# USA U Newspaper Editorial:  Time for USA to Liberate Canada



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2007)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Opinion & Editorial:  Liberation of Canada would advance U.S. policy goals*
Monty Rohde and Bassey Etim, Univesity of Wisconsin-Madison Badger Herald, 16 Feb 07
Article Link

It is time for America to consider its next step in the war on terror. The removal of tyrannical pro-terrorist governments in Iraq and Afghanistan has proven largely successful. Granted there are some issues, but who could have foreseen the difficulties we would face? Who would have guessed there would be issues with sectarian violence in Iraq or that al-Qaida would, in desperation, turn toward wanton murder of the civilian populace to create instability? Who could have known that leaving densely populated urban areas absent of any authority would lead to widespread looting? How could we have known that our primary source on Iraq’s hidden weapons is a lying drunk? Plus, those medical trucks looked a lot like tiny nerve gas labs in grainy satellite photos.

The current situation in Iraq is not a crisis, but an opportunity, a learning experience for our future efforts in the war on terror. We therefore purpose the next step in global war on terror be a baby step of the annexation of Canada. Some may find this suggestion perplexing. With more pressing issues to attend to in Iran and Venezuela, why should we annex Canada?

The answer is quite logical: Canada is the northern front in the war on terror. Many of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers entered the United States through the soft border with our northern neighbor.  Currently there is a veritable army of terrorists sheltered just across the border. Sleeper cells and several prominent terrorists lie hidden in Canadian cities buried within various ethnic communities, lying in wait to strike at the heart of America. It is clear we cannot trust Canadians to keep America safe. What better way to secure our unprotected borders than by liberating our northern neighbors?

Canada is also a crucial part of the strategic global struggle with China. China has spent the last decade building up its influence across the globe, taking great care to secure global oil supplies. Canada currently possesses the second-largest known global oil reserve in its Alberta province, and with the polar ice caps finally melting, we can expect more oil to flow from the north in the future as new oil fields become accessible. If Canada, America’s top oil supplier and soon-to-be fourth-largest oil producer in the world, were to fall into China’s camp, America would lose more than 10 percent of its oil imports. We cannot afford to let this happen under any circumstance.

An outright invasion of Canada would be ludicrous — you can’t just invade another country. We would need a casus belli, a just cause, to justify our actions and rally our populace. Fortunately such circumstances are not hard to invent.

Canada, like the United States, has begun to reject liberalism and shift to the right. In recent national elections, liberals were thrown out of office and a conservative government was swept into power in the same way the Republicans gained control in of Congress in 1994. Much like the Midwest, small towns in the Canadian heartland of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan rejected the corrupt and ingratiating philosophies of liberalism and multiculturalism and voted to express traditional values. In the spirit of the common conservative bond, our two nations could be unified.

With support, our Canadian heartland brethren can break the shackles of liberalism for once and for all. This would be accomplished by providing significant financial, organizational, and material backing to strengthen the position of Canadian conservatives. When they have gained sufficient power and popular support, they should be impelled to secede from the liberal elite dominating the country from Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver.

Preferably, this would be the first step toward statehood, though an independent Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan loyal to the United States would also be acceptable. If the Canadian government attempted to quash the push for independence, we would be forced to move American troops into Canada and dissolve their government to maintain law and order, incorporating Canada into the United States as a protectorate. In this event it would be best to grant Quebec autonomy, and allow it sovereignty over New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and other useless parts of the former Canadian nation. While some may find the creation of a Vichy Quebec undesirable in contrast to total annexation, let us pose a simple question. Does the United States need millions of croissant-loving French and Newfies pouring over the border and taking jobs from hard-working Americans? We most certainly think not.

There is little question Canadians would greet their Anschluss with open arms and cheers. After all, for decades the Canadian national identity has consisted of nothing more than denying they are American. I believe it is time to relieve them of that burden.

Notes on liberation

As Senate Republicans are embarrassed about overstating an intelligence report alleging high-level Iranian involvement in arming Iraq’s insurgents, we should remind ourselves how we got here in the first place. We treat war as the first option among many, and unfounded rumors put forth by one man had our officials considering military escalation once again.

Throughout U.S. and world history, public opinion has operated as a game of brinksmanship. The public gets so fed up with officials in nearly every generation that a constitutional crisis, or revolution, becomes a reasonable long-term possibility. At this point, leaders finally adhere to the public will or get overthrown. But we are optimistic about our political system, and as leaders try desperately to make their schemes work, the clock of public opinion winds down. When it finally does, there is no need for violent action or a coup in America. Our leaders, like the public, are socialized to know when time is up and adhere to popular demands.

But if we continue let our military-industrial complex and delusional neo-conservatives manipulate our foreign policy goals with ease, the United States will eventually commit an unforgivable international atrocity. We might even liberate Canada.

Monty Rohde (nrohde@badgerherald.com) is an editorial cartoonist and Bassey Etim (betim@badgerherald.com) is the opinion page editor.


----------



## Yrys (16 Feb 2007)

Do I have a bad or a realistic opinion of the human race to think that people both side of the border
will take that article literally ?


----------



## dynaglide (16 Feb 2007)

Unfortunatley there are those who don't the the meaning of "satire" or "sarcasm"...


----------



## Sig_Des (16 Feb 2007)

> In this event it would be best to *grant Quebec autonomy, and allow it sovereignty over New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and other useless parts of the former Canadian nation*. While some may find the creation of a Vichy Quebec undesirable in contrast to total annexation, let us pose a simple question. Does the United States *need millions of croissant-loving French and Newfies pouring over the border and taking jobs from hard-working Americans*? We most certainly think not



:rofl:

Ah, at first I was thinking to myself, "who is this asshat with his tripe".

