Dear Condi - A letter from Lloyd Axworthy

March 3, 2005 4:24 PM

Dear Condi,-- Lloyd Axworthy was Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs for five years (1995-2000). Now that he's no longer in government, he doesn't need to be so diplomatic.
posted by winston (80 comments total)

If the former Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs writes a letter criticizing the Bush Administration to a Canadian newspaper, and nobody in the Bush Administration cares, does it make a sound?
posted by billysumday at 4:33 PM on March 3, 2005

You'd think a former diplomat would realize that snarkiness doesn't work well. But then it is in the Winnipeg Free Press, so he IS preaching to the choir. Who says he doesn't still have government aspirations? Talking tough like that is a great way to get thrust back into the national limelight.
posted by spock at 4:34 PM on March 3, 2005

ObWestWing: Do we even have a map of Canada?
posted by stevil at 4:34 PM on March 3, 2005

spock, if you can think of some method of discourse that actually will work with those crusaders for Democracy(tm) and corporate cronyism, speak up, please.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:36 PM on March 3, 2005

I like Lloyd. Frankly he would have been a much better pick than Frank McKenna for US ambassador. At least we Canadian taxpayers wouldn't have the uneasy impression that Lloyd is really working for the Americans. I have a feeling that this creepy feeling is sure to come up over the next couple of years.
posted by clevershark at 4:53 PM on March 3, 2005

What a great letter!
posted by interrobang at 4:54 PM on March 3, 2005

No, Space Coyote. I pretty much think the situation is hopeless. Personally, I'd love to live above the 49th parallel, if only it wasn't so far north - but then the chill in the air below the 49th is getting harder and harder to ignore, too.
posted by spock at 4:54 PM on March 3, 2005

If the former Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs writes a letter criticizing the Bush Administration to a Canadian newspaper, and nobody in the Bush Administration cares, does it make a sound?

To the Presnit, et al, probably not. To Canadians, yeah, it matters.

And what clevershark said.
posted by 327.ca at 4:59 PM on March 3, 2005

snarkiness doesn't work well

if Axworthy still has political aspirations, he has them in Canada, not in the U.S. -- I don't see how a snarky, sincere, not particularly insulting letter to Rice could damage his (possible) future in Canadian politics. he won't be running for Senator in, say, Mississippi anytime soon. I don't think Axworthy is particularly worried of enraging US neocons, and rightly so
posted by matteo at 4:59 PM on March 3, 2005

huh. that was kind of impressive.
posted by blacklite at 5:08 PM on March 3, 2005

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

Love it! thanks, but it's true--they don't care at all. The water and oil mentions were good tho--we need good relations with Canada for our own wellbeing, even if the current white house occupants don't realize it. Would Canada cut us off, if push came to shove?
posted by amberglow at 5:14 PM on March 3, 2005

Wow, a former Canadian diplomat bad-mouthing Condi Rice. This certainly does deserve front page billing. Personally, I am following leads for a front-page story about some former members of the French parliament who are apparently claiming that President Bush is not culturally sophisticated. I'll keep you posted on my progress.
posted by esquire at 5:34 PM on March 3, 2005

Where DO people get the idea that Americans know little and care even less about the world outside US borders?
posted by clevershark at 5:40 PM on March 3, 2005

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

This is a bit rich, given that Mr Axworthy and his Jesuit-inspired boss blithely ran up multi-million dollar deficits in the 1970s; then, in the mid-90s, Mr. Axworthy cut billions in federal payments to the provinces for little things like child care, higher education and other social development transfers.

But, well, Lloyd's always been a bit of a blowdried blowhard, which made him perfect to be minister of foreign affairs: Lots of blather about multilateralism and soft power and such and little real accomplishments. In Lloyd's case, that meant a treaty banning landmines not signed by anyone who actually uses them.

