June 15, 2005
Good news! The mob scares Canadians more than we do!
June 15 - If you find this headline shocking then you clearly haven't been paying attention: Canadians see Bush, bin Laden as national security threats. But wait: the facts of the story are far more interesting than it first appears for reasons which, strangely enough, are not explored in the article:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
TORONTO -- Canadians believe U.S. President George W. Bush is almost as great a threat to our national security as Osama bin Laden, according to a government opinion poll obtained by the National Post.Organized crime worries Canadians, but the article doesn't touch on that but rushes over to the number 2 concern.The 1,500 people contacted for the poll, conducted last February for the Department of National Defence, listed "International Organized Crime" as the top danger, with 38 per cent ranking it as a great threat to security concern and another 50 per cent listing it as moderate.
But tied for second in the poll were "U.S. Foreign Policy" and "Terrorism," with 37 per cent rating it a great risk. Just behind those worries came "Climate Change and Global Warming." (Emphasis added)
Experts said the results reflected a continuing "schizophrenia" in the Canadian public's attitudes towards defence -- still worried about international terrorism even three years after the Sept. 11 attacks, but also concerned about the power and aggressive policies of the Americans.One expert (me) says that the continuing schizophrenia is manifested by an exclusive focus on the second highest rated threat rather than the first.
The poll, by Ekos Research Associates Inc., surveyed Canadians' attitudes towards a wide range of defence, military and national security issues, part of an annual public opinion polling process by the Department of National Defence.That's just sad. It's akin to feeling confident about the ability of the fire department to rescue a cat stuck up in a tree but not about their ability to handle fires.It was considered accurate within 2.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Most of those contacted for the poll had "great confidence" in the Canadian Forces' ability to respond to natural disasters in Canada, but only 25 per cent felt the same way about how our military would handle a terrorist attack on Canadian soil.
The poll suggested other security concerns preying at the public's mind include "Weapons of Mass Destruction," listed as a great danger by 30 per cent of those surveyed, and "Potential Weaponization of Space," which 26 per cent of those polled found a great concern.Potential Weaponization of Space. Right. That is clearly of far more concern than genocide in Sudan. (Now you know why prices for tin foil have risen.)Health threats, such as the SARS outbreak of 2003, nuclear threats, natural disasters and countries in turmoil, such as Sudan or Haiti, were the least worrisome threats according to the poll.
Still, I find it odd that organized crime would rate as a higher cause of concern than U.S. foreign policy and terrorism, unless (and this is a long shot) respondents have take the "Librano" definition to heart, in which case the poll results may be more interesting than the article lets on.
14:22: Via Neale News, according to the latest Angus Reid Consultants poll, health care is the top concern of Canadians followed by poor government and leadership issues.
International issues / War / Peace are way at the bottom at 2%, tied with Unemployment, Same sex marriage and Crime / law and order.
Posted by: Debbye at
05:54 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 594 words, total size 4 kb.
1
"Canadians believe U.S. President George W. Bush is almost as great a threat to our national security as Osama bin Laden..."
Of all the wildly fatuous notions in which Canadians routinely indulge themselves, this is the most pathetic. Canadians who say they believe the United States to be a prime national security threat are guilty of media-induced dementia at worst and hypocrisy at best.
If Canadians really believe that their closest neighbor and trading partner represents such a threat, then why have they allowed their government to foresake what is, in fact, the primary responsibility of all sovereign governments, that of providing for the defense of the realm?
Australia is a useful comparative case: a less populous Commonwealth country whose elephant-next-door is Islamist-infested Indonesia. The Australians can't afford to trivialize national defence or the war on terror. This reality puts the brakes on any anti-American tendencies which no doubt exist down under. The result is a small nation far more credible and effective facing the challenges of the post 9/11 world than Canada is likely to ever be.
Canadians can afford to indulge themselves endlessly with such nonsense, supremely confidently that Americans will continue to ignore Canada completely (as the irrelevance she has become) all the while knowing that the real protector and guarantor of Canada's freedom is none other than the United States of America.
The U.S. as "national security threat" to Canada? Puh-leeze!
Posted by: MSD at June 15, 2005 08:59 AM (tHqp5)
2
Between Osama and Bush, there's only one I ever heard Canadians suggest be arrested should he cross the border - and it ain't the Muslim.
