"As for the big difference between Canada and the U.S., without hesitation, the Ambassador, (who hails from South Carolina) boiled it down to one word, winter."

And this from the ambassador of the USA to Canada .... shamefull!!!!!!

Not only does it show that he not only understands the differences, but it also shows a lack of knowledge of his own country ... a country that includes not only the obvious Alaska, but the border states of Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine , Vermont, as well as some of the states in the high elevation regions of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California, Arizona and New Mexico.

It is obvious he is from the Southeastern states and his headspace is still there.

I'm not anti-American, I'm anti-stupid.

owl points out a perfect example of the stupidity I'm so strongly against.

Anyone else feel that our esteemed visitors are here simply to gloat over how well they, the goood old US of A, won't say what the "A" means in my book, have fornicated us? And will continue for a long time yet.

I just made the mistake of listening to the linked video clip .....

He speaks about BC and Alaska. While he correctly stated that BC shares a border with Alaska, there is very little that happens along that border since it is 99.9% mountainous wilderness.

He totally ignored the notion of the Cascadia connection which links the geo-socio-ecological-economic region from Oregon through to BC with the strongest ties of the urbanized strip from Portland through to Vancouver. The economy and the lifestyle of the region is considered by many to be more closely linked to each other than the States to Washington DC and BC to Ottawa.

Of course, Harper might know just as little about BC's economy .........
;-)

Or less.

But then can't you just imagine the kind of interview the CBC's Peter Mansbridge might have with Jack Layton, a year after the NDP becoming our Federal government:-

Peter Mansbridge:- "Now you've been in office a year Prime Minister Layton, and had to deal with the thorny issue of softwood lumber exports by playing our "energy card", how would you describe our trading relationship with the USA today?"

Jack Layton:- "Oh, just wonderful, Peter. They're back to taking all our softwood lumber again, and in turn we're sending them all our oil!"

You guys are funny, heehee!

I'd say the biggest difference between the two countries is the USA in general really is patriotic, they are as protective of their rights and history as any nation can be.

Try sticking up for Canadian history and someone is going to call you a racist or anti-femminist or something else to make you wonder why you should fight for Canada. The name callers are in control in this country.

Lots more US troops died on barges on the Mackenzie, Great Slave and Great Bear as well. The US did most of the opening up of the Canadian north, not much has been done since then except for the Demster to Inuvik. Between environmental impact studies and Berger's Bungle, the north has become too expensive to build infrastructure.

I'll bet Harper knows far more about the BC economy than anyone that posts on this site.

I'm always amazed at how Canadians love to HATE their best friend and big brother/protector - the USA - regardless . . . sounds like a bunch of childish bickering - problem is, in my lifetime, Canadians haven't matured much.

BC's still viewed as "a goblet to be drained, " Ruez. We did better with Ottawa when we were a "have not" Province. First time the cash-flow has been reversed, and we got more out of Confederation than we put into it.

Well, now, I wouldn't be too sure about that 'patriotic' bit, Yama. The States had to raise an army through the draft from start to finish in WW I, WW II, Korea, and Viet Nam. Somehow, that just doesn't seem too 'patriotic' a way of doing things to me.

Canada's army that went overseas in both world wars was composed of, for the most part, and for most of both wars, volunteers. And no conscripts were sent from here to Korea at all. True, the US has a volunteer army now, but all the Selective Service mechanism is still in place, including mandatory registration of all US citizens of draft age.

Just in case somebody looks at John Wayne's 'real' war record, and good, old fashioned American 'patriotism' falls a bit short, I suppose.

"the USA in general really is patriotic, they are as protective of their rights and history as any nation can be"

You can call it patriotic .... I can call it arrogant ....

When another country is patriotic, such as France, which is extremely patriotic, they start insulting it just because they do not join in a war with the USA by invading Iraq and thus beginning to destabilize the world .......

I can also call it paranoia ......

"I'm always amazed at how Canadians love to HATE their best friend and big brother/protector - the USA"

At least we do something .... most of the people in the USA do not even know we exist.

"I'm always amazed at how Canadians love to HATE their best friend and big brother/protector - the USA"

IMO thats an ignorant opinion. I'm not so sure Canadians love to hate Americans as much as it is that we have an educated opinion that doesn't fit well with being sub-servant to the globalist greed driven policies empowered by the fear of fear politics and the fools that enable this kind of politics. The comment above (big brother/protector) fits with the comment of a fool who has bought into the fear politics and displays further ignorance in trying to use it as a motivator to endear Canadians to American protection.

Canadians have never required American protection. Canada has never lost a war unlike the United States... because Canadian foreign affairs enable 'just' sovereign democracies... unlike the American globalist agenda. If anything Canada needs protection from the American favoritism globalist agenda.

