Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Stupid Cdn Politicians
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:22 pm Post subject:

Wrench wrote:

Code:

How are you going to defeat the U.S. and British submarine forces, then? No large naval forces? Do you think the captains of these warships are just going to let Dudley Do-Right and Snidley Whiplash take their ships with lassos

Where does it say large naval forces??????????? I never said that. It looks like your making things up again...

If Canada has no large naval bases, it cannot sustain large naval forces.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:32 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The U.S. was forced to promise to never invade a hostile communist country that was right in the American backyard. This doesn't seem like a win for the U.S.

This is just revisionism gone bad.

At the time, everyone viewed the Cuban Missile Crisis as a major defeat for the Soviets. Even they saw it that way and the result was the Politburo quickly ousted Khrushev because of it. It appears your leftist profs have revised history to protect their idol, the SU.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:41 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

supernick wrote:

]Canada tries to have a good relationship with the U.S. and other countries, and we would expect the same from the U.S., but as relationships involve trust, and that trust was clearly broken by the U.S. in NAFTA with the lumber dispute.

(1) Always Canada the virtuous, good-faith actor, and the U.S., the lying dealbreaker.

(2) Maybe Canada is trying to interpret NAFTA in ways that are favorable to Canada, and the U.S. is trying to interpret NAFTA in ways that are favorable to the U.S., and, not surprisingly, Canadians like you side with Canada without really investigating the U.S. side?
?

(numbers are mine)

1. The majority of WTO( excluding the latest) and NAFTA decisions have ruled in Canada's favor. The U.S has stated that it will not abide by the NAFTA decisions.

2. Are you OK? Neither country gets to decide HOW to interpret NAFTA. A NAFTA commission does. And by and large they have sided with Canada, while the U.S. refuses to comply.

While I do not agree with the majority of Mr. supernick's posts, he has a fair point here. You on the other, although I agree with the majority of YOUR posts, do not seem to have a adequate grasp of the facts. Do some reading on the subject and then get back to us.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:48 pm Post subject:

And don't try to accuse me of being Anti-American. That, as several posters on this board can tell you is in no way correct. So start your reading. Here is a good place http://www.ictsd.org/biores/05-09-02/story4.htm Granted while the LATEST WTO ruling has found in the U.S's favour (AFTER they lowered their duties on Canadian lumber) , the majority of WTO and NAFTA ruling in the past ON THIS ISSUE, have been in Canada's. Sounds like the U.S. has been doing a little arm-twisting, huh?

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:28 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Sounds like the U.S. has been doing a little arm-twisting, huh?

Do you know this for certain?

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:38 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Are you OK? Neither country gets to decide HOW to interpret NAFTA. A NAFTA commission does. And by and large they have sided with Canada, while the U.S. refuses to comply.

You've got me here. I have not followed this issue as I should have.

I will disagree with you on the substance of part of your post: agreements are never done. They are always interpreted and reinterpreted by the parties involved as time goes by and circumstances change. Always. In business, in govt, and in international relations. And if one party is in disagreement with the interpretation, then that party pretty much has an arsenal of ways to resist: ignore the ruling, delay implementing it, claim not to understand how to implement it, ask for a clarification on any number of issues, appeal to higher authority, ask to retry to case, reject the ruling entirely saying, in effect, "So what?"

Ultimately, Mao was dead on: political power originates in the barrel of a gun. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in. Given the typical Canadian posture towards the U.S., I'm inclined to say "let them bitch and moan." That is, playing with fire sometimes has adverse affects.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:49 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Quote:

agreements are never done. They are always interpreted and reinterpreted by the parties involved as time goes by and circumstances change.

Gopher, ya ever thought about opening a hagwon? Wink

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:55 am Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Gopher, ya ever thought about opening a hagwon? Wink

That's an excellent point.