Posted by: Jay at June 15, 2005 10:46 AM (PuNh2)
3
Good post. And I agree with MSD.
When this article came out I spent some time searching the news media for a different slant on the results. I gave up. Just as I've given up on Canadians.
It's going to take a disaster of huge proportions to wake Canadians up. Then we all know who will come and help us. The big bad Americans.
Canada has been lucky so far. That luck's not going to last.
But I agree. Maybe this poll should be analyzed a bit more. There hasn't been that much in the news lately about organized crime other than Gomery. Maybe Canadians are indeed making an unconcious connection between organized crime and the Liberal Party of Canada.
Posted by: John Crittenden at June 15, 2005 10:47 AM (cONYb)
4
Well, I take it to mean Canadians are worried about Bush's actions on the world stage, and possible retribution for those actions - not, as alluded to, a direct attack. I think this is a fair assessment, regardless of your position on the Bush adminstration. The current foreign policy game is a dangerous one, and whether you are for or against recent administrations decisions in the middle east, this should be obvious. Of course, with that being saig, there is probably a tiny segment of the population who fears a direct attack, but they can be safely ignored.
Posted by: Sean at June 15, 2005 11:18 AM (QbG17)
5
We ain't #1......dang.
Posted by: Richard Cook at June 15, 2005 12:10 PM (Km34P)
6
Sorry, Richard. I feel your pain. On the bright side, the next results may put us firmly back in the #1 spot.
Sean, I think the commenters were being facetious and knew that Canadians weren't concerned that they would be attacked by the USA! It's our way to take something silly and make it sillier.
We all get that Bush is supposed to be a bigger threat to world peace than Everyone Else including those nice N. Koreans and pious Iranian mullahs.
we were attacked several times before we finally fought back. It was a little late to worry about retaliation even before Sept. 11, much less after the Bush Doctrine was introduced.
I don't disagree that the current foreign policy is a dangerous one and have myself characterized it as risky, but screw the risk: I'm going down fighting. The worse than can happen is that they make documentaries about the Barbaric Americans for the History Channel and sing songs about our exploits.
If we succeed then the world will be far better. And if we fail, we die free. And the world will not be far better.
Posted by: Debbye at June 15, 2005 12:49 PM (Eyb5W)
7
Sean, Sean, Sean. "should be obvious"??? Cute little phrase frequently used by folks who are unable to back up their positions. Who knows why Canadians loath Americans? But of course they are going to consider them(Bush) "dangerous". My fellow Canadians need something to back up their resentment and envy even as they refuse to even look at the real dangers of a corrupt government and its impact on democracy. As someone who spends considerable time on both sides of the border I am always unpleasantly surprised at the lack of knowledge of world affairs held by average Canadians and in particular their inability to understand or even attempt to understand anything but the most left wing crap they are fed by the MSM. Poor Canadians. You are such victims of your big brother to the south. Boo Hoo!! Good heavens, you are living in some sort of liberal/socialist Trudopia so, do NOT, puleeeeese let the realities of the world intrude. Canadians, it is all falling down around your ears with a "free" health system allowing people to die waiting and a virulently corrupt government selling crap to you daily through an intensely left wing MSM. The US wouldn't take your little socialist empire if you begged them (a little situation not too far off in the future, particularly in the west). Who needs more left wing nuts?. And it is the US foreign policy, backed by the American military, backed by the American taxpayer that is saving your pathetic asses. Yet you continue to whine. Congratulations.
Posted by: Duel Citz at June 15, 2005 01:12 PM (YvCwz)
8
Sean, I think the commenters were being facetious and knew that Canadians weren't concerned that they would be attacked by the USA! It's our way to take something silly and make it sillier.
Debbye, I see what you're saying. Sorry if I missed that (I'm new here and still trying to grok the posters), but to me, MSD sounded forthright:
If Canadians really believe that their closest neighbor and trading partner represents such a threat, then why have they allowed their government to foresake what is, in fact, the primary responsibility of all sovereign governments, that of providing for the defense of the realm?
Duel Citz: What do I have to back up? Is it not obvious to people that whatever the US does with regards to the middle east has serious repercussions for many? This isn't a judgement call on the current administration - or any administration for that matter but instead something I felt was, like I said, obvious.