When Canada defeated the German threat in WW1 at Vimy Ridge (vanquished the 1st German Division) the Americans were still siting an ocean away not sure what to do to protect themselves from this threat. When America entered the war it was to clean up the scraps (and claim the spoils) of an army Canada had already gutted.

In WW2 it was Canada that kept Britain in the war supplied with food, fuel, and supplies to continue the fight and led the way for the Americans every step of the way once the Americans finally did come on board in dealing with the global threat.

In the Korean War American forces were in full undisciplined retreat and the only thing that saved them was the Canadian forces holding a line cutting off Chinese supply lines from advancing further to finish the McCarthy forces off.

History would clearly say that the Americans have needed Canada to protect their interest much more than Canada has ever required the Americans to protect Canadian interests.

If an American wants to threaten me with hypothetical security threats, then I feel they should be more specific... so we can have an informed debate about the issue. Debating an issue is not hatred of the others position, but to think healthy debate is hatred... might be a tad bit paranoia (too much fear politics) IMO.

BTW I wonder if he flew over the pine beetle area so he can report back tot he commander in chief decider about the environmental implications. Surely the pine beetles will show no respect to Fatherland Security south of the boarder.

Owl are you not aware of the very important 54-40 issue between BC and Alaska which almost brought our two countries to war, and very well could in the future.

Its a still an unresolved issue and its obvious that Ambassador Wilkins is on a pilgrimage for oil and natural gas energy supplies. What to say the A3mericans are not interested in huge vast potential off-shore oil and gas reserves (some of the richest in the world by some estimates) strategically located along the 54-40 line of demarcation.

Chances are that is the real deal taking place while we all talk about lumber, the weather, who is more patriotic, or the real kicker bogyman2.0.

I wonder what Ambassador Wilkins thinks about Canada pulling out of NAFTA until the Americans fix four major problems (as I see it):

#1) The United States must regulate and control its energy trading speculative futures markets both in the US as well as off-shore... if Canada is to share an energy policy of free trade at market prices with Americans using Canadian resources.

#2) The United States must allow free unrestricted trade of all forestry product in the finished form to the American market as long as all feed stock is open market bid on through (crown controlled if need be) log yard auctions of timber harvested and tied to its harvest areas for further processing.

Failure to respond to either non-negotiable options should result in an export tax on all oil and gas resources.

#3) NAFTA must be renegotiated to include minimum standards for environmental regulations for any company with operations in any of the three countries; or intending to sell into in the markets of any of the three countries. There should be no further subsidization of polluters through jurisdictional evasion of environmental responsibility.

#4) NAFTA must be renegotiated to include minimum standards for labor safety and pay compensation for any company with operations in any of the three countries; or intending to sell into in the markets of any of the three countries. There should be no further subsidization of slave labor through jurisdictional evasion of human rights responsibility.


IMO these are four huge issues that will be front and center in the coming years and the Americans would be smart to wise up to it now and deal with it rather than leave Canada with less desirable options for both nations in order for Canada to protect the sovereignty of Canadian sovereign laws, regulations, and standards. If our trading partners will not share our values as expressed through our parliaments, then they are not the trading partners we would should be talking free trade with.

Free trade should not be about multinational corporations access to resources and a process of the least common denominator in standards for everything from labor, to the environment, to the banksters fixed capitalism.

Oh you have to love it when an American tells you they have protected you. I'll bite, when has the U.S.A. protected little 'ol Canada? Seems to me there hasn't been a time we've needed protection, other than from them. What's more, we've actually stuck our neck out in more than a couple of wars fighting for others. I like Americans, but I don't like Americans that lie about protecting Canada.

No country would dare attack Canada, because they would be taking on the USA and that is what really stops Canada from being attacked. The way to get to Canada is through the USA. If the USA can be beat then Canada falls without a shot. That is why Canada doesn't need American protection. It is also why Canada needs to protect the USA. As long as the USA is strong, Canada is safe. (A start would be to not harbour terrorists like the Seattle bomber.)

The battle of Vimy Ridge "..Canada defeated the German threat in WW1 at Vimy Ridge (vanquished the 1st German Division)..". Interesting rewrite of history. That little skirmish was meaningful only in the high number of casualties. The Canadians were the last ones standing, but like the Germans, didn't have enough men left to do it again. The Canadian men that died there would not be welcome in Canada today. They were patriots, but their idiotic patriotic social views would put those old soldiers in jail today.

Polecat writes..."The Canadian men that died there would not be welcome in Canada today. They were patriots, but their idiotic patriotic social views would put those old soldiers in jail today."