I was screwed over by the corrupt hogwon system in Korea, given a contract that, ultimately, meant nothing, and there was little I could do about it. So I left early. In my opinion our agreement was null and void (no health insurance, no severance pay was possible, etc.) Had I not done that, had I done little more than bitch and moan about it but stayed anyway, then your point might have been a very interesting point indeed.

As it is, my Korean experience only reinforced my belief in what I said above. Not to mention the others I saw, namely, the filipinas who were screwed over even worse in the hostess bars.

Contracts and agreements are great, then, but unless you have some muscle behind you, they are only as good as the relations between the parties and each party's willingness to respect and implement them...

I don't have to cite high-profile agreements that have gone bad in international relations, like, for example, the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. I can cite an example from everyday life, in any country, throughout history: for even an agreement as permanent as marriage has never really been permanent, has it? Even this promise before God, in the presence of a Church official, legalized in secular society, and legislated in the courts as far back as the Code of Hamurabi, even this, ultimately depends on the relations of the parties to the agreement on a day by day basis.

So some clauses in the NAFTA agreement are not going as Canada has planned. Instead of seeking to understand how the Canadian govt may have offended the U.S. over the last few years, Canadians are simply taking the wrong approach -- increasing hostility, within limits, of course, but hostility nonetheless -- boarding or sinking U.S. submarines! Rolling Eyes

Same thing happened in '52 and '53, when the Arbenz regime in Guatemala made all manner of stupid anti-American gestures, like signing the (North) Korean Solidarity Manifesto, or saluting Moscow by calling for a moment of silence in the legislature when Stalin died. I've seen dox where U.S. officials systematically adopted a policy they called "withholding favors" toward Guatemala. They did this to send an unofficial message, careful to deny it in public fora. But no one in the Arbenz regime was listening or interested in responding -- they unwisely remained focused on their own hyper-nationalism and missed several opportunities to repair relations, thus contributing to their own demise...

In any case, let's fall back on Dr. Phil: he says we need to not be thinking 50/50 in our relationships; we need to be thinking 100/100 if we want them to work. So, I'll ask the Canadians to stop focusing all of their attn on the U.S. for just one moment and ask themselves: is Canada giving 100% to keeping U.S.-Canadian relations smooth, courteous, and professional? (The U.S. is probably not, but how about Canada?) And if not, then does that not make Canada at least partly responsible for the current state of relations between our two governments?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:36 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

Are you OK? Neither country gets to decide HOW to interpret NAFTA. A NAFTA commission does. And by and large they have sided with Canada, while the U.S. refuses to comply.

You've got me here. I have not followed this issue as I should have.

I will disagree with you on the substance of part of your post: agreements are never done. They are always interpreted and reinterpreted by the parties involved as time goes by and circumstances change. Always. In business, in govt, and in international relations. And if one party is in disagreement with the interpretation, then that party pretty much has an arsenal of ways to resist: ignore the ruling, delay implementing it, claim not to understand how to implement it, ask for a clarification on any number of issues, appeal to higher authority, ask to retry to case, reject the ruling entirely saying, in effect, "So what?"

Ultimately, Mao was dead on: political power originates in the barrel of a gun. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in. Given the typical Canadian posture towards the U.S., I'm inclined to say "let them *beep* and moan." That is, playing with fire sometimes has adverse affects.

(I'm going to italicize part of your quotes as they make my case more than anything I could say)

And these italicized parts have been the U.S position towards Canada despite numberous rulings in Canada's favour over the years. And you wonder WHY Canada has a negative perception of the U.S? Maybe if the U.S. were to abide by the rules and the contracts they signed, Canada wouldn't be so angry. Unfortunately we are not as strong as the U.S. so all we can do is "beep and moan"

Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:46 am; edited 1 time in total

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:39 am Post subject:

If you have a large and powerful country that often ignores agreements made with a smaller and weaker country, don't be surprised when that country gets angry. The U.S has been making and breaking agreements with Canada long before this current groundswell of dislike in Canada.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:44 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

(I'm going to italicize part of your quotes as they make my case more than anything I could say)

And these italicized parts have been the U.S position towards Canada despite numberous ruling in Canada's favour over the years. And you wonder WHY Canada has a negative perception of the U.S? Maybe if the U.S. were to abide by the rules and the contracts they signed, Canada wouldn't be so angry. Unfortunately we are not as strong as the U.S. so all we can do is "beep and moan"

I know they make your case, that's why I mentioned these things.