Posted by: Sean at June 15, 2005 02:19 PM (QbG17)
9
What we (the US) are doing in the middle east of course will have repercussions. Most things do. But as far as I can tell, so far it's been positive repercussions.
The other choice was to continue to ignore the middle east, let them continue with their terrorist ways, and face bigger problems later.
There was a possibility of major repercussions by going into WWII - minor changes in history would've resulted in the bombing (or even nuking) of (pick any city in the US or Canada). But it had to be done.
Posted by: Jay at June 15, 2005 04:06 PM (PuNh2)
10
Sean, I was being forthright. It was the Canadians polled who cited the U.S. as a prime national security threat, not me. I can only guess what they really mean by that.
Even I'm reluctant to believe that Canadians are so far gone as to believe the U.S. would launch a military attack against Canada. Yet that supports my point: that Canadians don't really believe what they're saying.
So if the poll results merely reflect a disagreement with U.S. foreign policy, particularly as regards the Middle East, then it is massively hypocritical on the part of Canadians to continue to rely on the Americans to defend Canada from external attack.
If Canada has a better way, then it's about time we put our money where our mouths are. Otherwise we're just an annoying irrelevance.
Posted by: MSD at June 15, 2005 04:09 PM (tHqp5)
11
Idle thought - maybe the idea of the US invading Canada is wishful thinking?
An Albertan I think once told me at another blog something like "c'mon up. I'll be by the roadside selling you guys beer and giving you directions".
Posted by: Jay at June 15, 2005 04:15 PM (PuNh2)
12
Even I'm reluctant to believe that Canadians are so far gone as to believe the U.S. would launch a military attack against Canada. Yet that supports my point: that Canadians don't really believe what they're saying.
Your reluctance is justified. The article linked to, and it's all I'm going by here as I've not seen the poll, says that the second greatest threat is "U.S. Foreign Policy". Being worried about U.S. foreign policy is not tantamount to being worried about an American attack on Canadian soil.
Posted by: Sean at June 15, 2005 04:49 PM (QbG17)
13
Well, we're certainly a threat to totalitarian dictatorships. Are these Canadians forseeing problems in that arena?
And given their support for American policy, Australia and Britain likewise must be seen as a major threat to Canadian security.
All in all, Y-A-W-N.
Posted by: mikem at June 15, 2005 04:50 PM (EzNXf)
14
What we (the US) are doing in the middle east of course will have repercussions. Most things do. But as far as I can tell, so far it's been positive repercussions.
The other choice was to continue to ignore the middle east, let them continue with their terrorist ways, and face bigger problems later.
There was a possibility of major repercussions by going into WWII - minor changes in history would've resulted in the bombing (or even nuking) of (pick any city in the US or Canada). But it had to be done.
Posted by Jay at June 15, 2005 04:06 PM
Of course everything has repercussions. As valid or correct as one might think the American FP in the middle east is, one must also accept the possibility of retaliation on North American soil. Not that they need more reasons to hate the West. We are dealing with irrational people who believe irrational things here.
Posted by: Sean at June 15, 2005 05:02 PM (QbG17)
15
I hate polls.
Polls lean to the money that finances them. Often poll results fail to show you the exact wording of the questions.
Without seeing the question, poll results shoule be ignored.
The newspaper provides Comics, Astrology and poll results. Comics provide satire and humour.
The other two provide pure fiction. Thumbs down on polls. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 20, 2005 11:41 AM (rmMzv)
16
Oh, I almost forgot. I say polls are garbage, so I should be able to prove it, right? How about this.
You say polls show that along with crime and law and order, SSM is in the bottom 2% of our concearn.
If that is so, why are we engaging the House of Commons with SSM debate instead of WhistleBlower bill debate?
Why do Posts about SSM draw 40 to 70 comments?
I could suggest what one should do with polls, but best to just ignore them and keep the language clean. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 20, 2005 12:01 PM (rmMzv)
17
Who reads posts this far back anyway, so read Jay above 04:06. A minority opinion no doubt, but correct none the less. Complaints about no WMD and intel reports from the UK are just so much anti-Bush hot air.
Invading Kuwait and gassing whole Kurd villages is all the justification required to go in and stop a nutcase like Saddam. 73s TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 20, 2005 12:14 PM (rmMzv)
30kb generated in CPU 0.0131, elapsed 0.0882 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.0803 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
64 queries taking 0.0803 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