If Lloyd still nourishes dreams of higher office than he is deluding himself. He has no support in the Liberal party; the left/Trudeau wing is hardly ascendant; the only names mentioned after Paulie Walnuts takes his walk in the snow are Tobin, McKenna and, snicker, Volpe.
posted by docgonzo at 5:49 PM on March 3, 2005

Lovely letter. If it weren't for Axworthy's cutting of university grants (and related asshattery), I'd be truly fond of him.
posted by Tomatillo at 5:52 PM on March 3, 2005

Lloyd was always a joke. Nothing has changed. His letter is facile and childish. I hope it merits a very prominent position in the family scrapbook.
posted by loquax at 5:56 PM on March 3, 2005

If Lloyd still nourishes dreams of higher office than he is deluding himself.

I highly doubt that Axworthy has political aspirations at this point in his career.

[...]the only names mentioned after Paulie Walnuts takes his walk in the snow are Tobin, McKenna and, snicker, Volpe.

And John Manley, right? Manley is infinitely more electable (and dangerous, IMHO) than Tobin, McKenna, and Volpe.
posted by 327.ca at 5:56 PM on March 3, 2005

Needed to be said. It was simply beyond the Pale for a U.S. Ambassador to tell Canada she'd given up part of her sovereignty fr refusing to join the U.S. missile defense programme.
posted by orthogonality at 6:02 PM on March 3, 2005

Needed to be said.

I don't know. Celucci is an egregious fuckwit that I can't imagine on this side of the border would need to have it pointed out...
posted by 327.ca at 6:09 PM on March 3, 2005

We really have to stop threatening first (and invading too). Diplomacy works, and exists for a real reason.
posted by amberglow at 6:10 PM on March 3, 2005

Once again, with sobriety..

I don't know. Cellucciis an egregious fuckwit that I can't imagine anyone on this side of the border would need to have that pointed out...
posted by 327.ca at 6:12 PM on March 3, 2005

There's a what north of us? Cana-who?
posted by graventy at 6:12 PM on March 3, 2005

regardless of whether GW or Condi read it, there needs to be a loud and unapologetic voice of dissent in the public view. Good on Lloyd, regardless of his past, for writing this. I'm tired of the media pretending like they need to be careful how they word their dissent. One of the reasons the last US election went the way it did was that the liberal media tried to be centrist and careful where the conservative media made no bones about their hatred for anything left of right-of-center and wasn't afraid to lie on national television every night if need be.
posted by shmegegge at 6:20 PM on March 3, 2005

esquire: Wow, a former Canadian diplomat bad-mouthing Condi Rice.

Axworthy was Foreign Minister which is roughly equivalent to Secretary of State not a diplomat. Even if he had been a diplomat the present US government could stand to listen to a diplomat or two.
posted by Mitheral at 6:23 PM on March 3, 2005

What really amazes me about the second Bush jr. term is how much it truly resembles a satire -- not a subtle, ovidian one either, but a vicious mocking of government.

I mean, who would imagine having an exec for Gator even partly in charge of determining cybersecurity policies? Who could have imagined that, having created the post of intelligence czar -- a position you'd think should be staffed by a career intelligence officer -- Bush would then staff that position with a political patronage appointee who comes not from Langley but from the State department? Better still, who in his right mind would have predicted that he would pick his administration's most doctrinaire ideologue (aside perhaps from Cheney) to be the chief diplomat for the country?

These appointments from this Administration point to those in charge either having a wickedly cynical sense of humor, or a desire to scuttle the country entirely.
posted by clevershark at 6:26 PM on March 3, 2005

Is Lloyd single?
posted by tizzie at 6:30 PM on March 3, 2005

"You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations."

Unless of course your Carolyn Parrish and you refer to the idea of joining the missle defense plan as a "coalition of idiots" ... then you'll lose your seat as a Liberal MP.

Where DO people get the idea that Americans know little and care even less about the world outside US borders?

This Hour Has 22 Minutes. Blame Rick Mercer and his segments called, "Talking to Americans" - heh
posted by squeak at 6:51 PM on March 3, 2005

Lloyd Axworthy is a pompous jackass, but he's not an idiot. There is a value in rallying the troops. Many Canadians-- let's just say those Canadians who read Margaret Wente and buy her crappy new book-- get very cold feet when there is a chill from Washington. The pressure to back track is very real.

I'm not well connected in Canadian politics, but I do have a friend who worked pretty closely with Axworthy. The American government was bullying and childish after 9-11-- worse than even liberals like me could imagine. There is a very real sense of alienation in the government of Canada.

