# A country worth fighting for? -A political Scenerio



## Michael Dorosh (3 Apr 2003)

_At least one of you will have seen this already; I posted it on another board or two.   Interested in your comments._ 

September 2004; political party Red Banana wins three seats in the House of Commons from Quebec; Red Banana advocates the violent seperation from Canada, and is violently opposed to political and economic ties to America, advocating instead closer ties to France.

Canada has refused to send peacekeepers to post-war Iraq, where guerilla fighting continues even after the overthrow of the Saddam regime. American and British casualties continue to occur among the thinly spread garrison forces. Canada reasons that there is no peace to keep in Iraq, and will not commit troops there. The last soldiers have returned from Afghanistan in the summer; Ottawa says it cannot afford to send more troops there. The Canadian Senate has proposed a three year stand down of the Canadian Forces in order to reorganize and re-equip. Capital equipment projects include the ongoing issue of new uniforms, and the new LUVW truck to replace the ILTIS. The last Leopard battle tanks have been concentrated in Wainwright, they number one regiment.

Water shortages grip the southern US during a massive drought. Tension in North Korea is still high, and Iran has made threatening statements towards the US and its allies.

A small nuclear bomb is exploded in New York harbor; the death toll is enormous. Responsibility is traced to the Middle East - it is suspected OBL is still on the loose along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, but the US has too many troops in South Korea and Iraq to be able to keep up its patrols.

Red Banana states on the floor of the House of Commons that America deserved the attack, given its recent condoning of severe Israeli military action in the West Bank. Called on to apologize, the party stands firm. The Prime Minister of Canada is on vacation and does not apologize for the remarks for three days.

Materials for the bomb are found to have come across the border, carried by three Arab men living in Ontario.

An undetermined terrorist organization threatens more attacks unless the US completely vacates the Middle East.

Parts for other explosives are caught at the border crossing in Montana, again, coming from Canada. Wild speculation of a Canada-wide terrorist organization with ties to OBL flood the news.

A deadly virus breaks out in Manitoba; it appears to be manmade,and soon, the virus appears in Illinois and spreads to neighbouring states.

Oil prices are climbing due to actions in the Middle East. 

The RCMP refuse to allow American intelligence operatives into Canada to participate in the hunt for terrorist organizations.

A nuclear detonation in Michigan sends Americans into shock.There are few casualties; it occurs in a rural area - a suspected terrorist lab is probably the source. A horrible accident had occurred. RCMP arrest a man in connection with the New York bombing; he eventually reveals that the terrorists are indeed operating in Michigan, though the majority of the group operates in Canada.

The drought becomes more severe in the southern US with the onset of a heat wave. Canada, not happy with the stance on the Palestinians, won't make concessions on water. 

The US demands that Canada allow American investigators onto Canadian soil to find the terrorist organizations before another WMD is used on US soil. Canada refuses. Red Banana calls for a holy war against the United States.

Spanish fishermen continue to deplete fish stocks in the Grand Banks. The Canadian coast guard is powerless to intervene; armed fishing boats routinely send the unarmed Canadian vessels packing. Canada looks to the US for assistance; America replies it has other concerns right now. Evidence has mounted, indicating terrorist camps in Iran may hold the clue to the WMD attacks on the US. Canada refuses to participate in any attack on Iran.

A poison gas attack on downtown Seattle kills several hundred people. 

Citing reasons of national security and world peace, M1 tanks cross the border in Manitoba, as American paratroopers seize airfields in Vancouver and Victoria. Vehicle parks at CFB Borden, CFB Suffield and CFB Wainwright are attacked by the air, clinically taking out armoured vehicles in their hangars with minimal loss of life.

The Americans demand the surrender of the Canadian government in favour of an emergency government installed by the Americans, until such time as the terrorist threat to their nation has been eliminated. Ottawa begs for foreign intervention, but no one is listening. America's rallying cry is "Enough is Enough." There is a large backlash in the UN. Poland offers help to Canada, as does Germany. The United Kingdom stands by its ally, the United States, but promises not to get involved militarily. Queen Elizabeth, powerless to intervene, expresses sympathy at the entire situation, as does the Pope.

The Canadian military is called out to resist. Help is on the way from Poland and Germany. Russia offers to assist as well, but it will be some time before they can send any material aid.

The question is this, guys:

Would you fight?


----------



## das (3 Apr 2003)

two words man H*** ya I would I was born and raised on Canadian soil and no american is ever going to take one inch of Canadian land while I still breath I may support the yanks in the whole war thing but if they try to take over any part of Canada i would stand before them just because Canada and the States live door to door and help each other out at times don‘t mean the the yanks can tell us what the H*** to do and how to do it. and I‘m sure i speek for a lot here when I say "NUTS" to yanky controled Canada


----------



## ninty9 (3 Apr 2003)

I must be on the ball, eh Michael?


