This Ranting Response is in regards to What is Wrong With Canada?. This isn't spell-checked because it's too farking long.

The thesis of the article about to be ranted all over:

What is wrong with our national character?

The points brought up:

1) Anti-Americanism a defining characteristic of Canadians
2) A We-Art-Holier-Than-Though attitude
3) Low self-esteem, believing: Canadians are negative
4) Mis-representation of History: Peacekeepers vs. Peacemakers
5) Turn a blind eye: Say No to US vs. Iraq while ignoring the fact that Iraq only ernestly started following UN demands because of the forces massed at the border
6) General Hipocracy: Hate US TV programming and culture but eat it up: Reality TV
7) General Denial: Pretend we don't have enemies, that we aren't the West
8) Feeble Defences: Our military is falling apart, thus we don't deserve to be a country.

Agreements and Counterpoints

With respect to 1) , I believe this is a manifestation of 2) 4) 7) and in part 8).
But figuring out who you are, identifying what your country is can only be broken down into two methods: Defining whtat is unique about us, what we have that no other has, for example the birthplaces of so many amazing celebrity actors and athletes, and defining what we are not by comparing ourselves to others, and crying out that we are not X. Anti-Americanism is a method, albiet negative, of showing pride in the country and identifying with it. Hatred should not be endorsed. Flag burning is stoopid and low. Not having to send our decrepit military everyone stationing over a million soldiers across the globe, can be seen as a sense of pride. "We don't need to do that", fitting right in with "We art holier than thou", because we have "Peacekeepers not Policers", as shown by our "Feeble Defences", because we pretend to believe "We don't have enemies". We're not "Rah-Rah-Rah Kill-Kill-Kill Oil-Oil-Oil Super-Power-Nation... Away!". This, we ineptly show this by acting Anti-American. Yes, we do this, and yes, we should not, but it's not a simple matter. Your posting person-who-is-not-Quigley is a perfectly Canadian-styled response that we can honour and not view as below-the-belt. Thank you!

With respect to 2), WHAT kind of a morale would we have if we were to say "We suck!". A low morale. We have to go in to things with a winning attitude, with a DOB-DOB-DOB mantra as I so recall chanting in my childhood while in Cubs; Do Our Best. Leaders don't have followers when they doubt their capabilities, but at the same time we ought not believe we are invincible. Canadians have such a great global reputation because we are humble in our presentation of our status. We live in one of the best countries in the whole world, but we don't go rubbing it in third world countries' faces; most of the time. I'll touch on that again later in my conclusion.

With respect to 3), I just don't know where you are getting that from. Thus I can't really say anything about that. If we're so Anti-American, We-Art-Holier and whatnot... where's the low self-esteem? Is this related to the negative attitude you tie into most of the other points?

With respect to 4), The Royal Winnipeg Rifles, an infantry reserve unit here in Winnipeg, was at Somme (WWI), and were the only force to hold their ground while being ruthlessly gassed. To paraphrase an enemy commander reporting back to HQ, "The attackers would have been driven back into the foams of the sea were it not for the damned Canadians. Anyone but the Canadians!" That takes Peacemaking/Policing, sacrifice, gritty determination and during a feirce war, the feircist I would think. Attempting to control a madmad takes on more roles than Peacekeeping. Ghandi's method of Passive Resistance, pointed out by Ghandi himself, only works on those who are susceptable to it. Starvathons to bring about changes in jails only work on humaine prison warrens. Peacekeeping with the UN can only work if UN forces are allowed to intervene to stop ethnic cleansing and dictators who kill their civilians while living in palaces and refuse to co-operate with the UN can only be motivated by the threat and/or use of force. Sun-Tsu, author of The Art of War, emphasizes that result are better obtained by threatening the use of war. Fixing the mess that war creates is an expensive and long-term series of events. Of course the US got what it wanted, and maybe history will show they did the "right" thing. Maybe Canada will be rememer as sticking to it's values. Our CURRENT values center, obviously, around non-violent solutions and UN authorized sanctions and enforcement. We presented a SMART Goal to the UN even though we're not on the Security Council: Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Time-limited Goals. We're allowed to change our stance from holding the trenches but at the same time we take pride that we CAN hold the trenches when called upon to do so. What is so wrong with progress? The line between Peacekeeping and Policing is fine but distinct. Canada entered WWII when WWII started in 1939 and stuck it through until the end. That was to prevent the world from plunging into darkness, which you may relate to Peacekeeping for what is the world left with when there are no Peacekeepers? Darkness. We can't always have been Peacekeepers, but we can look to the future and do our best to continue to be the Peacekeepers we are today.