I've said it a dozen times. The United States doesn't need Canada, but it's an interesting bell-weather. If Celucci and Bush so strongly alienate Canadians to the extent that boot-liking, prestige-hungry opportunists like Lloyd Axworthy write childish letters, something is wrong. What must the state of things be with other key allies?

You can buy allies for a time, but people will abandon you when you become a liability. Martin is traditionally very pro-American, but he knows kow-towing to Bush would be political suicide. Crawford, we've got a problem.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:17 PM on March 3, 2005

Yeah, "Talking to Americans" was a riot... if I hadn't lived in the US I'd be tempted to think it was satire or a setup, but 6 years in the US have shown me that the opinions expressed on those segments are actually pretty typical.
posted by clevershark at 7:17 PM on March 3, 2005

Well said, gesamtkunstwerk.
posted by spock at 7:57 PM on March 3, 2005

I like boots. Don't you like boots? Who doesn't like boots?
posted by cookie-k at 8:00 PM on March 3, 2005

The United States doesn't need Canada, but it's an interesting bell-weather

Dude, Canada is the United State's largest trading partner. We supply a huge percentage of their oil, natural gas, timber, vegas acts, comediens, etc...

The U.S. may feel like they don't need us but if we ever turned off the spiggots and closed our borders they would have to invade within weeks...
posted by srboisvert at 8:25 PM on March 3, 2005

Celucci is an egregious fuckwit

He sounds like the US ambassador Down Under, Tom Schieffer.

The thing with these ambassadors is that they are appointed by - and loyal to - the administration of the day. Unlike their Australian (and presumably English, Canadian etc) counterparts, American ambassadors are rarely apolitical career public servants, but cronies of the president who actively work to promote the agenda of the current US administration, in contrast to true public servants who would tend to take a more balanced, cautious and - above all - discreet approach to sovereign governments...especially eschewing inflammatory public comments.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:26 PM on March 3, 2005

To quote former U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara: "If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merits of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning."

As the man ultimately in charge of Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam, he is hardly some kind of pandering leftist.

It seems to me there's a real danger in the United States of having important discourse silenced in the name of security. Silence and secrecy don't advance security, they just keep the public from knowing what kind of trade-offs are being made behind closed doors. What does advance security is people pointing out that the Patriot missile didn't shoot down a single Scud during the Gulf War and Al Qaeda is hardly known for its advanced ballistic missile program.

Blind faith in an authority that does not foster - or even tolerate - criticism is far more dangerous than terrorism, which has, after all, killed fewer people every year since the mid 1980's.
posted by sindark at 8:31 PM on March 3, 2005

Is Lloyd single?
posted by sharksandwich at 9:15 PM on March 3, 2005

I don't know about Lloyd, but Condi sure is, sharksandwich... maybe she can find someone through the Hannity site.
posted by clevershark at 9:32 PM on March 3, 2005

The U.S. may feel like they don't need us but if we ever turned off the spiggots and closed our borders they would have to invade within weeks...

You'd put a bullet through your head to hit someone in the leg?
posted by Krrrlson at 9:32 PM on March 3, 2005

I, for one, welcome our new Canadian overlords. . . .

(I wish)
posted by Danf at 10:10 PM on March 3, 2005

You know you are doing something right when the Canadians start complaining.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 10:34 PM on March 3, 2005

The U.S. may feel like they don't need us but if we ever turned off the spiggots and closed our borders they would have to invade within weeks...

I can imagine a US invasion of Canada being really uncomfortable. There'd be not much fighting, and a whole lot of standing around: the Americans standing around with their guns, the Canadians standing around not wanting to get shot.

And then, what, the Canadians get granted democracy and the Americans go home? It would be War's answer to an episode of The Office.