Urban Myth, I apologize for citing Dr. Phil again, but my roommate's girlfriend makes me watch Oprah all the time now, she monopolizes the tv in the afternoons when I want to watch Wolf Blitzer.

Anyway, Dr. Phil says that he or she who started it, or he or she who has done worse to the other, or he or she who has to swallow his or her pride and take the first steps at repairing a damaged relationship isn't going to be important to anybody down the line, because everyone will be too busy being content and getting on with their lives.

This applies to personal and international relations, really. And I know that the U.S. is not giving 100%, and I know that the U.S. is not swallowing its pride and taking steps to deal with Canada's issues. But neither is Canada, and that is my point.

Both are at fault and both are making things worse. Maybe the U.S. is behaving less-than-professionally. But Canada is no better. So when is this bs going to end?

Last edited by Gopher on Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:50 am; edited 1 time in total

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:57 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

(I'm going to italicize part of your quotes as they make my case more than anything I could say)

And these italicized parts have been the U.S position towards Canada despite numberous ruling in Canada's favour over the years. And you wonder WHY Canada has a negative perception of the U.S? Maybe if the U.S. were to abide by the rules and the contracts they signed, Canada wouldn't be so angry. Unfortunately we are not as strong as the U.S. so all we can do is "beep and moan"

I know they make your case, that's why I mentioned these things.

Urban Myth, I apologize for citing Dr. Phil again, but my roommate's girlfriend makes me watch Oprah all the time now, she monopolizes the tv in the afternoons when I want to watch Wolf Blitzer.

Anyway, Dr. Phil says that he or she who started it, or he or she who has done worse to the other, or he or she who has to swallow his or her pride and take the first steps at repairing a damaged relationship isn't going to be important to anybody down the line, because everyone will be to busy being content and getting on with their lives.

This applies to personal and international relations, really. And I know that the U.S. is not giving 100%, and I know that the U.S. is not swallowing its pride and taking steps to deal with Canada's issues. But neither is Canada, and that is my point.

Both are at fault and both are making things worse. Maybe the U.S. is behaving less-than-professionally. But Canada is no better. So when is this bs going to end?

As long as the US refuses to honor the trade agreements Canada has every right to be angry. What should Canada do? Just smile, bend over and take it? We've been doing that for the last decade. That hasn't worked. And now our politicians are capitalizing on that discontent.

Ultimately if Canada does nothing, they will continue to be messed over. So now they are trying a new tactic.

I agree that neither country is behaving professionally. However were the U.S. to honour agreements relating to the lumber and other issues, you would be surprised at how fast the anti-American feelings in Canada would disappear. We are not so different. But from our prespective it seems that all we do is give, give, give. Heck, we even sent troops to help out in Afganistan. We choose to sit the Iraqi war out, but that is the choice of a sovereign nation. Unfortunately the U.S's stance now makes Canadians feel that the U.S is using trade as a punishment for not helping in the Iraqi war.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 12:17 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

As long as the US refuses to honor the trade agreements Canada has every right to be angry...Ultimately if Canada does nothing, they will continue to be messed over. So now they are trying a new tactic...were the U.S. to honour agreements relating to the lumber and other issues, you would be surprised at how fast the anti-American feelings in Canada would disappear. We are not so different...

Urban Myth, it goes much deeper than the lumber issues, and I think you know this, and I also think you've missed the point I was raising. Canada is increasingly becoming an anti-American state, and this is clear to all who are paying attn. Sometimes it almost seems that Canadians oppose the U.S. just for the sake of opposing the U.S.