----------



## Gunnar (3 Apr 2003)

It‘s an interesting question.  Canada reaps the ultimate consequences of its existing policies, and manages to honk off the US by keeping its head firmly up it‘s a$$.  The US responds by attempting to protect itself from the irresponsibility of its Northern Neighbour.  Effective terrorist organizations are operating on Canadian soil, and the government is unwilling or financially unable (due to the stupidity of their policies, and the people who continue to vote for them) to stop them.

While I wouldn‘t be impressed by an American invasion of the country, the utter failure of our government to act responsibly on issues of National Security (the primary responsibility of a Federal government) means that someone has to step into the void.  The US wouldn‘t do so until it were in their own best interests, which this case amply demonstrates.  References to Iran etc. are merely smokescreen...being unhelpful to American aims is within the purview of national policy.  If we don‘t agree with their actions world wide, we don‘t have to help.  However, actively doing NOTHING about terrorist groups operating out of our country is the same as condoning the action of said terrorist groups.

Would you fight to defend a Canada that condones terrorism, either on purpose or by default?  Could you proudly say you defended freedom, honour, the government of Canada, the petit banane de Kapuskasing?

The Canada I grew up in is morphing into a place I‘m not as proud to say I come from.  Queen & Country, biculturalism, freedom, Canadian culture are all under attack by those who believe in the "cultural mosaic".  I like being Canadian.  If Canada is a tomato soup, once you add the noodles, vegetables and beef, it‘s still soup, but it ain‘t *tomato* soup, if you get my meaning.  And if you add sewage because the cook isn‘t watching the ingredient list(immigration & law enforcement), and doesn‘t effectively keep people who want to burn down your kitchen (defence) out of the kitchen, you get a toxic, partially burned soup, if you get soup at all.  And if the guy in the living room doesn‘t want his part of the house burned down, and isn‘t a fan of sewage for lunch, he might just come into the kitchen to see what the bloody ****  you‘re playing at....

So I have to ask you...would you fight to keep the denizens of the living room out of the kitchen, where your cooks let people add sewage to the soup, and there‘s a guy in the corner starting a fire that‘s going to burn down the whole **** house?

While I‘m not a fan of the vegetable soup when I ordered tomato, being Canadian, I‘d probably eat it and say nothing.  But when you put sewage in my soup and nobody seems to care, I might wonder if the guys in the living room have better ideas, especially if I notice my house is on fire...


----------



## greeves (3 Apr 2003)

I think the question that you would have to ask yourself is are you fighting for the government, or for your country?  They‘re two distinct entities.  Personally, I would be horrified to see a Canadian government act in the ways described above - but I would be more horrified to see the Stars and Stripes flying over the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill.


----------



## SpinDoc (3 Apr 2003)

Holy crap Gunnar, you make the US sound like a white man‘s paradise or something.

The US isn‘t all that different from Canada in terms of ethnic composition... it probably sounds more like the version of Canada that you just described than the Canada that actually exists.  There is a lot more racial tension in the US than up here -- are you willing to trade for that?

I‘m willing to bet money that there are more terrorists cells operating in the US than in Canada.  Heck, there was a bigger link in Germany than Canada for 9-11.  And don‘t forget your US-homegrown domestic terrorists that are just lying low after the Oklahoma bombing.

Don‘t believe in every US politician that spouts anti-Canadian rhetoric -- they are usually fear-mongers who go for the easy reactionary vote in their home states.


----------



## Korus (3 Apr 2003)

Hmm.... really interesting scenario. But, how activley is the RCMP seeking out the terrorists? How succesful are they? I think it would be good, in a scenario like this, to allow some US intelligence personel into Canada to work under the RCMP so that it‘s not an immense threat to our sovereignty , so that would be a shortsight on the govt‘s part... But then again, the CIA can be shifty.. Like how they used UNSCOM as a cover to spy on Iraq. (A fact actually reported by UNSCOM inspectors)

It‘s also really interesting to see something similar to what‘s happening in other parts of the world (i.e. Afghanistan, Iraq), happening here in Canada. It‘s hard to give an answer right now, because in 2 years, and with much more information, who knows how an opinion could change...

To go with the reply of seeing the stars and stripes hanging over Parliment Hill, that would righteously piss me off. We can see how big of a mistake it was for the US marines to have briefly placed an American flag in an Iraqi town, especially if they‘re trying to win the hearts and minds ot he people.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Apr 2003)

If you sit down and think about it that senario starts to seem more and more possible.

IF i was the american gov‘t i‘d do the same thing. Canadas security is a joke. They would be acting in "self defense"

I‘d still fight though. Not for queen or country because i honestly think neither give a flying f**k for me but hey if i can save one canadian life..