I almost want this to happen. It would allow me to tell my grandkids of living through a great occupation, without actually dealing with any of the trouble that normally entails.
posted by rustyiron at 10:39 PM on March 3, 2005

The U.S. may feel like they don't need us but if we ever turned off the spiggots and closed our borders they would have to invade within weeks...

we did okay the last time around.
posted by juv3nal at 11:10 PM on March 3, 2005

rustyiron, Canada invasion jokes are not funny, unless the invasion of Iraq was somehow funny. Killing thousands of people is not funny, either, not at all. More likely the US would bomb Canada. Fuck the US, I say. Fuck the bullies.
posted by johnnydark at 11:11 PM on March 3, 2005

And then, what, the Canadians get granted democracy and the Americans go home?

And if you think the Americans will leave Iraq in the foreseeable future, I have this bridge you might want to buy...

Remember, the war is as much about bringing democracy to Iraq as it was about finding WMDs... or stopping the abuses at Abu Ghraib... or [insert war reasoning of the week here]...
posted by clevershark at 11:36 PM on March 3, 2005

Actually it was funny. I laughed. hard. especially at this line:

It would be War's answer to an episode of The Office.

He wasn't laughing at the death of thousands. Take a breath, take your sense of humor out of your sock drawer, and realize that laughing isn't a bad thing, even when you're laughing about something horrible.

Although, rustyiron, you do realize that Canadians carry guns, right? I don't mean like, here and there. Lots of guns. If we were talking about a ground war on Canadian soil I'd be very frightened for our troops.

also juv3nal, please tell me that was a joke. I laughed, but then it occurred to me you might honestly think the war of 1812 is a decent predictor of how a war between the two would go nowadays.

and finally, to everyone who responded to the spigot comment: just because he made a hypthetical prediction doesn't mean he advocates what he mentioned. He was making a point about US dependency, that's all. jesus.
posted by shmegegge at 11:56 PM on March 3, 2005

but then the chill in the air

Ya know...Canada keeps sending cold air down to the US of A, per the weatherman. Such an environmental attack should not go un-punished!
posted by rough ashlar at 12:00 AM on March 4, 2005

Although, rustyiron, you do realize that Canadians carry guns, right? I don't mean like, here and there. Lots of guns.

Not exactly... Canadian city-dwellers are unlikely to be armed (unlike their American counterparts, I might add) but people who live in rural areas and hunt regularly tend to have veritable arsenals. So, on a per capita basis Canada does have a lot of firearms, but those weapons tend to be concentrated with relatively few owners.
posted by clevershark at 12:19 AM on March 4, 2005

Where DO people get the idea that Americans know little and care even less about the world outside US borders?

By observing you.
posted by salmacis at 1:10 AM on March 4, 2005

also juv3nal, please tell me that was a joke. I laughed, but then it occurred to me you might honestly think the war of 1812 is a decent predictor of how a war between the two would go nowadays.

of course it's a joke, silly.
posted by juv3nal at 1:41 AM on March 4, 2005

You know you are doing something right when the Canadians start complaining.

posted by drscroogemcduck at 2:34 AM AST on March 4 [!]

What the hell does that even mean? Come back after your 12th birthday.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:43 AM on March 4, 2005

clevershark writes "Although, rustyiron, you do realize that Canadians carry guns, right? I don't mean like, here and there. Lots of guns.

"Not exactly... Canadian city-dwellers are unlikely to be armed (unlike their American counterparts, I might add) but people who live in rural areas and hunt regularly tend to have veritable arsenals. So, on a per capita basis Canada does have a lot of firearms, but those weapons tend to be concentrated with relatively few owners."

I don't have the statistics... are we talking about legal licensed gun ownership when we say that american city-dwellers are likely to be armed? I mean, I know one licensed gun owner in the entire city of New York, and he recently moved to Central New Jersey. That's just my personal experience, though. If we're talking about illegal gun ownership, like gang bangers and dealers and rap-hopefuls, well I guess I sould stop selling stolen guns, then. I didn't realize I was causing such a stir.
posted by shmegegge at 1:45 AM on March 4, 2005

in the above... the first quote (to rustyiron) was written by me, and the italics were written by clevershark, to avoid confusion.
posted by shmegegge at 1:46 AM on March 4, 2005

Nothing short of awesome.
posted by squirrel at 3:27 AM on March 4, 2005

SC: What the hell does that even mean? Come back after your 12th birthday.

