot like *iran*. Theres your lesson for today.



There had to change that for you to make it correct for what Saddam was doing.


----------



## MrMarbles

> _Originally posted by insein _
> *There had to change that for you to make it correct for what Saddam was doing. *



Your right, it does work with Saddam as well as with Bush.


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *Your right, it does work with Saddam as well as with Bush. *



Annnngggttt Wrong!!!  Try again dumbass.

Germany took the lands and claimed them as their own.  Iraq took Kuwait and claimed it as its Own.  The US invaded Iraq, removed a despotic leader who threatened us and our allies and then returned the nation to its people.  Iraq is now Iraq not the 51st state of the US.

For a history major you sure have a lack of knowledge on it.


----------



## MrMarbles

> _Originally posted by insein _
> *Annnngggttt Wrong!!!  Try again dumbass.
> 
> Germany took the lands and claimed them as their own.  Iraq took Kuwait and claimed it as its Own.  The US invaded Iraq, removed a despotic leader who threatened us and our allies and then returned the nation to its people.  Iraq is now Iraq not the 51st state of the US.
> 
> For a history major you sure have a lack of knowledge on it. *


    Iraq not the 51st state? They have the same amount of autonomy as Alaska. Soverign, my ass!


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *Iraq not the 51st state? They have the same amount of autonomy as Alaska. Soverign, my ass! *



Finally the truth comes out.  Ok Alaska IS A state of our Great Nation.  They are part of a whole.  As is Hawaii.

Have we received taxes from Iraqi citizens to the US government?  No.  So then i beleive that they are their own nation.  Those that don't feel Alawi is an independant leader had better do their homework.  He was picked to be a man of the people of Iraq.  He is by no means a puppet.  In either case, it will be the Iraqi citizens choice come January anyway.  A full 9 years ahaead of Germany and Japan's first elections i might add.  

Going along the premise that Iraq is a US territory is a foolhardy approach.  You will find no credible evidence out their to support your claim.


----------



## BlueGin

Not to change the subject but...

Canadian teens drive me bonkers. (well, I doubt they are all teens but still.)  Every single message board for American TV and American Soap Operas (shut up) that I visit are flooded with Canadian's who watch our shows,but do they just want to talk about the shows in question?  No.  Every last one of them has to break in with political garbage that trashes our government,country,way of life,people etc etc etc. It's totally annoying.  I want to reach through the computer and smack them upside the head and tell them,If you hate the USA so much stop watching our shows and visiting our Soap Opera/Sitcom message boards just to piss us off. And while your at it go mind your own elections and stop telling ME who to vote for in MY OWN country.

That is all..... 

*rant over* :


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by BlueGin _
> *Not to change the subject but...
> 
> Canadian teens drive me bonkers. (well, I doubt they are all teens but still.)  Every single message board for American TV and American Soap Operas (shut up) that I visit are flooded with Canadian's who watch our shows,but do they just want to talk about the shows in question?  No.  Every last one of them has to break in with political garbage that trashes our government,country,way of life,people etc etc etc. It's totally annoying.  I want to reach through the computer and smack them upside the head and tell them,If you hate the USA so much stop watching our shows and visiting our Soap Opera/Sitcom message boards just to piss us off. And while your at it go mind your own elections and stop telling ME who to vote for in MY OWN country.
> 
> That is all.....
> 
> *rant over* : *




That's really funny since Canadian television REALLY sucks (special exceptions made for Traders and Trailor Park Boys, oh, and Much Music).


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by BlueGin _
> *Not to change the subject but...
> 
> Canadian teens drive me bonkers. (well, I doubt they are all teens but still.)  Every single message board for American TV and American Soap Operas (shut up) that I visit are flooded with Canadian's who watch our shows,but do they just want to talk about the shows in question?  No.  Every last one of them has to break in with political garbage that trashes our government,country,way of life,people etc etc etc. It's totally annoying.  I want to reach through the computer and smack them upside the head and tell them,If you hate the USA so much stop watching our shows and visiting our Soap Opera/Sitcom message boards just to piss us off. And while your at it go mind your own elections and stop telling ME who to vote for in MY OWN country.
> 
> That is all.....
> 
> *rant over* : *



While ideally that seems like a reasonable solution, the truth is that American media ownership has entrenched itself in Canadian television, especially cable.  Why it may seem easy to simply switch to Canadian content, our airwaves are filled with shows placed there by American TV owners or as pressure by US advertizers who control many sectors of the Canadian retail economy.  