----------



## SpinDoc (3 Apr 2003)

I think the bottom line is, if there is an attack on our lawfully elected government, no matter if it‘s by our bestest friend in the entire world, it is our lawful obligated duty to defend it -- no ifs ands or buts.  The foundation of a democratic society is for everyone to respect the democratically elected government until its term is over, otherwise we would just turn into one of those shaky-coup-ridden banana republics.

I think the labels "Quislings" and "collaborationists" are appropriate.  And in this scenario, the US is no better than Nazi Germany just before WWII began or post-WWII USSR and its creation of the Eastern Bloc govts.


----------



## Gunnar (3 Apr 2003)

Somehow I knew that someone would impute racism into my commentary.  White man‘s paradise indeed!

The difference is that America is American first, your ethnicity and religion second.  You come to their country, you become one of them.  This doesn‘t decrease the number of cultural centres in the US...there are plenty of Polish or Italian neighbourhoods.  It‘s just that the attitude is different...they‘re proud of being American first.  They are a melting pot.  They are not a "cultural mosaic".

I am curious about the "my country right or wrong" attitude of some...I believe that yes, a lawfully elected government shouldn‘t necessarily be overridden by another nation‘s...but I also believe that if a majority of people decide that left-handed people are pawns of the devil and should be summarily shot, that doesn‘t give them the right to do it.  And if another nation were to come in to protect left-handers, I might just do nothing about it...Because I believe that "my allegiance belongs to the country in which I prosper"  (I forget the latin).  Idea being, if my country no longer stands for individual rights and freedoms, why would I be willing to die for it, so that my offspring can live in servitude?


----------



## SpinDoc (3 Apr 2003)

I think "melting pot" is just a nicer way of representing a different (less benign) idea, which will remain nameless here.  I don‘t think anyone‘s mind on the matter will change much so I‘ll leave it at that.

Keep in mind that it‘s "Peace, Order, and Good Government", not "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness".

The "left-handed" people argument is a strawman.  Our law enforcement agencies are much better than what the Canadian and US media make them out to be, and the FBI and other US domestic agencies aren‘t as omnipotent as awe-struck Canadians see them as.  I think Canada has a much better grip on terrorist organizations -- domestic or foreign -- than the U.S. agencies do.  We might bellyache about lack of funding and whatnot, but one would see the same kind of bellyaching down south.  It would be QUITE the day when a government agency tells its govt "oh, that‘s okay, we have enough cash, no need to give us more".   

I say the way to beat this problem is to introduce a national digital ID card system to keep track of everyone - health, social insurance, immigration/emigration, criminal records, photo, fingerprint, taxes etc... and you‘d have all govt agencies and agents with digital card readers that lets them read the particular info that pertains to his/her dept.  But then you‘d have social liberty people scream bloody murder about privacy and whatnot and how technology will ruin everyone‘s lives and the ethical concerns.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Apr 2003)

Something to ponder: in "just war" theory, a just cause (eg. self-defence) must not be a hopeless cause.  The suggestion is that conflict will only make a bad situation worse.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Apr 2003)

I know where your comming from Gunnar.
In canada i don‘t think its about being canadian first. I think Canada wants to seem like the multi-cultural center of the planet and in doing so canadian traditions are being brushed aside.

If you say anywhere that your proud to be a white male people look at you suspiciously. If you try and call a gov‘t buisness in ottawa and get upset because no one on the other end speaks very good english YOUR the bad guy.

Maybe my point of view is biased.


----------



## SpinDoc (3 Apr 2003)

The racial and ethnic issue cuts both (or many) ways...

Being labelled is a very counterproductive thing.  Once someone is labelled, then people usually automatically tags on a whole list of stereotypes.

Francophone - probably a separatist and/or a whiner who wants more concessions from the rest of Canada

Newfoundlander - probably has 10 kids and more on the way, either in the army or unemployed and talk funny

Brown - Islamic fundamentalist supporter and eats curry

Oriental - SARs carrier, Chinese restauranteur

Ridiculous examples, I know.     But you get the gist.

Trust me, almost EVERYONE has something against them, it‘s an uphill battle for everyone, white or otherwise.  Visible minorities have the unfortunate position that people can form stereotypes just by looking and not talking to them.  There are a lot of people who have it harder than us, as seen by the fact that we have the luxury of debating about it here.


----------



## Gunnar (3 Apr 2003)

>I think "melting pot" is just a nicer way of >representing a different (less benign) idea, >which will remain nameless here. I don‘t think >anyone‘s mind on the matter will change much so >I‘ll leave it at that.

I don‘t agree, I too will leave it at that.

>The "left-handed" people argument is a strawman. 