Take a look at drscroogemcduck's comment history. You just got trolled.
posted by srboisvert at 4:53 AM on March 4, 2005

If this trend of Canadian dissent keeps up, the Bushies are going to have to arrange an 'accident' between a hijacked airliner and the CN Tower to get us back on-side.

Either that, or Axworthy wakes up with a horse's head in his bed.
posted by stonerose at 5:05 AM on March 4, 2005

stonerose fake idiots don't deserve any more of my time than real ones :)
posted by Space Coyote at 5:28 AM on March 4, 2005

If Axworthy is writing this then there will be plenty of other Canadian politicians/bureaucrats who feel the same way. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall in some of those Can-Am meetings.
posted by orange swan at 6:00 AM on March 4, 2005

Clevershark: Where DO people get the idea that Americans know little and care even less about the world outside US borders?

Salmacis: By observing you.

How would observing a Canadian lead to impressions about Americans? I think you just supported my earlier point without really knowing it (how ironic).
posted by clevershark at 6:07 AM on March 4, 2005

If this trend of Canadian dissent keeps up, the Bushies are going to have to arrange an 'accident' between a hijacked airliner and the CN Tower to get us back on-side.

That thing has a habit of backfiring. The last such accident happened in New York City and in the DC area, and both NYC and Washington voted overwhelmingly against Bush...
posted by clevershark at 6:09 AM on March 4, 2005

If Axworthy is writing this then there will be plenty of other Canadian politicians/bureaucrats who feel the same way. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall in some of those Can-Am meetings.

I'm thinking there'll be fewer and fewer of those in the recent future. What will happen if we retaliate tradewise?--a not unlikely outcome of saying no to our bastards in the WH. Or cancel the trade agreements we have?
posted by amberglow at 6:12 AM on March 4, 2005

And John Manley, right? Manley is infinitely more electable (and dangerous, IMHO) than Tobin, McKenna, and Volpe.

You're right. I'd forgotten him. And that's the problem -- Manley is so eminently forgettable. Having met the man a couple of times and, more importantly, watched him in action a couple more, I'd gotta say he doesn't have a hope in hell of winning the leadership. Dude is a walking sleep aide. The sooner he realises he was Jean Chretien's Kim Campbell, the better for him and us. (Can you imagine an election between him and Harper? With Duceppe too?)

Beyond his congenital lack of charisma comes the bare truth that his wing of support in the party, all of J.C.'s boys, have gone to another man, a future Prime Minister of Canada, ladies and gentlemen.
posted by docgonzo at 6:38 AM on March 4, 2005

What will happen if we retaliate tradewise?

Honestly, there are so many factors involved in that one I can't even predict what will happen.

But here's one scenario:

Bush's cutting off trade to Canada would seriously piss off most major American corporations, and the general population would feel the hit too. He already doesn't have a strong level of support in his own country - he only won the election by a nose. I think his doing something like that might be his undoing - the media might suddenly grow some corporate-funded teeth, American public opinion might then completely turn on him, global opinion would certainly do so, and he might wind up impeached as he so richly deserves to be.

That's if the trade sanctions lasts any length of time. I suspect Canada could not withstand sanctions for very long at all. But if we had to give in on something like missile defence because the American administration was twisting our arms behind our back... well, forced compliance is not truly compliance, and in the long run that would be all too clear.
posted by orange swan at 6:50 AM on March 4, 2005

Oh, and on preview: Missile defense is a canard. Lloyd should have directed his anger at two other trade disputes, disputes in which the Canadian side is quite clearly in the right, disputes which reveal the US are not free-traders but rather simply committed to unrestricted access to other markets.

If Mr. Axworthy's friends in the Liberal party had a pair, they'd close the border to auto parts and electricity until the US opened their border to our beef, cows and softwood lumber. Let you southern bastards freeze in the dark.
posted by docgonzo at 6:51 AM on March 4, 2005

Imagine a country so blue, backwards it's adanac.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:14 AM on March 4, 2005

Missile defense is a canard. Lloyd should have directed his anger at two other trade disputes, disputes in which the Canadian side is quite clearly in the right

Well Frank McKenna said (in his first day on the job as Canada's ambassador to the US) that these two issues were factors in Canada's decision to not participate in missile defence
posted by winston at 9:37 AM on March 4, 2005

What on earth did Celucci do that has Americans so angered at him? I know why Canadians despise him... but Americans?!