I found a balanced article treating trends in U.S.-Canadian relations prepared by a non-profit think tank. (see the link)

Here's an excerpt that identifies what I believe is the most important issue that Canadians need to think about:

Quote:

Martin and Bush have presented something approaching a united front; in a press conference during the Crawford Summit in late March, Bush acknowledged the existence of �differences,� but denied that differing viewpoints precluded �cooperation� or �finding common ground.� The American Assembly at Columbia University begs to differ, asserting in its recent report that �Canada is losing its influence in Washington.� [emphasis is mine] Such a serious charge must stem from deeper �differences� than either side cares to officially acknowledge.

Future Repairs
The gravity of the numerous economic and political conflicts between the U.S. and its northern neighbor demands far more attention and goodwill, as well as more drastic conciliatory action by both countries than is currently being offered. A conflict that started over a minor irritant like the softwood lumber dispute can pick up momentum from a cattle ban and missile defense decision and become a trade war. It is fast evolving into a diplomatic imbroglio as well. If Washington does not make at least some symbolic concessions in its arrogant support of narrow trade interests, and Canada refuses to understand U.S. concerns like chronic flooding in North Dakota, this indispensable relationship will further deteriorate.

So while I think there is room for the U.S. to make its own conciliatory gestures to Canada and cede on some issues, I also point out that it is difficult to do so when Canadians are as hostile as they are to so many U.S. positions, and, even worse, when they very much seem to hold themselves to be morally superior to us in every way.

http://www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/New_Press_Releases_2005/05.88_Rocky_Road_U.S._Canadian_Relations_in_need_of_Repair.htm

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:13 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I would like to take issue with parts of your post.

First, it seems that you don't believe that disagreements can be legitimate. That two sides can look at the same rules and come up with interpretations favorable to themselves. Your comment 'refuses to honor' makes it sound as if you are saying that disagreement by the US means the US is breaking a promise, which is indeed a matter of honor. IOW you seem to be calling into question the character of someone who disagrees with you. Is that your intent?

Since the anti-Americanism that is so common on the ground in Canada far pre-dates the present administration, is it realistic to think that if this administration changed a few trade policy decisions that the pre-existing attitudes would disappear? That's naive, in my opinion.

The events of the last few years have brought about an awareness of the existence of an anti-American feeling in some elements of the Canadian population. It has produced an equal and opposite reaction, as these things tend to do. For years I've heard Canadians complain that Americans don't know anything about them and don't pay any attention to them. Those Canadians have finally had their wish granted. As someone said, (and it may have been you), you should be careful what you wish for. You may get it. I think I have every reason to believe that there is now a certain amount of anti-Canadian sentiment in some circles in the US. It will remain a permanent part of American political attitudes for those people.

I do agree with your point insofar as these trade agreements may be in part a punishment for Canada's refusal to support the misguided adventure in Iraq.

I don't think anyone here on the board, and certainly not me, have any inside knowledge of the thinking of this administration in determining which of the three possibilities (honest disagreement, anti-Canadianism or punishment, or any other) may be aspects of the current policies. It's my guess all are playing a role.

Lastly, I'd like to say something about the 'give, give, give' thing. This strikes me as an example of victim mentality, the same thing that gets the Koreans bashed so often on this forum. Any discussion about Korea/Japan and within 6.2 minutes you get the mantra about the 1592 invasion and Yi Soon Shins turtle ships defeating the Japanese. There is nothing the Japanese can do today that will let them escape from being blamed for everything bad that has ever happened to Korea. It's eerily the same with many Canadians when they talk about the US. There is a tendency among many Canadians to automatically interprete any US action in the worse possible manner. Gopher mentions the moral superiority of Canadians. To me, it is a manifestation of this sense of victimization.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:53 am Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy wrote:

Quote:

I would like to take issue with parts of your post.