I don‘t agree.  Democracy can mean "majority rule".  If someone were to invade to stop something I thought was WRONG, I wouldn‘t necessarily try to stop them.  I believe that to be Canadian is a bit more than to live on Canadian dirt.  If the Canadian government is destroying that which I believe to be "canadian" values, and someone else is going to set the balance right, I might not be happy about an invasion, but I might be more upset that one was necessary.

>I say the way to beat this problem is to introduce a national digital ID card system 

So the solution to a government which is incompetent in its ability to preserve freedom is not to hold the government responsible, but to let Big Brother run law enforcement?  Something along the lines of "gun registry hasn‘t worked so far, let‘s throw more money at it...?"  Big Brother will give you Order, and maybe even Peace, but it sure won‘t give you good government.  Besides, I‘m arguing freedom because in spite of the government‘s POGG power (I have no idea if they still teach that in history),  Canada is a free country, and owes much of that to its cultural and geographic proximity to the US.

>The racial and ethnic issue cuts both (or many) ways...etc., etc.

That‘s really interesting and all, but the point of my comment was to explain that I don‘t see this from a white racist point of view.  I don‘t really find race to be germane to the discussion.  I believe that you go to a country, you adopt (most of, or a least in public life) the customs and traditions of that country.


----------



## SpinDoc (3 Apr 2003)

Someone could just as easily argue that instead of Canadian values being "destroyed", it‘s "evolving".  Values today differ from values of 50 years ago, which in turn differs from values of 100 years ago.

An example from "modern western history" is that the values of the Enlightenment a couple of hundred years ago may seem very radical to the status quo of the time, but comparatively it bears no resemblence in terms of scale to the values we hold today, or 50 years ago.

I mean, I don‘t disagree with Ghost‘s opinion that people not thinking of themselves as Canadians first and contribute their share to our society deserve the hospitality of the Canadian identity.  Nuts to them.  At the same time, new Canadians might have a different ideas or way of doing things that may be just different, but may be better in the bigger scheme of things.  The best way of doing things (and self-improvement as a country) is to figure out which ideas are good/bad and not just cling to the status quo.  Harder than it sounds, sure... no doubt about it, esp. when there‘s a human tendency to dislike change, for better or for worse.

On the subject of Big Brother, etc... some people (maybe a lot, I don‘t know) think that the US‘ style of liberty flirts too much with anarchy and chaos.  The Peace Order and Good Government bit taught to me was that it was the order of importance.  Peace then Order then Good Government.  Having a Big-Brotherish government is not NECESSARILY bad in theory.  Remember, a lot of times countries resort to Big Brotherism is to maintain internal security.  Now, since the original problem is that of internal security (and how it affects our friends to the south, poor lads being gassed, blown up and all), the solution and problem go hand in hand.  We think Big Brother is bad because in Orwell‘s 1984, it‘s designed to suppress thought and political enemies; so, for the sake of argument and thinking outside the box, I think if we applied it to Al-Quada terror cells it would work equally well, esp since the big US problem with us is that we are allegedly too lax in keeping track of people.  Keeping track of people with an ID database doesn‘t infringe upon any other democratic rights, like voting, freedom of speech, etc etc.

It‘s all about perspective I think.  Different shades of grey.  Close circuit TV is widely used in UK while in US it‘s frowned upon.  US and Canada have rights written on paper in the form of a Constitution, UK does things differently.  Tim McVeigh & co. disagreed with the U.S. Govt, he did what he thought he had to do, and he has millions of folks in the U.S. who think he did right.  I think he did wrong, but that‘s my shade of grey.


----------



## SpinDoc (3 Apr 2003)

And some food for thought while I‘m bringing up the subject of Timothy McVeigh...

Timothy McVeigh‘s Letter 

I find it a little disturbing that if one just took out all the references to the US Govt and replaced it with the Canadian Govt, someone could make a case to do this sort of thing in the name of "values".  No doubt that McVeigh did what he did to defend his perceived American values.  What would happen if someone decided to do the same thing to defend their perceived Canadian values?  I‘m sure he viewed himself as a patriot, and no doubt others still do.  So what should the response to his actions be in our scenario where we as Canadians, through our action/inaction, do things that would undermine our government?  Should it be:
"Nah, nothing of this sort would happen to Canada"
"Hey, McVeigh makes a good point about values.  Our impotent government needs to be destroyed and reborn -- and the US invasion is the instrument."
etc

In my books, criticism against govt policy is fine, but advocating behaviour (even passive behaviour such as failure to defend the govt against a foreign invasion) bordering on treason is... well, disgusting, especially when it is a volunteer military and not a conscript army.