A note on trade: the USA is a net importer of goods. Canada is a net exporter. This means that Canada has a surplus and the USA does not. This means that Canada is more-or-less self-sufficient, while the USA is not.

If the borders were closed, Canada could continue on quiet nicely. We've got all the food, water, petro, and electricity we could want. We've got tons of manufacturing, from cars to clothing to computers. There's not a whole lot we need from the USA.

If the borders were closed, the USA would be up shit creek. It might do okay on the food front, but it would be short on petro and electricity, and within the next decade or so would be very short on water. Might also be in trouble as regards lumber, minerals, and some manufacturing.

Also, Canada can easily enough shift its trade from the USA to Europe, Asia, and South America. There's a whole world out there, and it's all quite interested in what we have to offer.

In short, Canada would probably weather trade cessation with the USA better than the USA would. And I'm quite certain that if the USA continues to piss Canadians off, we'll be more than willing to endure some short-term pain for the long-term gain of finding other trading partners.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:45 AM on March 4, 2005

I think it's sad that we (Canada) are so afraid to really stand up to the behemouth to the south. The trade distupes docgonzo refers to are a big deal to Canadians, and to Americans in the affected industries. The American administration is guilty of blatant protectionism on both softwood lumber and beef cattle. The WTO has ruled in favour of Canada on softwood lumber, twice, and the US has ignored the verdict. Why do we bow our heads and stick to our agreements, when our so-called "partners" don't?

We should be more immediately worried and active on these topics than the missile defence stupidity.

On preview: fff - I still think Canada is paralysed at the thought of loosing our biggest trading partner. Our goverments have been loathe to do anything that might jepordize relations. Our government considers decriminalizing marijuana, or rejects missile defense, or anything independent of the US and people start shouting about that chilling relations.

While we are a net exporter of goods, we currently export more the US than anywhere else. It would take a major shift to move our business elsewhere, and it would have major growing pains for many affected industries. Industry doesn't like growing pains. So they're resistant. Besides, in general people are resistant to change. Afraid of it even. What would we do? If we cut off the tap to the US, they might stop exporting their mind-numbing quality television programming. Oh Noes!!!11!
posted by raedyn at 10:10 AM on March 4, 2005

(oops - the last paragraph should say we export more *to* the US...)
posted by raedyn at 10:12 AM on March 4, 2005

Tobin? McKenna? Come on, you can't be a Prime Minister unless you're from Quebec, Ontario or BC, silly!

Well, it's not a rule, but it works out that way. Actually the main reason Quebec has produced so many PMs is that in practical terms only Quebecers can speak both official languages in a manner that they can be understood by both French and English speakers. Canada might be officially bilingual, but let's face it Anglo-Canadians really don't see a point in investing a lot of energy learning French. Us francos, however, realize that without decent English we're very limited in our aspirations.

Of course people will then bring up the issue of Jean Chretien, who was unintelligible in either of the official languages, but it should be said that he was equally hard to understand for French and English speakers.
posted by clevershark at 10:45 AM on March 4, 2005

If I ever have another child, I may just have to name him or her Lloyd Axworthy. I mean, I had to adjust my seating position while reading that letter, if you know what I'm saying...rap on brother, speak truth to power!
posted by stinkycheese at 10:46 AM on March 4, 2005

Hey Lloyd, ol' buddy, ol' pal,

Although it may seem far-fetched, it is not necessary to publish a letter to Condoleeza Rice in a Winnipeg newspaper in the hope that she will see it. The United States has a postal service, and conveniently, there is an agreement in place between the U. S. and Canada that allows you to simply put your letter in an envelope, write a U. S. address on the front, affix a proper amount of postage, and drop it in one of the many familiar and convenient Canada Post receptacles. Your letter will, without any further effort on your part, be sent across the border to be delivered by the United States Postal Service to the addressee -- all for under a dollar. And it's one of your dollars, which makes it an even better value! Plus you get to use one of those awesome coins with a loon on it. (On the whole North American continent, Canadian dollar coins are matched in utility and beauty only by Canadian two-dollar coins.)