(1) First, it seems that you don't believe that disagreements can be legitimate. That two sides can look at the same rules and come up with interpretations favorable to themselves. Your comment 'refuses to honor' makes it sound as if you are saying that disagreement by the US means the US is breaking a promise, which is indeed a matter of honor. IOW you seem to be calling into question the character of someone who disagrees with you. Is that your intent?

(2) Since the anti-Americanism that is so common on the ground in Canada far pre-dates the present administration, is it realistic to think that if this administration changed a few trade policy decisions that the pre-existing attitudes would disappear? That's naive, in my opinion.

(3) The events of the last few years have brought about an awareness of the existence of an anti-American feeling in some elements of the Canadian population. It has produced an equal and opposite reaction, as these things tend to do. For years I've heard Canadians complain that Americans don't know anything about them and don't pay any attention to them. Those Canadians have finally had their wish granted. As someone said, (and it may have been you), you should be careful what you wish for. You may get it. I think I have every reason to believe that there is now a certain amount of anti-Canadian sentiment in some circles in the US. It will remain a permanent part of American political attitudes for those people.

(4) I do agree with your point insofar as these trade agreements may be in part a punishment for Canada's refusal to support the misguided adventure in Iraq.

(5) I don't think anyone here on the board, and certainly not me, have any inside knowledge of the thinking of this administration in determining which of the three possibilities (honest disagreement, anti-Canadianism or punishment, or any other) may be aspects of the current policies. It's my guess all are playing a role.

(6) Lastly, I'd like to say something about the 'give, give, give' thing. This strikes me as an example of victim mentality, the same thing that gets the Koreans bashed so often on this forum. Any discussion about Korea/Japan and within 6.2 minutes you get the mantra about the 1592 invasion and Yi Soon Shins turtle ships defeating the Japanese. There is nothing the Japanese can do today that will let them escape from being blamed for everything bad that has ever happened to Korea. It's eerily the same with many Canadians when they talk about the US. There is a tendency among many Canadians to automatically interprete any US action in the worse possible manner. Gopher mentions the moral superiority of Canadians. To me, it is a manifestation of this sense of victimization.

(Numbers are mine)

1. As I have already explained, the "two sides" DON'T get to make up their own interpretation of the rules. That is decided by a committte whose rulings both sides agree to honour. And the majority of those rulings have favoured Canada. I am NOT calling into question the character of anyone here on this thread.

2. Not by much. There's always been a element of anti-Americanism in Canada, but not until Bush became president has it been so widespread. (well maybe in 1812 Laughing

) It seems to be the culmulation of many fustrations such as the bombing of four Canadian soldiers by the Americans and the non-mention of Canada by Bush when thanking other nations for the support after 9/11. In fact we let many of those planes land at our fields and took the passengers into our homes. Personally I think its a rather childish thing to whine about...but other Canadians would beg to differ. And the list goes on, but more on this later.

3. I am glad. Maybe Americans will do some self-examination and wonder why is Canada mad at us? I do agree that both nations are to blame...but Canada's actions (in the main) are recent, while the US's actions are quite a lot longer.

4. That's what a lot of Canadian politicians think

5. I agree here.

6. Going back to number two. Canada has usually supported the U.S. on many actions. Lately however, it seems rightly or wrongly we have been taken for granted. "Oh Canada will always support us" seems to be what many Canadians think the U.S. is thinking. And when the U.S bans our beef and lumber (or slaps tarriffs on them) we naturally are angry since we have usually supported the U.S in the past and this is the thanks we get?
Yes some Canadians get entirely too moral and scorn the U.S for its war-mongering. I am not one of them. I fully support Bush and the Iraqi adventure, although I do not like how it has been handled. But now that he's in there, stay the course and see it through. But while I admire the U.S. (mostly) there are actions it can justly be blamed for. The lumber and beef actions are two of them. Both NAFTA and the WTO have issued rulings supporting us. The U.S (which has signed treaties agreeing to obey these rulings) has flatly said it will not comply.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe