UglyElk
Then please do not "distort" what you say either.
Case in point--Canadaians AS ATTACHED TO SPECIFC UN UNITS were in Rwanda--as were soldiers of several nations.
To suggest otherwise is "spin."
1st did not say that other armys were "useless" just that that the USA was the largest and most effectice force--the pivotial group in the defeat of the axis in WW2.
If the allies were a team--we were the MVP.
No USA the Germans and Japanese would still be in charge of all that conqured land.
Plus your being logically inconsistant.
On the one hand you wish to point (quite rightly) that Canada also took part in actions in WW2, Bosina and Kosavo.
That just because in terms of total number your participation was smaller--it in no way means you were somehow worth less.
You also try a "GNP" argument--in effect saying that your lesser contribution should also count.
Then why do you "downplay" the numbers of NON-AMERCIANS that have been and are being killed by terrorists??
Terrorist kill a lot more folks than americans--yet you seem to focus on JUST THE AMERICANS--but at the same you insist that OTHER THAN AMERICANS COUNT.
Can't have it both ways--well you can--just is not logically supportable.
As far as "universial healthcare" the few folks I personally know from Canada--they come here when they have serious problems.
The US "shuns" the UN because they have proven to be corrupt organization that simply can't be counted upon to deal with terrorist nation with strengh.
Your worldview appears overly simplistic--notice that you first took us to task for NOT acting in Rwanda THEN you want to use the term "gun barrel" and "take independent action."
Again can't have it both ways--we would have had to pretty much "go it alone" had we acted in Rwanda.
Take us to task for not acting--then take us to task for acting.
Pick one.
Moooo - Here comes our beef and the protesters!!!
-
Guest
U.S. bid to force lumber talks backfired: trade minister
VANCOUVER (CP) - A heavy-handed attempt to push Canada back to the negotiating table in the softwood lumber dispute backfired, Trade Minister Jim Peterson has told his American counterpart.
In a telephone call to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, followed up with a letter, Peterson criticized the U.S. handling of the longstanding trade tiff.
Peterson told Zoellick that Canadians are very upset by the U.S. Commerce Department's recent decision to leave softwood tariffs high when earlier indications pointed to a deep cut in the punitive duties.
Observers saw the move to reduce the combined countervailing and anti-dumping duties to about 21 per cent from 27 per cent - they were expected to be halved - as an attempt to force Canada into a compromise settlement.
But Peterson told Zoellick in their phone conversation Wednesday that if that was the strategy, it backfired, a government source said Thursday.
The Canadian forest industry responded by cancelling talks with U.S. forest executives to feel out interest in new negotiations.
The industry and lumber-producing provinces were upset that Commerce used an entirely new method to calculate alleged Canadian subsidies.
A method used last June that would have cut the duty rate in half was discarded.
The new method also applied a distinct formula to British Columbia, which accounts for 53 per cent of Canadian lumber shipments to America, using a cross-border price comparison that has been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.
Peterson condemned the approach, as well as continued American unwillingness to abolish the so-called Byrd amendment despite a WTO ruling that it flouts international trade law.
The Byrd amendment allows U.S. companies deemed to have been injured by allegedly subsidized imports to receive proceeds of the tariffs.
Canadian lumber exporters have paid almost $4 billion in duties since they were imposed in May 2002. The money is held in trust by U.S. Customs until a raft of legal challenges is completed.
Peterson spokeswoman Jacqueline LaRocque would not discuss the specifics of the telephone call but confirmed Peterson told Zoellick that Byrd is a "flagrant breach of the rules."
The WTO has given Canada, along with the European Union and several other countries, the right to retaliate against U.S. goods over Byrd.
In his letter to Zoellick, Peterson noted recent Commerce decisions seem to undermine commitments made by President George W. Bush late last month in Ottawa.
Peterson reiterated his concern that Commerce has not refunded millions of dollars in anti-dumping duties to B.C.-based West Fraser Mills after they were effectively recalculated to zero.
U.S. officials maintain appeal decisions and other rulings affecting duties are not retrospective, meaning they can keep money already collected.
And American lumber interests say they have a right to all the duties collected since 2002 even if Canada wins an upcoming appeal under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The United States launched the challenge in November after a NAFTA panel ruled Canadian lumber imports worth about $10 billion annually represent no threat of injury to American producers.
If it stands, the ruling would kill the duties outright because NAFTA decisions carry the weight of law.
In his letter, Peterson accused the U.S. side of dragging its feet in setting up the appeal.
The case is to be heard by a three-member panel, with a decision expected next spring. Each side gets to pick one member and Canada reportedly won a coin toss to choose the third.
VANCOUVER (CP) - A heavy-handed attempt to push Canada back to the negotiating table in the softwood lumber dispute backfired, Trade Minister Jim Peterson has told his American counterpart.
In a telephone call to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, followed up with a letter, Peterson criticized the U.S. handling of the longstanding trade tiff.
Peterson told Zoellick that Canadians are very upset by the U.S. Commerce Department's recent decision to leave softwood tariffs high when earlier indications pointed to a deep cut in the punitive duties.
Observers saw the move to reduce the combined countervailing and anti-dumping duties to about 21 per cent from 27 per cent - they were expected to be halved - as an attempt to force Canada into a compromise settlement.
But Peterson told Zoellick in their phone conversation Wednesday that if that was the strategy, it backfired, a government source said Thursday.
The Canadian forest industry responded by cancelling talks with U.S. forest executives to feel out interest in new negotiations.
The industry and lumber-producing provinces were upset that Commerce used an entirely new method to calculate alleged Canadian subsidies.
A method used last June that would have cut the duty rate in half was discarded.
The new method also applied a distinct formula to British Columbia, which accounts for 53 per cent of Canadian lumber shipments to America, using a cross-border price comparison that has been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.
Peterson condemned the approach, as well as continued American unwillingness to abolish the so-called Byrd amendment despite a WTO ruling that it flouts international trade law.
The Byrd amendment allows U.S. companies deemed to have been injured by allegedly subsidized imports to receive proceeds of the tariffs.
Canadian lumber exporters have paid almost $4 billion in duties since they were imposed in May 2002. The money is held in trust by U.S. Customs until a raft of legal challenges is completed.
Peterson spokeswoman Jacqueline LaRocque would not discuss the specifics of the telephone call but confirmed Peterson told Zoellick that Byrd is a "flagrant breach of the rules."
The WTO has given Canada, along with the European Union and several other countries, the right to retaliate against U.S. goods over Byrd.
In his letter to Zoellick, Peterson noted recent Commerce decisions seem to undermine commitments made by President George W. Bush late last month in Ottawa.
Peterson reiterated his concern that Commerce has not refunded millions of dollars in anti-dumping duties to B.C.-based West Fraser Mills after they were effectively recalculated to zero.
U.S. officials maintain appeal decisions and other rulings affecting duties are not retrospective, meaning they can keep money already collected.
And American lumber interests say they have a right to all the duties collected since 2002 even if Canada wins an upcoming appeal under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The United States launched the challenge in November after a NAFTA panel ruled Canadian lumber imports worth about $10 billion annually represent no threat of injury to American producers.
If it stands, the ruling would kill the duties outright because NAFTA decisions carry the weight of law.
In his letter, Peterson accused the U.S. side of dragging its feet in setting up the appeal.
The case is to be heard by a three-member panel, with a decision expected next spring. Each side gets to pick one member and Canada reportedly won a coin toss to choose the third.