It's true that sending a letter to the U. S. costs slightly more than mailing to an address in Canada, but this should not be an insurmountable obstacle in a country with eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts.

Also, just a tip: the way you address the current U. S. Secretary of State is "Dear Secretary Rice" or perhaps "Dear Dr. Rice."

In friendship...
posted by kindall at 11:16 AM on March 4, 2005

I admire Mr. Axworthy for having the patience to climb the ladder, slowly working his way up through parliament, attaining the position of foreign minister of the Canadian government, and no doubt using that as a back door to the true seat of Canadian power and influence, the President of the University of Winnipeg. Now the U.S. will really have to sit up and listen. Bravo, Mr. Axworthy, for having the courage and leadership to speak truth to power now that there are no consequenses to your career.
posted by Idiot Mittens at 12:52 PM on March 4, 2005

Dear Kindall:

Although it may seem far-fetched, it is not necessary to publish a letter to Lloyd Axworthy on an obscure BBS in the hope that he will see it. Yadda yadda.

Also, just a tip: the way we address the current U.S. Secretary of State is "Dear Asswipe" or "Dear Dr. Lizard."

In friendship...
posted by five fresh fish at 12:54 PM on March 4, 2005

rustyiron: I can imagine a US invasion of Canada being really uncomfortable. There'd be not much fighting, and a whole lot of standing around: the Americans standing around with their guns, the Canadians standing around not wanting to get shot.

Apparently phase one of Operation Canadian Overlords has been successful. We've managed to convince the world that we are mostly harmless and too polite to harm anyone even if we could. I bet we could invade and take over several countries before anyone would beleive it.

Can you imagine the call?

[Ring]
[Ring]
Bush (on Red Phone): Hello.
Cheney: Canada just invaded Panama.
George: Huh?
Dick: Canada just took over Panama.
G: This isn't April 1st Dick.
D: I'm not joking. They've flown in hospitals and poutine and have doubled the fee to use the canal.
G: It must be guerillas or something just claiming to be Ca...
[BringBring] Green phone.
G: Just a minute Dick. Hello.
Rice: Canada just invaded a country
G: I know, Panama (thinks he's playing along).
R: No Costa Rica.
G: This isn't funny guys. Don't be telling me fibs, I don't want a repeat of the goat book.

.
.
.

You get the idea
posted by Mitheral at 2:25 PM on March 4, 2005

I suspect any hostile takeover of Canada would result in vicious guerilla insurgency.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:48 PM on March 4, 2005

Although it may seem far-fetched, it is not necessary to publish a letter to Lloyd Axworthy on an obscure BBS in the hope that he will see it. Yadda yadda.

Thanks for explaining the joke, fff!

Also, just a tip: the way we address the current U.S. Secretary of State is "Dear Asswipe" or "Dear Dr. Lizard."

Sure, if you have no class whatsoever. Are you suggesting that Mr. Axworthy has no class, or that he should behave as though he has no class?
posted by kindall at 4:29 PM on March 4, 2005

The use of "Condi" was an intentional slight. Do you have a salient point, or is that as far as you got, kindall?
posted by squirrel at 12:01 AM on March 5, 2005

That's what I thought.
posted by squirrel at 8:20 AM on March 5, 2005

like that gap toothed bitch can even read.
posted by quonsar at 1:46 PM on March 5, 2005

rustyiron: I can imagine a US invasion of Canada being really uncomfortable.

I would suspect it would trigger a civil war in the U.S. since Iraq was such a hard sell. Invading Canada would be a colossal failure with intervention by international forces who are tired of Bush's bullshit. In other words, it would be the U.S. vs The World with the U.S. undoubtedly losing and being split in half like Germany after WWII. If nukes are involved then everybody losses.
posted by disgruntled at 4:42 PM on March 5, 2005

I bet the WMD ruse really wouldn't work as an excuse for invading Canada.
posted by orange swan at 6:54 AM on March 6, 2005