Take the current mess with Iraq and Iran, for example. It can be traced back to a request by Winston Churchill for American assistance in toppling the young and fragile democracy in Iran in the 1950s (late 1940s?). This resulted in the imposition of a dictatorship (the Shah of Iran). Hatred of the dictatorship grew over the years, which led to the Islamic revolution and the American hostage incident, which entrenched American attitudes. Iran then became a base for Islamic fundamentalism which spread in the region. The U.S. allied itself with Sadam Hussein and armed him because they had a common enemy. Well, you probably know the rest. If they hadn’t interfered in the politics of another country, the world wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in (at least that part of the world – there would probably be other messes). In that sense, I tend to view the situation as a mess that the U.S. and Britain made, and one that they should clean up.

You may be overlooking the fact that American empire building began long before WWI. The U.S. was expansionist almost from day 1. So, even the ‘golden age’ you refer to, from the revolution to WWI, included the Indian Wars and other conflicts aimed at acquiring territory and/or influence at others’ expense.

I don’t know that isolationism is the best course. You have to engage the world to some extent. Ideally, this would be for co-operation rather than conquest or domination.

I’ve also wondered if WWI was worth fighting. It didn’t really have the same ethical importance that WWII had. WWI was basically European powers fighting over the right to exploit Africans and Asians. British arguments that they treated their non-whites better than the Germans/Austrians don’t really go far. I don’t know if it’s actually true and, besides, they still weren’t free. It’s both counter-intuitive and appropriate that the conflict led to the end of European colonialism.

If I may be bold enough to trumpet Canada and fly the flag, it was the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge that led to the German surrender and the Treaty of Versailles. Unfortunately, I believe Canada was not included in the treaty talks because it wasn’t seen as powerful or important enough. I may be wrong about that. But, if I’m not, maybe if the Canadian sense of fairness had been allowed some influence, the Treaty of Versailles may have been a little less harsh and the subsequent chain of events may have been less extreme. Just speculation, of course.

Take the current mess with Iraq and Iran, for example. It can be traced back to a request by Winston Churchill for American assistance in toppling the young and fragile democracy in Iran in the 1950s (late 1940s?). This resulted in the imposition of a dictatorship (the Shah of Iran). Hatred of the dictatorship grew over the years, which led to the Islamic revolution and the American hostage incident, which entrenched American attitudes. Iran then became a base for Islamic fundamentalism which spread in the region. The U.S. allied itself with Sadam Hussein and armed him because they had a common enemy. Well, you probably know the rest. If they hadn’t interfered in the politics of another country, the world wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in (at least that part of the world – there would probably be other messes). In that sense, I tend to view the situation as a mess that the U.S. and Britain made, and one that they should clean up.

You may be overlooking the fact that American empire building began long before WWI. The U.S. was expansionist almost from day 1. So, even the ‘golden age’ you refer to, from the revolution to WWI, included the Indian Wars and other conflicts aimed at acquiring territory and/or influence at others’ expense.

I don’t know that isolationism is the best course. You have to engage the world to some extent. Ideally, this would be for co-operation rather than conquest or domination.

I’ve also wondered if WWI was worth fighting. It didn’t really have the same ethical importance that WWII had. WWI was basically European powers fighting over the right to exploit Africans and Asians. British arguments that they treated their non-whites better than the Germans/Austrians don’t really go far. I don’t know if it’s actually true and, besides, they still weren’t free. It’s both counter-intuitive and appropriate that the conflict led to the end of European colonialism.

If I may be bold enough to trumpet Canada and fly the flag, it was the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge that led to the German surrender and the Treaty of Versailles. Unfortunately, I believe Canada was not included in the treaty talks because it wasn’t seen as powerful or important enough. I may be wrong about that. But, if I’m not, maybe if the Canadian sense of fairness had been allowed some influence, the Treaty of Versailles may have been a little less harsh and the subsequent chain of events may have been less extreme. Just speculation, of course.

As for the link to Britain, although it is, for all intents and purposes, independent, Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth. In fact, it has played a leading role in the Commonwealth – sometimes to the extent that the British have complained that we appear to be taking over ‘their Commonwealth’. I read that complaint in the British press in the 1990s, I believe.

This is one argument made against taking the final step to breaking the link with Britain. Those who want to keep the link say we have a lot of influence in the Commonwealth and would lose it if we went our own way. I don’t know about that. India is still a member even though it is fully independent, I believe. I think it is a republic, but I could be wrong.

That was the year President Wilson compromised his isolationist principles for American nationalism, and allowed this nation to get involved in a European conflict, in which it had no business whatsoever. It is my opinion that most of this world’s problems are a consequence of that unethical decision of 1917.

Many would consider this opinion ridiculous, and that is their right. But I believe (for reasons too detailed to explain in a reader’s comment), had there been no U.S. involvement in what would later be known as the First World War: there’d have been no Treaty of Versailles, thus no economic depression in Germany, thus no development of a Third Reich, thus no Holocaust, thus no establishment of a Zionist State in Palestine, thus no displacement of Arabs, thus no Arab/Muslim terrorism today.

Also: there’d have been no conspicuous consumption in the U.S., thus no Stock-Market Crash, thus no Great Depression, thus no U.S. involvement in a Second World War, thus no development and use of atomic weapons by the U.S., thus no Cold War, thus no exponential expansion of U.S. military force today.

Alexis de Toqueville wrote, “America is great because she is good. If she ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” And this prophecy, from the early Nineteenth Century, is clearly being realized in the Twenty-First. The United States is now an empire, in all but name, and is beginning to fall, like all empires before it. It deserves everything that’s coming to it.

However, I do feel that Quebec should have total independence of Canada. Because I believe that any region or territory of a nation has the right to be independent of that nation, whatever the reason. And my understanding is that every time the question of indepedence for Quebec comes up for a vote, all Canadians are allowed to vote on it. In my opinion, only the people of Quebec should be allowed to vote on this issue. Because I also believe that this is the only fair way a region or territory can gain its independence. Only the people of that particular region or territory have the right to decide its path.

And I am (hopefully) not biased, here. If Florida (where I reside) desired independence from the United States, even if I were opposed, I would still demand that only we, the people of Florida, be allowed to vote on the question of independence.

M. Simon – Thanks for commenting. Yes, the lack of vision is of concern.

Fusion Report 13 June 008

Development cost is estimated at $200 mn

I know some Canadians who want to get into this game and no one will give them the time of day.

Sounds like Harper is telling the oil companies to do what they are already doing.

Now that’s leadership!

It seems like a no-brainer to do it, and easy enough to do to get political points for the politicos.