The reality is that the US owns the TV airwaves and we are bombarded with American media and culture.

Canada TV does, however, have some excellent shows that stand on their own:
This Hour has 22 Minutes, La Petite Vie, the cartoon Undergrads, Hockey Night in Canada, Trailer Park Boys, Red Green and probably some of the best kids shows around.


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *While ideally that seems like a reasonable solution, the truth is that American media ownership has entrenched itself in Canadian television, especially cable.  Why it may seem easy to simply switch to Canadian content, our airwaves are filled with shows placed there by American TV owners or as pressure by US advertizers who control many sectors of the Canadian retail economy.
> 
> The reality is that the US owns the TV airwaves and we are bombarded with American media and culture.
> 
> Canada TV does, however, have some excellent shows that stand on their own:
> This Hour has 22 Minutes, La Petite Vie, the cartoon Undergrads, Hockey Night in Canada, Trailer Park Boys, Red Green and probably some of the best kids shows around. *



You make a good point. CBC has seriously cut back funding for new programs and such, leaving Canadian stations with little to pick from. Would there be enough Canandian programs to fill 24 hours, 7 days a week? Station owners could always dust off reels of "The Beechcombers" or "Danger Bay" if the need arose.  

I can't believe I forgot "this hour has 22 minutes!!!" - I love the Quints (although, probably too anti-American for this crowd, especially Rick Mercer).  Air Farce has it's moments too. Thankfully, Mike Bullard has been axed


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by BlueGin _
> *Not to change the subject but...
> 
> Canadian teens drive me bonkers. (well, I doubt they are all teens but still.)  Every single message board for American TV and American Soap Operas (shut up) that I visit are flooded with Canadian's who watch our shows,but do they just want to talk about the shows in question?  No.  Every last one of them has to break in with political garbage that trashes our government,country,way of life,people etc etc etc. It's totally annoying.  I want to reach through the computer and smack them upside the head and tell them,If you hate the USA so much stop watching our shows and visiting our Soap Opera/Sitcom message boards just to piss us off. And while your at it go mind your own elections and stop telling ME who to vote for in MY OWN country.
> 
> That is all.....
> 
> *rant over* : *



Prolly should've started a new thread with this subject.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Said1 _
> Thankfully, Mike Bullard has been axed  [/B]



Living proof there is a God!  What were we thinking?


----------



## MrMarbles

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *Living proof there is a God!  What were we thinking?  *



Wrong topic but,

Canadian entertainments biggest problem is population. We don't have the people to watch are shows, yet we compare ourselves to the American media empire. We can't, they are two different entities. It's a shame, Canadian stuff tends to rule, if it isn't to weird to understand.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *Wrong topic but,
> 
> Canadian entertainments biggest problem is population. We don't have the people to watch are shows, yet we compare ourselves to the American media empire. We can't, they are two different entities. It's a shame, Canadian stuff tends to rule, if it isn't to weird to understand. *



That is true.  Beyond the some somewhat dubious CBC circa-1910 east coast dramas, Canada puts out good stuff, but you're right there is no budget.  If we had the budgets of the NBC, CBS, FOX etc, perhaps we'd be singing a different tune.


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *That is true.  Beyond the some somewhat dubious CBC circa-1910 east coast dramas, Canada puts out good stuff, but you're right there is no budget.  If we had the budgets of the NBC, CBS, FOX etc, perhaps we'd be singing a different tune. *



Curious.  Who pays for the Network stations? An individual, a corporation or the government?


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by insein _
> *Curious.  Who pays for the Network stations? An individual, a corporation or the government? *



In Canada,
All of the above.


----------



## Zhukov

> _Originally posted by Said1 _
> special exceptions made for .... oh, and Much Music). [/B]



Eh, not since Rachel went to VH1.


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *That is true.  Beyond the some somewhat dubious CBC circa-1910 east coast dramas, Canada puts out good stuff, but you're right there is no budget.  If we had the budgets of the NBC, CBS, FOX etc, perhaps we'd be singing a different tune. *



Ok, Ok, I used to love Degrassi Junior High when I was in high school. I'm pretty sure I enjoyed Ann of Green Gables (the made for tv movies) too.  I have to agree, with the budget problem. There is the possiblilty of changing this  since producers may have to rely more on private industry to finance (at least in part) some productions. More money may provide for better productions.