----------



## Gunnar (4 Apr 2003)

I think that was sort of the point of the title, "A country worth fighting for".  Your own moral relativism (everything is shades of grey) basically implies that there is no good and bad, only differing opinions, so you should fight for the government because it‘s a duty, or because it‘s democratically elected.

But if it‘s all shades of grey, then why should refusal to fight to defend the government or Canadian values be treason...hey, according to you, values are relative...why should I value the government any more than any other issue?  It‘s all just a difference of opinion, right?

The Canada that is worth fighting for is the one that is worth defending.  If your vision of what is worth fighting for is different than mine, your motivations to defend the country will understandably differ.  Today, I would defend my country, because I believe it‘s worth defending.  In the hypothetical case above, I might not.  Partly because I‘m a civvie, and to actually do something about it would take a lot more effort, and expose me to more relative danger than the rest of ya, partly because of how I felt about the relative "worth" of doing so.

Risk my life for a corrupt or wholly incompetent regime?  Not I.


----------



## Pikache (4 Apr 2003)

As long as you are wearing the uniform, do you not have an obligation to fight?

It is your job and as long as you agree to wear the uniform, you have committed to do a job.

If the government sucks ***  so bad that you can‘t stomach fighting for it, then quit.

I am duty bound and honour bound to fight for this country whether I like the government or not, because I agreed that I‘d do so when I put on the uniform.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Apr 2003)

BE, that sounds like something a german soldier in ww2 could have said and look at how history remembers them.

Putting on the uniform doesn‘t make you a robot.

Wether its national level or even at platoon level soldiers have to have the smarts to say ‘your out of line‘ to their respective bosses when the situation arises.
You can be court martialed for not following orders but correct me if im wrong, you‘ll be court martialed for following stupid orders as well.


----------



## SpinDoc (4 Apr 2003)

Ah, but here‘s the nub.  In my world, it‘s a spectrum of shades of grey, yes... but that spectrum includes black on one end and white on the other.  And presumably there is a line (or a band) that separates "acceptable" and "unacceptable".  Treasonous behaviour definitely falls well in the unacceptable area... doesn‘t even approach the controversial grey band.

As for German soldiers in WWII... it‘s hard to characterize I think whether or not they‘re good or evil.  There‘s no doubt about the SS exterminating squads, but for the common combat soldier, the majority of the fault should not lie on their shoulders.  If the Cold War turned hot and NATO had to fight the Warsaw Pact, are the Communist soldiers as guilty as the Wehrmacht soldiers simply because they‘re the tools of Communist expansionist policies?

If they pillaged and raped, shot PoWs, then sure, guilty guilty guilty.  But only those individuals involved.  Shouldn‘t broadstroke the entire entity I don‘t think.

Wearing a uniform does not make you a robot, but it carries with it certain legal obligations, don‘t you agree?

I can see not participating in an invasion or other offensive action, but there should be little excuse not to defend your country in a conventional warfare setting with no orders to commit atrocities if one is in uniform.


----------



## Pikache (4 Apr 2003)

German soldiers were following a dictator.

We, as soldiers in a democratic country, are in a different position.

Whether you like it or not, Canadian governments are elected by the people. Now you can argue whether the elections are rigged, because Liberals will take Ontario all the time, which basically seals the fate of the election, but the bottom line is, the people of Canada elects the government.

We say **** you to the Canadian people in certain way if we choose not to do our job to protect Canada.

An invader is an invader, no matter what kind of gift it brings.


----------



## RCA (5 Apr 2003)

Proviso- This is written after Happy Hourâ€¦â€¦..

 First of all for Ghost, the only orders you do not have to follow are illegal ones, not stupid ones.

 Second, if you changed the nation from the US to some other would it make a difference? If it does, think about it.

As a side note, anyone who proposes we are losing â€œourâ€ values because of the cultural mosaic is saying either â€œtheyâ€ become like â€œusâ€ or â€œthey shouldnâ€™t be allowed here, what are you really saying? It smacks of racism to me. We are a nation of immigrants, and are built on cultural tolerance. It disturbs me when we start talking about â€œus and â€œthemâ€ What god given right have we say who inhibits this land of plenty. Those who got here first?

As for the main issue, I think that the arguments about whether Canada would deserve to be invaded because of which we are is a red herring. The reason the US would invade us is because they could. And they would invade us to impose their will on us. Is this right or justified. I think not. If you wanted to be American, move down there. The US does as it pleases because it has the biggest stick. It does make it righteous

I love conspiracy theories, and being young where everything is black and white, but our government is freely elected by the majority, like it or leave it. We, as a society have decided on a course, and believe or not, governments general follow that course. In other words, we get the government we deserve. For another nation to dispute that and demand changes or change it by forceâ€¦. Think about it. Why did we move into the former Yugoslavia. For that exact reason. To prevent one from imposing its will against another

Bottom line, I am a soldier, and I will protect my country from all comers, because it is the right thing to do. Either you believe in our country or turn in the uniform.

I will now get off my soapbox, have a cold one and listen to a little of Boston (yes, on top of everything, I am also culturally confused.)


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Apr 2003)

RCA i think when people use "them vs us" (well for me anyways) it‘s not so much one race or colour against the others, its the difference between people who say "country first, culture next" (like in the us someone mentioned) and people who put their own culture/country when comming from another country into canada. To me they are not canadians, their outsiders visiting. I may not have said that well but thats the best way i can describe it. Regardless of colour i consider someone canadian when they consider themselves canadian.  How can someone expect me to appriciate their traditions and beliefs when they dont appriciate mine.

As for following orders, as unprofessional as it is i think theres times when an order may be legal but just so stupid someone needs to do something about it. I know theres a whole idea about not challanging orders because thats not how things work but im sure everyone has examples of these types of things when an NCO had to go up to an officer and sort them out. (even vice versa)

I‘ve never actually voted in the 6 years i have been able to. I always figured your trading one evil for another, why bother. I actually watched some of the election stuff a little while ago and i liked stockwell day and the reform party. The guy seemed honest. He had his own beliefs and didnt sit on the fence regarding explosive issues like abortion etc.. I then got to see what happens when a politician gets off the fence, the dogs on both sides tear them apart.  I‘ve always found it weird how everyone complains about the liberals, no one seems to like them, i‘m pretty sure they are always caught lying, yet they are always re-elected.


----------



## SpinDoc (5 Apr 2003)

Okay, let‘s spin it this way.

Native Canadians and their culture.  Only place on earth left that houses their language, their rituals, etc etc.  Is it right to assimilate all the different bands into our "culture"?  Or should we give them a choice whether or not to assimilate our customs?

I mean, Canada is pretty good to the natives, compared to say, Australia... but we‘ve had some pretty dark episodes in recent history with regards to how we viewed the aboriginals.

(Don‘t get me started on Day... Remember the dinosaur theory?  Or flat tax?  Now THERE‘s a guy who, if he was in the army, would NOT take advice from his NCOs if he was an officer... he didn‘t listen to his advisors!)


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Apr 2003)

Come on vote for day, you know you wanna   

I actually don‘t know much at all about him but from what i did see i liked. He seemed down to earth. I like europe. Their taxes are included in the price. It makes counting money so much easier   
(What was flat taxes and the dinosaur theory?)

Native subject is pretty tricky i guess. I would say that there is no problem if they want to keep their traditions and their herritage if they are canadian. They are after all a major part of canadian history regardless of what happened.  If they don‘t want to be considered canadian natives or american natives at all and be a seperate entity then i think they should also not expect or recieve money/bennifits from the ‘canadian‘ government.

I think by governments (US and Can) feeling sorry for them/ trying to undo the past we‘ve actually did a lot of harm. I think theres a big difference between remembering/honouring and actually practicing traditions that are 200 +/- years old.


----------



## SpinDoc (5 Apr 2003)

If I didn‘t know better, I think you like Day because he‘s photogenic and doesn‘t speak with a funny voice =) I mean, look at Joe Clark... he‘s puffy!

Day was saying (on national TV) that he had proof that the world was 6,000 years old and that men coexisted with dinosaurs.  Flat tax is like 15% (or some %) across the board for everyone rich or poor... sure sounds fair doesn‘t it?  Of course it does!  Too good to be true... if we thought Mulroney ran up a big deficit, wait till we try the flat tax...

I think with the natives it was more of a matter of "we need to make them better people, like us... we‘ll give them an education and teach them Christian values so they‘ll be better (and not go to heck)".  A lot of cultures in the world practice ancestor-worship in addition to/instead of god(s).


----------



## das (5 Apr 2003)

holy cow you guys went all out eh well i agree with all of you. you all rise very good points of views but your skiping the main point and that is what country would you rather live in a US run one where every one fights and dies or a Canadian one where you have the right to be black yellow brown blue red pink what ever..

all I know is I was born a Canadian and I‘ll give my life to die as one and no one will take that right from me for i feel all Canadians care for all other canadians we are a proud people who charish are freedoms and to show it we let others from all over the world come here and live in peace and I for one would rather see there come a time when every one joins with Canada in a peaceful planet call me nuts rasist or what ever I don‘t care I‘m canadian and thats all that matters to me and I for one will die before Canada is ever take I would shed my blood to defend Canada even if I‘m a civ. I would be out on the front fighting to the end as would many Canadians I‘m sure


----------



## NormR (7 Apr 2003)

Interesting comments and points gentlemen/ladies?
Question is... What is Canada to you... a place to live in, raise kids in, make money in, have opinions even if we can not always speak them aloud..... 
On racisicm: There are various form of derogatory comments( names:which describe the nationality not the person)that can be made about any one who is canadian which will automatically provide a stereotypical description 
But.........
When it comes down to it....
Really really comes down to it...
What would you do....