Now it gave me the days first chuckle.

But what scares me is the fact that some very well may take it seriously.


----------



## geo (16 Feb 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.
> 
> *Opinion & Editorial:  Liberation of Canada would advance U.S. policy goals*
> Monty Rohde and Bassey Etim, Univesity of Wisconsin-Madison Badger Herald, 16 Feb 07
> ...



Hmmm .... I see they forgot about the New England states dependance on Canadian Hydro power.....

Amaazing that they continue to claim that the 9/11 terrorists came thru Canada when, in fact, most of them were Saudi (US allies) and had student visas - taking flight school in the USA.

Oh well..... it's not like we haven`t heard this one before.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Amaazing that they continue to claim that the 9/11 terrorists came thru Canada when, in fact, most of them were Saudi (US allies) and had student visas - taking flight school in the USA.



I brought this up in a comment I posted (along with the fact that they appear to have gotten in legally through US immigration's process) - as of 9:28am EST, it hasn't been shared with the world yet.


----------



## geo (16 Feb 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> I brought this up in a comment I posted (along with the fact that they appear to have gotten in legally through US immigration's process) - as of 9:28am EST, it hasn't been shared with the world yet.



Are you surprised?


----------



## old medic (16 Feb 2007)

I believe that paragraph is wrong on purpose, it's part of the joke.


----------



## geo (16 Feb 2007)

BTW... I too posted a comment

Mentioned they forgot all about he Hydro and gave them a "fail" on their research.


----------



## geo (16 Feb 2007)

old medic said:
			
		

> I believe that paragraph is wrong on purpose, it's part of the joke.



The regular US media and the US Senate regularly come back to the 9/11 terrorists and how they came thru Canada.... repeat it often enough and they will believe


----------



## midget-boyd91 (16 Feb 2007)

> and allow it sovereignty over New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and other useless parts of the former Canadian nation.


Am I the only one here who finds this little piece of crap info offensive?  Because I do seem to recall that us in the Atlantic provinces have a little thing called off-shore oil. 
Somebody's head ain't quite screwed on tight enough, or someone decided to write an article after too much watered down American beer.


----------



## Kalatzi (16 Feb 2007)

Great piece of satire. 
Though if it were to happen, not,  when we counterattacked and took Washington AGAIN, it might be interesting.
So much for a sunny winter's day fantasy


----------



## geo (16 Feb 2007)

Kalatzi.... are you sure it's satire?

I'm not laughing & neither are the others.........


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> ... are you sure it's satire?



*YES!*

Read the opening paragraph; it is a hilarious attack on Bush's policies and tactics.  The rest is a logical _follow-on_: since George W. Bush _et al_ cannot manage to beat America's enemies - a bunch of poorly armed and organized but still nasty Arabs, let's have a go at our friends - the nice, neighbourly Canadians.

It's pretty good satire; not great - because it's a bit sophomoric, but good for a chuckle all the same.


----------



## seamus (16 Feb 2007)

Nothing but good humor.


----------



## Wookilar (16 Feb 2007)

After the mid-term exam I just wrote (CCE 364 Weapons of Mass Destruction, excellent class; lots of data), I needed a laugh. Quite good.

Wook


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Are you surprised?



Not as much any more, or at least a LOT less than I would have been when I was still a reporter - sigh.......


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Feb 2007)

What's all the fuss? It's quite obviously not meant to be taken seriously, and I'm genuinely inpressed that an American knows the names of four Canadian cities, let alone most of the Provinces.  Good for a smile.


----------



## brihard (16 Feb 2007)

Pretty bloody good. The best satire is the most earnestly written and the most logically argued. I quite enjoyed it.


----------



## Justacivvy (16 Feb 2007)

What about us in BC?  I mean with a large supply of marijuana and meth they got to take us in, right?  :blotto:


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Feb 2007)

Its satire. The UofW is probably one of the most left wing schools east of Bezurkly.But since Canada now has a conservative government they might be serious. ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Feb 2007)

Never happen.  It would bring in too many likely Democrat voters.  Good Republicans in the US armed services would have to wrestle with the dilemma of mutiny versus eternal Democrat administrations, and I suspect mutiny might seem justified to some.


----------



## Marauder (20 Feb 2007)

Shit, give me a decent 'mer'can tax rate and let me keep the big boy's strength brew, and they can liberate me all day long without protest. It would be worth it just to see Taliban Jack's head explode in the ensuing video clip.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Never happen.  It would bring in too many likely Democrat voters.  Good Republicans in the US armed services would have to wrestle with the dilemma of mutiny versus eternal Democrat administrations, and I suspect mutiny might seem justified to some.



Hey, if you believe TV's "West Wing", there'd be lots of travel - didn't one of the characters on the show once say, "Democrats like to maintain small armies, but send them all over the place, while Republicans like to maintain big armies but keep them at home"?


----------



## medaid (21 Feb 2007)

hehehehe this piece wsa brilliant. Very funny. Well Justacivvy, I dont think the US would want BC at all, with their war on drugs, they'll probably put a big chainlinked fences, topped with barbed wire around us, and tell us to screw off with large loud speakers. Oh well, we mind as well become our own nation then too. Well, not to mention with the large oriental population that's here, the Americans maybe afraid that we'll be the beach head for a Communist assault on to North America   :dontpanic:


----------



## KevinB (21 Feb 2007)

I thought it was quite funny.


----------