Wow cat thats a pretty strong anti Canadian statement there buddy.
If it weren't for those young boys who sacrificed their lives for us over there, we would all be doin the goose step.
So unless you are a disgruntled goose steppin skinhead whos German daddy had his brains blown out during WW2, it makes me really wonder what is between those two ears of yours that would make someone say such things.

Another thing polecat.
It is a fact that while the Americans like to blow their own horns proclaiming they won WW2, it was Canada and Britain that history has recorded as the people that defeated the scum of the earth during WW2.

Ah .... the patriotism is coming out now .....

Just remember people ... there is a reason why the white house is white....

;-)

Maybe it'll be called the Blackn'white House when Obama moves in.

It is not Canada vs USA or vice versa. We are all in it together.
Ideologically, they have the same differences that we have here in Canada. In witnessing the reaction by both Republicans and Democrats to the news about Senator Ted Kennedy's diagnosis I observe graciousness.
I always believed Canadians were leaders in grace but as I view the "put downs" in this and other posts about Senator Obama, I am beginning to think the Americans are ahead of us.

Socred I think that was uncalled for. Personally I couldn't support any of the potential American candidates. I like the rhetoric of Obama and I like that he has no power base of his own... so in a way it will mean the balance of power goes back to the congress... but Obama is financed largely by the banksters that created our problems, so any thought that he will provide change where it counts is a fantasy. Obama has the economic policy of the banksters and for that he doesn't get my support.

Clinton I like on the economic front with her ideas on NAFTA and her ideas on cracking down on the bankster speculation crimes, but like the other three she supports the apartheid crimes of zionism... so I would not ever cast a vote for her and that extremist ideology.

McCain I like also for his economic policy in particular the idea where there is no bailouts 9banks and individuals) for the speculation of the last decade and his adherence to true capitalism where people are responsible for their decisions. I was responsible so why should my responsibility subsidize the ill gotten profits from those who were not? I think that is his biggest positive, but it will not sit well in a recession America at election time, so McCain will not get elected even though his policy is the right one for the long run economy. McCain also supports political zionism and the apartheid policies of Israel... so I would never support him as president either.

If I was the decider I would pencil in Lou Dobbs for president of the United States with Ron Paul as his vice president.

Yama you went of the deep end on that one IMO. The facts are that in WW1 Britain and France had both been defeated by Germany with over 800,000 lost souls at Vimy Ridge alone... so it was not a small skirmish with little significance. Canada's third largest city at the time was Vimy Ridge (600,000+ Canadians) where we built Frances first rail road to supply our plan, which was the first Canadian led engagement in war and the first time all four of Canada's army divisions fought as a single united force.

The German 1st division was the back bone of the German army with all its best troops and best equipment holding the vital strategic importance of Vimy as the gate keeper to the low land industrial heart of France.

Canada did not attack in waves of hopeless souls as the British and French had done; instead Canada took a Canadian strategy of preparing for an overwhelming assault. The British and French lost 800,000 over 2-years on that ridge and Canada prepared for our assault for 6-months before launching an attack that was over in 2-days with no German prisoners of war, no escape allowed for their army, and the complete vanquish from the face of the Earth of Germany's entire main fighting force ripping the heart of the German ability to conduct war.

Only then did the Americans enter the war and was the hope of a victory for the West restored and assured. Canada fought a ruthless battle entirely on its own against an enemy that most thought was invincible and it was a battle that changed the world course of history in more then just the battle itself, but also in the concessions of the British Empire to recognize the sovereignty of the Empires colonies as equal members of a Commonwealth (much better option than defeat to the Germans).

Canadian actions at Vimy in other words were the birth of the Canadian nationional sovereignty; as well as the death of colonial empire legitimacy; and the end to the German threat of militarism in that time. Hardly insignificant achievements. I do however agree that after Vimy Canada was in no more mood to fight European wars and as such let the Americans, British and French take the spoils of war and misuse that gift as they surely did.

Foo738:- "Ideologically, they have the same differences that we have here in Canada."

That's the PROBLEM, Foo. Not something to be proud of.

Senator Obama is about as phoney as a three dollar bill! (I was going to say "Gordon Campbell" ~ but NOBODY could be THAT phoney!) His Democratic adversary, Senator Clinton, not a red penny better. The only 'change' those he dupes into voting for him are likely to see if he becomes President is what's left of their incomes when he's finished taxing them!

As for Senator Ted Kennedy, while I can't see anyone wanting to afflict him, or anyone else, with the disease he's been diagnosed with, or the anguish and other suffering that he'll undoubtedly be facing, we certainly shouldn't forget that but for his old man's ill gotten wealth he'd likely have spent almost as many years in jail now as he has in the US Senate.