I for one will consider any nation who by any means decides that they need to control or expand there borders in my country worth killing, 
He** yes I will fight.


----------



## rebel bill (8 Apr 2003)

O.k guys, im american and we are not bad people! We respect other countrys. O.k see our point of view. Lets say this was your country in a very high terror alert, would you want terrorists coming in your country and killing 5,000 civlians? Can‘t you take a mile of land? So if you can see my point, please don‘t hate my country! By the way you guys are all saying america is racist and hates other cultures, well you guys are all puting down america, so consider your self all racists then. America, and Canada will always be friends!


----------



## Albertan (18 Apr 2003)

Cool scenario Micheal. Do you mind if I copy that for use on my friends?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (18 Apr 2003)

I‘d be interested in hearing what they have to say about it.


----------



## Tpr.Orange (18 Apr 2003)

WOW...This post is an excellent brain teaser..Michael i have no idea how you came up with it but major kudos on the idea...Im deffinatley going to pass this on to a couple people for their take on it. 


I am a dual citizen born in Canada and adopted into a family where my father (now) is American. Canada is my home and has always been. I feel strong ties to Canada and to the US . Almost 60 %of my family lives there. 

But given the scenario, as a Canadian, I would fight. Fight to the death if i have to. We have the right to safety and security of our own land and the backing and support of others. In this scenario(NOT IN REAL LIFE) the American war hungry, bunch of pigs have raided another country because of a select few individuals. It‘s beyond conception to allow them to trample on our land and take over our government. These terrorists attacking the US from Canada will be found but, the US invasion issue is  based around the Americans trying to occupy new land in hopes of irradicating a few, while they in turn lose many of their civilians and soldiers.

The terrorist‘s will attack with great strength from within America. Hundreds and Thousands of innocent men women and children will die at the hands of the select few. As the Americans attempt to weed out the terrorists from Canada they will miss tons of Terrorists Soldiers crossing from Canada into the US (which will cost they dearly).

Morally the Americans are so far off the ball its insane, the Canadian Gov‘t. along with CESUS, would have discovered many of these terrorist fractions within Canada and turned over the information that is known about the devious criminals. 

After the original invasion, I believe that the Canadian Gov‘t. will be forced not to disperse and give up total control to the Americans, but rather give up all information regarding the terrorists, and allow American military along with American FBI/CIA agents into Canada. This way the US can hold their own investigation and "invasion" into the terrorist orginization. 

At first Canadian Forces will fight. the CF will fight with more heart and more balls then the Americans, taking some of the US forces by storm and surprise. But soon enough in sheer numbers the Americans will make a large storm up across the Canadian border backing the forces up to the point where they can begin investigation while collection whats left of the CF that do infact surrender.

(BELIEVE ME SURRENDER WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION AND IF THE CANADIAN FORCE COULD MATCH UP IN NUMBERS WE WOULD TAKE EM... but in the end i believe the sheer size of the american force will push the CF to the breaking point.)

Tons of lives lost between brothers. It would be almost like a civil war with many civilians stepping in to stop the violence between the two giant forces. 

But like the song...

"Oh Canada, 
I stand on guard for thee..."


----------



## Spr.Earl (18 Apr 2003)

Very interesting response‘s from all.

 BUT!! If in uniform you are obligated to defend our country even if invaded by the U.S., in Mike‘s scenario.As you have sworn to defend Canada
when you swore allegince and signed the dotted line.

 I for one would fight in or out of uniform and give them a good run for their money even if I died,at least I could say I tried.


----------



## Albertan (19 Apr 2003)

Here are the responces from the folks at Canadaka.net

 http://www.canadaka.net/cka/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=9027#9027


----------



## the patriot (23 Apr 2003)

Michael,

Very interesting and thought provoking scenario indeed.  I for one would never fathom seeing the stars and stripes hoisted over the Peace Tower.  This country is worth protecting and dying for.

Gunnar,

One must be very careful of thoughts that may be perceived as being xenophobic.  What is Canadian culture?  I would hope that one‘s concept of "Canadian Culture" is not that of a bunch of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants downing a couple of beers at the mess and toasting to the Queen.  There are those that are part of the cultural mosaic that are serving members in uniform and can speak more than the two national languages.  These individuals are very proud of their ethnicities and cultures and make very **** good soldiers.

-the patriot-


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Apr 2003)

"BUT!! If in uniform you are obligated to defend our country even if invaded by the U.S"

Tell that to the soldiers in quebec who were ready to rip off the canadian flag and join the country of quebec.