----------



## Zhukov

_Lexx_ is Canadian right?  I liked that show.  It was very weird.


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by Zhukov _
> *Lexx is Canadian right?  I liked that show.  It was very weird. *



It is, although I've never seen it.


----------



## BlueGin

> _Originally posted by Said1 _
> *Prolly should've started a new thread with this subject.    *



Sorry about that 

I did see the Anne of Green Gables mini series.  It was really good.  And I'm not sure, but was Highlander a Canadian production? LOVED that show.


----------



## MrMarbles

It' s a endless circle. You don't get a budget unless people watch, people don't watch unless you have a budget. It is reliant on population, we don't have the pop to have media like the states, we should try and find our niche, and stick with it.


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *It' s a endless circle. You don't get a budget unless people watch, people don't watch unless you have a budget. It is reliant on population, we don't have the pop to have media like the states, we should try and find our niche, and stick with it. *



I don't really see how that's relevant in the long run. Soliciting private industry for extra money would IMPROVE the quality of productions, attracting more people. If it's simply a niche CBC should be in pursuit of (I don't disagree with you on that BTW), extra funding would only aid in finding and investing in the right productions right?


----------



## Said1

> _Originally posted by BlueGin _
> *Sorry about that
> 
> I did see the Anne of Green Gables mini series.  It was really good.  And I'm not sure, but was Highlander a Canadian production? LOVED that show. *



No problem, many posts take interesting twists and turns.  As for Highlander - sounds familiar, haven't seen it.

Ann of Greengables was turned into a weekly program. I think that might be the East Coast program Isaac Brock mentioned. I can't say I watched that one either.


----------



## MrMarbles

> _Originally posted by Said1 _
> *I don't really see how that's relevant in the long run. Soliciting private industry for extra money would IMPROVE the quality of productions, attracting more people. If it's simply a niche CBC should be in pursuit of (I don't disagree with you on that BTW), extra funding would only aid in finding and investing in the right productions right? *



It would. Shows and networks make money through advetising primarily. Advertisers are not going to pay big bucks for small ratings. Shows in the states can get audiences the size of Canada. Advertisers will not pay for a share of a possible 35 mil viewer pie. Not when shows from the States who get money dependant on a 300 mil viewer pie.


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *It would. Shows and networks make money through advetising primarily. Advertisers are not going to pay big bucks for small ratings. Shows in the states can get audiences the size of Canada. Advertisers will not pay for a share of a possible 35 mil viewer pie. Not when shows from the States who get money dependant on a 300 mil viewer pie. *



Wheres the funding come from?  Who pays for it?


----------



## MrMarbles

> _Originally posted by insein _
> *Wheres the funding come from?  Who pays for it? *



Gov't and companys


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Said1 _
> *I don't really see how that's relevant in the long run. Soliciting private industry for extra money would IMPROVE the quality of productions, attracting more people. If it's simply a niche CBC should be in pursuit of (I don't disagree with you on that BTW), extra funding would only aid in finding and investing in the right productions right? *



I think I agree with Marbles it's cyclical.  Consider this if you will:

Few people watch existing Canadian content.  Why?  Because despite the aforementionned exceptions and perhaps a few others, Canadian shows are underfunded.  Now the level of funding require to raise the technical and in many cases brute force writing and directing quality of Canadian shows to US standards would be X amount of money.  

Now consider the profits for government (CBC and many filming agencies are Crown corporations) and private broadcasters.  Based on their investment of X money and given that Canadian television is supposed to appeal more to a Canadian audience you have approx. 1/10th the viewers and hence 1/10th the profit Y.  

Now shows of course can be exported, but then we have to look at why we want to have our shows in the first place is to appeal to our culture.  Canadian shows copy-catting US style media would not be effective in Canadian program, but rather an export product.  Of course there will always be exceptions, but I think that holds true enough.

So then what's easier for a private broadcaster?  Licensing a US made program for a fraction of X making a profit Y or making our own Canadian content that will cost X and make profit Y (assumingly)?  Therein lies the problem and the reason that we can never axe the CBC.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by Said1 _
> *No problem, many posts take interesting twists and turns.  As for Highlander - sounds familiar, haven't seen it.
> 
> Ann of Greengables was turned into a weekly program. I think that might be the East Coast program Isaac Brock mentioned. I can't say I watched that one either.  *



Road to Avonlea  

That was exactly the sleeper circa 1900 to 1920's show I was talking about.  However, it was beloved culturally by older Canadians.  Enough that they have many seasons.

P.S. Highlander was partly-Canadian.  It was US-run, but often shot in Canada (Vancouver) with Canadian actors and actresses


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *Gov't and companys *



Does the government fund any Networks in America?  NO.  At least not through government spending.  Privately senators or reps might pledge contributions.  

Perhaps its because of the fact that its a business run by companies looking to improve the quality of their product in order to differentiate themselves from the competition that allows American TV to reach the audience that it does.  Better quality product leads to better viewing audiences.  More people watching means more ad revenue.  More Ad revenue means better quality programs.  Capitalism in motion.


----------



## Isaac Brock

> _Originally posted by insein _
> *Does the government fund any Networks in America?  NO.  At least not through government spending.  Privately senators or reps might pledge contributions.
> 
> Perhaps its because of the fact that its a business run by companies looking to improve the quality of their product in order to differentiate themselves from the competition that allows American TV to reach the audience that it does.  Better quality product leads to better viewing audiences.  More people watching means more ad revenue.  More Ad revenue means better quality programs.  Capitalism in motion. *



But going back to the original premise, I believe you're missing the thesis I believe both of us are supporting.

A person asked, why do we complain about US TV and it's because we cannot support the TV that we want.  As you described, the economics cannot give us the same amount of TV that the US produces.  Hences, we have the bombardment effect I described.   Capitalism, barring a cultural miracle (ie US sudden interest in Canadian culture making homegrown TV acceptible at home and abroad), cannot overcome the US influence in a global media context.

Canadians do have a greater apathy for TV than our US counterparts and I believe that is a part of this.  The average Canadian watches 21.4 hours of TV a week.  The average American watches 28 hours of TV a week.  Though I cannot say this is a direct result, I certainly believe the idea does have merit.

Media is a part of our culture and I believe for a country with such strong US influences, it is important that we do have an outlet for our culture in a wave of Americanism.  I'll support anyday our national-public network because it does give us those Canadian shows that we would not normally see.  Of the 6 CDN shows I showed as liking, 4 were funded by the CBC.  And for that, I am thankful.

P.S.  How could I forget Kids in the Hall!  Very Canadian.  Very Good.  Also from the CBC.

Source:
http://www.csun.edu/~vceed002/health/docs/tv&health.html
http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli...s/statistics/television/tv_viewing_habits.cfm


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *But going back to the original premise, I believe you're missing the thesis I believe both of us are supporting.
> 
> A person asked, why do we complain about US TV and it's because we cannot support the TV that we want.  As you described, the economics cannot give us the same amount of TV that the US produces.  Hences, we have the bombardment effect I described.   Capitalism, barring a cultural miracle (ie US sudden interest in Canadian culture making homegrown TV acceptible at home and abroad), cannot overcome the US influence in a global media context.
> 
> Canadians do have a greater apathy for TV than our US counterparts and I believe that is a part of this.  The average Canadian watches 21.4 hours of TV a week.  The average American watches 28 hours of TV a week.  Though I cannot say this is a direct result, I certainly believe the idea does have merit.
> 
> Media is a part of our culture and I believe for a country with such strong US influences, it is important that we do have an outlet for our culture in a wave of Americanism.  I'll support anyday our national-public network because it does give us those Canadian shows that we would not normally see.  Of the 6 CDN shows I showed as liking, 4 were funded by the CBC.  And for that, I am thankful.
> 
> P.S.  How could I forget Kids in the Hall!  Very Canadian.  Very Good.  Also from the CBC.
> 
> Source:
> http://www.csun.edu/~vceed002/health/docs/tv&health.html
> http://www.media-awareness.ca/engli...s/statistics/television/tv_viewing_habits.cfm *



KITH was hillarious.  Wasn't Red Dwarf a canadian show?


----------



## MrMarbles

> _Originally posted by insein _
> *KITH was hillarious.  Wasn't Red Dwarf a canadian show? *



Red Dwarf was English, i believe. 

It dosen't matter who pays for the TV made in Canada, we do not have the population to support larg big budget shows like the states. We are capitalist, private sector does pay for advertising, but again, why pay more for less.


----------



## insein

> _Originally posted by MrMarbles _
> *Red Dwarf was English, i believe.
> 
> It dosen't matter who pays for the TV made in Canada, we do not have the population to support larg big budget shows like the states. We are capitalist, private sector does pay for advertising, but again, why pay more for less. *



True.


----------

