These protests are a disruption specific to the internal affairs of Canada. The U.S. has long had a dominant power relationship with the rest of the continent. The way that Americans have imposed their views on both sides of this internal conflict is both patronizing and deleterious to the self-determination of the Canadian people. It would be as suspect if one was to donate to the Shining Path, the Contras, the Medellín Cartel, or any other faction.
Agreed. The xinjiang intern- uhh... vocational education and training centers are an issue that that's specific to the internal affairs of China. The U.S. has long had a dominant power relationship with the rest of the world. The way that Americans have imposed their views on both sides of this internal conflict is both patronizing and deleterious to the self-determination of the Chinese people. It would be as suspect if one was to donate to the Shining Path, the Contras, the Medellín Cartel, or any other faction.
1. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I implied china was located in the americans. My comment was specifically worded to not imply that.
2. Does america's influence on the world not exist? Why does your original claim of "Americans have imposed their views on both sides of this internal conflict is both patronizing and deleterious to the self-determination of the Canadian people" only apply if it's on the same continent? Is it better to impose your views on people half way across the world?
America has long had a unique influence over the rest of the Americas while it did not on the rest of the world until very relatively in the postwar period. It also has not had a hegemonic influence on nations such as China, unlike it has had over Canada and most of the American continent. Historically, the United States had a relatively weak presence in China, while the European powers and Japan have had a far stronger hand there. Therefore the analogy to China is false, unless you were to claim that it was part of the Americas, which given the flagrant inaccuracy of your statement seemed to imply that it was made in earnest.
>America has long had a unique influence over the rest of the Americas while it did not on the rest of the world until very relatively in the postwar period.
So influencing canada is bad because they were doing it since 1776, but influencing china is fine because they only did it starting in 1945?
>Historically, the United States had a relatively weak presence in China, while the European powers and Japan have had a far stronger hand there.
Do you also think "european powers" should stay out of genocides in africa, because of their outsized influence in the past?
>Therefore the analogy to China is false, unless you were to claim that it was part of the Americas, which given the flagrant inaccuracy of your statement seemed to imply that it was made in earnest.
You failed to state the justification, so I was forced to guess.
> So influencing canada is bad because they were doing it since 1776, but influencing china is fine because they only did it starting in 1945?
The U.S. didn't even influence China until the normalization of relations under Nixon, in 1972. Furthermore, the relation was always less unequal between the two, than it was and is between the U.S. and other countries in the Americas.
> Do you also think "european powers" should stay out of genocides in africa, because of their outsized influence in the past?
European powers have historically been very bad at handling African genocides. Even as recently as the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, France initially supported the government of the Génocidaires, and did not aid the victimized Tutsis. Given Europe's awful track record in this area, it is impossible to say how constructive intervention could be.
> You failed to state the justification, so I was forced to guess.
I apologize for underrating your grasp of geography.
BLM is based in the United States, so that reference would not make sense unless you are talking about funding crossing state lines.
> It's a Canada policy, but is specific to crossing the border from the US.
Up until the blockade of the border, it was an internal matter entirely, but you are correct here. If the border situation escalates, then the OAS needs to get involved to mediate a ceasefire and ensure that free and fair elections can take place.
It's a matter of sovereignty who you let in and under what conditions. There are some treaty specifics, but as far as Americans are involved, it's those treaties, and you're free to renegotiate them
if we're gonna start playing by the "if it has nothing to do with your country then keep out of it" rule then it's a great idea to establish this now before the 2024 US elections, ideally before the upcoming midterms as well.
I'm fine with this development as long as we all agree to play by the same rules and remain consistent.
If these protests become an issue for American national security and strategic geopolitical interest then yes NATO should make preparations as in other flashpoints but for now the situation has not yet escalated to such a degree. The U.S. did not intervene during the coup attempt against Erdogan in Turkey in 2016 either.
my post had nothing to do with official government actions or interventions but with the rights of citizens of different countries to sympathize with and donate money to causes outside of their own country. we allowed our cities to burn and lives to be lost to violent summer protests that were funded in part by citizens of other countries. if the general sentiment is that we should not allow this any more, that would be fine with me, but only if such actions are applied equally and unilaterally.
as far as I am aware, no lives have been lost nor businesses destroyed during the current events in Canada.
Your comment evoked the current Ukraine crisis. What do the midterm or general elections in the United States have to do with American citizens sympathizing with and donating money to causes in other countries? That is not an issue that is on the ballot. At least foreign policy is something that is germane to those elections. This is a complete non sequitur.
> At least foreign policy is something that is germane to those elections.
> What do the midterm or general elections in the United States have to do with American citizens sympathizing with and donating money to causes in other countries? That is not an issue that is on the ballot.
why are you quoting yourself to explain how "[my] comment evoked the current Ukraine crisis"? I think we're talking past each other, you really want to connect things to Ukraine and I don't, so I apologize for taking your time.
No apologies necessary, thank you. My point is that you bringing up upcoming elections in the U.S. in the context of discussing the appropriateness of American citizens funding campaigns abroad is a total non sequitur, as it is not a campaign issue. Something such as the Ukraine crisis, in contrast, might actually be a campaign issue, in keeping with your '"if it has nothing to do with your country then keep out of it" rule' reference.