The MPs who went around the army base in quebec asking that should have been tried for treason instead of it being chalked up as a "misunderstanding".


----------



## Pikache (24 Apr 2003)

Your Oath of Allegiance must mean something, not just mere words.


----------



## Long in the tooth (6 May 2003)

Excellent Scenario, and great thread!  This demonstrates that in a true democracy decisions must be made by concensus or the political bank of goodwill is quickly exhausted, as is our case now with the US.  If I may comment on the validity of the situation however, it has some flaws that are on the verge of being fatal.

Firstly, any debate over water would involve the great lakes commission, one of the most effective and powerful bilateral committees in the world.  In other words, any disagreements would not be between the US and Canada, but involve Ontario, New York, Michigan, Illinois and Ohio.  All have vested interests in the well being of the lakes and action by the US government to divert waters would be akin to the NEP - very expensive politically.

Terrorist attacks by WMD solely on the US assume a focus by terrorists not in evidence.  One interpretation of the Koran is that anyone not a muslim is an infidel, and I don‘t believe they would discriminate between Canadian and US infidels.  (As an aside, our government should not assume that the thin line on a map will protect us from Muslim attacks because we‘re ‘Canadian‘.  So far it‘s just the terrorists luck most casualties have been American.)

Lastly, the question asks if Canadian soldiers will follow orders, while assuming that our plethora of police and intelligence services fail to cooperate completely with the US.  What‘s their motive?  Surly it is the protection of the general public that is best served by the sharing of information with their contemporaries.

Hope I haven‘t strayed too far from the mark, but wanted to make my comments.  Facinating thread.


----------



## cheechue (6 May 2003)

> "BUT!! If in uniform you are obligated to defend our country even if invaded by the U.S"
> 
> Tell that to the soldiers in quebec who were ready to rip off the canadian flag and join the country of quebec.
> 
> The MPs who went around the army base in quebec asking that should have been tried for treason instead of it being chalked up as a "misunderstanding".


Really? Didn‘t know that happened...when was this?


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 May 2003)

A few years back during one of the referendems (sp?). It was something about an MP going around a base in quebec speaking with the soldiers finding out if they would join the new quebec army or whatever if quebec seperated. Some people thought it was treason, the goverment chalked it up to a misunderstanding.


----------



## iamcanadian3885 (15 May 2003)

Quite simply, I am a Canadian.  Canada is more worth defending than my own life.  Furthermore, so are the people.  If such a situation were to occur... I fight for Canada, for the people, even if our government had become so lacking as in this scenario... 

As was quoted before, we‘ve heard the song our enitre lives, it‘s something were proud of, and in such a situation I‘m sure we would indeed "stand on guard".

Beautiful country, just like the people.

I‘d support OUR country, and fight


----------



## Deleted member 585 (25 May 2003)

Canada can count on me.

Now, I must run away quickly before all the rhetoric and dogma in this thread buries me alive!   

Cheers.


----------



## Deleted member 585 (25 May 2003)

This page left blank intentionally.


----------



## Etown (25 May 2003)

> If the Canadian government is destroying that which I believe to be "canadian" values, and someone else is going to set the balance right, I might not be happy about an invasion, but I might be more upset that one was necessary.


Now this scares me. Why wouldn‘t you do something to set the balance right, after all it is your government, elected by you and responsible to you. Besides how can an external observer possibly set the balance right? How can you be sure they have your best interests in mind, or any of your interests for that matter. 

Me, well I‘d fight. I‘d defend my country against any invader regardless of the reason. Quite simply Canada fought for and won its freedom a long time ago and if someone else takes issue with the way we run our affairs that is their problem. Now at the same time we must realize that were the above example real it would not be the fault of the government, as many of you have expressed, it would be the product of Canadian apathy. 

It astounds me how many Canadians don‘t vote and still run around complaining about the lack of democracy in this country. Even my own mother once said that "Canadians get one day of democracy every four years", despite the fact that she‘s lived in this country for over thirty years and hasn‘t once applied for citizenship, you don‘t get much more Canadian than that. 

Not to mention that those that do vote haven‘t got the foggiest idea how to vote. The whole western theory that you should vote for the party that is going to win the majority vote or you wont get anything done is a big fallacy. This has been going on for decades and the west still hasn‘t realized that if you vote for a party that doesn‘t care about the west you‘re still going to get screwed. I mean come on...it‘s basic knowledge, responsible government only works if you vote for the best candidate in your riding regardless of party association. Canadians don‘t elect their Prime Minister, never have and never will, so we should stop pretending that we do, and vote for the MP that you actually want representing you, before this all gets too far out of hand.

*Steppin off of my soapbox*


----------