Owl, I believe "ethnocentric" is the word to best describe American culture.

The Americans took their sweet time in entering World War One on Britain's side, and that only came about after special "British" envoy Rufus Isaacs, later made Viscount Reading, made a deal with the largely German-Jewish New York financiers like Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. that seemed to give them exactly what they wanted. To my knowledge, what was agreed to is still classified information, though the Balfour Declaration promising a Jewish homeland in Palestine was certainly part of it.

The same Viscount Reading was later made Viceroy of India, "co-incidentally" about the time Gandhi, who first wanted full "Dominion" status for India within the Empire, the same as Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and Newfoundland had achieved, began his civil disobedience campaign of passive resistance. It might be interesting to know just "who" was financing Gandhi.

It also might be interesting to know on 'whose' orders a ship carrying Bolsheviks led by Leon Trotsky, the "S.S. Christina", with a fortune in gold bullion in its holds, on its way from New York to Russia to finance the revolution that removed Britain's ability to keep a large part of the German and Austro-Hungarian Armies tied up on the Eastern Front, was released after its interception by the Royal Canadian Navy off Nova Scotia.

Ah, the mysteries of history. Here's another one for you.

About the time oil was discovered in quantity at Leduc in Alberta, Premier E C Manning had a distinguished house guest for a few weeks. None other than Viscountess Reading, Mrs. Rufus Isaacs. Now why do you suppose such an exalted member of the "British" aristocracy would want to come calling on the Premier of a Province that had elected the first government in the world to ever seriously challenge the ideas of "financial" orthodoxy? Whatever the reason, after she left, Premier Manning never again mounted a serious challenge to the 'banksters', and on resigning from the Premiership many years later, was almost instantly appointed a director of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Socred thats a good run down on the banker version of WW1 and history. I won't argue it because I think it is a line of history that was congruent with the Canadian version of history... each working for a different motive with a shared interest.

For example the Balfour Declaration was something pushed hard for by BC premier Richard McBride who insisted that provinces had sovereignty over all natural resources and as McBride was best friends, and spent a year in London, with his friend Winston Churchill he was able to get his terms (McBride built Russian naval submarines in BC for Churchill against the knowledge of the Canadian federal government as one such trade off favor). On the flip side most Israelis interpret that bill as the bill that created the foundation for the legitimacy of their nation through a trade off with the banksters for their support of Britain in bringing the United States into the war. Who is to say what the determing reasons were that motivated men nearly a 100-years ago and how those interest coincided.

Canada negotiated through the British War Cabinet on invitation from British PM David Lloyd George when the British realized they had lost WW1 and needed Canada to take Vimy Ridge. Canada negotiated the constitutional status of the dominions (from a position of strength) should be 'based upon full recognition of the dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth'. That was the death of global imperialism even if it took another couple of decades for the world to realize this.

The War Cabinet position of dominions as autonomous nations of a Commonwealth allowed for them to argue it should be formally declared at the Imperial Conference of 1926 when it was recognized formally that the dominions are 'autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any respect of the domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations'. This led to the Statute of Westminster formally prohibiting the British Parliament from declaring any law passed by the Canadian parliament as being ultra vires, or unconstitutional, except for laws amending the BNA.

So I guess my point is that I don't feel the bankers were the real reason why Britain avoided losing WW1... I think the bankers surely manipulated the war to their advantage and being largely zionist and/or Jewish they made any assistance on their part tied to the future Israeli state, but at the end of the day it was the sacrifices of Canadians that turned the tide of that war and not the banksters.

The banksters were and are working towards a global dictatorship and the Canadian soldiers were fighting towards global sovereignty and national dignity. The banksters financed both sides of the world wars, financed the take over of Russia by the Bolsheviks, and undermined the work of the soldier at every opportunity. The two interests found common ground in the Balfour Declaration, but I don't think the banksters deserve the credit for either its implementation or its success. Israel likes to sell the bankster version of history to make it seem they were responsible for Britain's survival and thus we owe them for that so we should be quiet about what is taking place in that country today. Actual fact is their position is hollow aggrandizing for a selfish purpose of propaganda when in actual fact they owe their sovereignty they enjoy today to the efforts of Canadian soldiers that died for values that Israel today has no respect for. So with that thought I am not happy with the rewrite of history that has taken place over the years giving much to much credit to the bankers and not enough to the people and their democracies that for the most part are responsible for all the good in the world today.

IMO the war of the 21st century is not a war between the Islamo-fascists... but rather a war between the globalist bankster elite and the sovereignty of democracies. Time will tell who the winner will be, but my guess is we have very few years to turn the tide before the police state is perfected by China and the multinationals that operate there for export to our shores.