With respect to 5), ah the blind eye. We are against the War on Iraq but forget that Iraq complied because the US had a couple hundred thousand troops and tens of thousands of bombs and missles. I think not. I already pointed out the reason the UN attempts to disarm failed AND we tried for other methods; the SMART Goal. Of course Saddam only started co-operating with there were soliders at his door: BECAUSE there was no SMART Goal in the first place! If there was, I bet NONE of this would have happened. Which is not to say Iraq would not have been invaded again, because maybe several years later after the SMART deadline expired a UN-approved US-led, Canada-participated war would have been waged to accomplish the similar goals Bush Jr. says the current war is about. But we sure as hell can't pretend that the US's military outside Iraq's door wasn't effective in illiciting a positive response though incomplete from Saddam to UN requests, nor can we pretend there isn't a war going on. But we're not stupid. We know why it failed or at least I think you understand why it couldn't succeed for the last 12 years. What part of that takes away our right to disagree with the war? You support the means to an end in this case, massing troops at the Niagra River border is not how I want the Canada-US lumber disputes to be settled. Dangerous precedents are set with such table manners. So I for one wholly support our saying Canada's stance on the war.

With respect to 6), the media and what we watch. The lowest common denominator will always rule unless suppressed. These shows appeal to that demographic and that is why they succeed and why Canadians watch them. Some people like the show and others do not. Maye we're all a bunch of wishful voyeurs who want to forget about our own problems by watching others so we don't have to deal with our own. Makes sense to me. The people at the top in charge of programming for Canadian TV want rating, not quality remember. We'll watch whatever is on, how else do you think BBC1-4 satisfy the Brits?

With respect to 7), of course we don't think we have enemies. Notice our 60,000 strong equipment-aging military? We have VAST oceans on either side, the ARTIC to the the north and the super-powerful US to the south. What makes you think we need an vast military? Did you know the US has been downsizing too? Making divisions smaller, more mobile? Have you noticed what better educational systems and health care we have than our neighbours? Maye that's because we don't spend $1,500,000,000 CDN dollars on our military every... single... year. We aren't as involved militarily in the world as the US, we don't have 1,300,000 soldiers currently deployed across the globe. The majority of the US military is not on the North American continent. We haven't been invaded since 1812... almost 200 hundred years. That's quite the feat no? Ever play the board game Risk? Rememer how hard it is to capture Europe and hold it? Farking tough! You can get attacked from SO many places. Not Canada! Sure, we're on the hit list of Bin Laden, but we are not at the top. We may be attacked one day, and we'll probably get a bigger military because of it with more money, but such a vast undertaking as national pratroling to prevent terrorist activities is fantastically huge. Maybe we should pursue another avenue? Then again, maybe we should spruce-moose our Canadian Forces just a bit so they function effectively first?

With respect to 8), I already hit most of my targets with the above counter-point, so here is the defence of our right to still be a nation despite a small, you might say ill-equiped to defend our homeland, military. How big is your dick? We get into a My-Dick-Is-Bigger escalation when it comes to military size and effectiveness -- the Iraqi army outnumers the US-led coalition but are in comparision totally incapable of defending their country because of the level of technology the US has -- and this is a poor means to determine whether or not a country deserves to exist. That type of thinking is Hawkish and obsolete. It promotes the animal kingdom style survival of the fitest and suggest we ought to be in constant competition to adequately defend our borders from any attack. I'd like to see any one nation defend itself against the rest of the world's combined military, including the US vs. the world. You can't. It impossible, and I think the outcomes of both World Wars has proved that. Is it foolish to think we don't really need a military because we have big strong friends with big strong militaries? I never wear a watch because someone else always has one and can tell me the time and I think that's smart of me.

Conclusion

Canada is great because we have such a vast myriad of people who live together in relative harmony. We don't censor the crap out of speeches and blindly agree with our government. We have power over it. We have differences and though there will always be those who bigot themselves into their graves, and go against the common expectations of "Friendly Canadians", we are tolerant of them in the extent that we do not beat them into their graves. That's part of our greatness. That is part of what makes Canada so great. We are all Canadian no matter where we came from originally and we get along for the most part. I won't call us tolerant of each other, I say we are unified as Canadians, even the loud mouth braggarts who go against the flow. I love this country. I love being Canadian. And if I had to choose which I would yell from the rooftop, "I AM PROUD TO BE A CANADIAN", or that I am not, I think you know which I would shout.