# Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda?



## Disillusioned (25 Nov 2004)

I wasn't thrilled with how the author kept referring to Canada and Quebec as separate entities, but this is an interesting and disturbing essay by a University of Ottawa political economist.

Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda?
by Michel Chossudovsky

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

you've GOT to be kidding


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Nov 2004)

Just what the Republicans want  ---- 32,000,000 motivated Democrats.

Oh wait, that's why he'll do it in his second term   :


----------



## Slim (26 Nov 2004)

We should have a forum for humour...


----------



## Big Foot (26 Nov 2004)

Kirkhill, whats to say we'd get voting rights as a conquered nation? And for the love of all that is holy, what ever would become of the phrase "I'm a Canadian, eh?" Oh the humanity. And looking at the Quebec-Canada viewpoint, the author seems to be a pro Quebec scumbag, looking for an out for his glorious "nation". But I don't want to start a flamewar here so thats all I'm gonna say.  Canada Forever


----------



## Disillusioned (26 Nov 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> you've GOT to be kidding




No, not at all. That's what NAFTA was about. Economic takeover. They already own our resources, most of our major industries,   and have have managed to coerce our government into turning Canada's military into a sister army, however well-trained.

I have full confidence in the quality if the Canadian military, but it's clearly being turned into a fast-moving high-tech, well-trained sister army. I know the army is paid to follow orders but the people writing military and economic policy are doing us no favours.

As we saw with the FTA and NAFTA, it's not necessary to invade Canada, you just manipulate Canada into giving things away.

I think it's disturbing that people even in Canada's military have been manipulated into thinking the U.S. is our friend (some friend) --if anyone has any reason to see the U.S. as a natural enemy or threat, it's Canada, not Russia.


I hope people in Canada's military at least think about the fact that they may be needed in a different way, if they aren't already being commanded by U.S. interests, which is the goal.

A declining superpower that is in hugely debt is right next door. It is imperialist, desperate, and open about its policy. We have everything from water to gold, and they have squat. They have a 450 billion+ military, we don't. That's a huge threat to Canada, and people buy the line that "the U.S. is our best ally, most important, blah blah." They may not invade, but why would they if *they* could be the ones commanding our soldiers some day. What a wonderful thought.


----------



## Disillusioned (26 Nov 2004)

Slim said:
			
		

> We should have a forum for humour...




He's a PhD at Ottawa, not Rick Mercer.


----------



## Disillusioned (26 Nov 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just what the Republicans want   ---- 32,000,000 motivated Democrats.
> 
> Oh wait, that's why he'll do it in his second term    :




To join the U.S., a territory must vote in a two-thirds majority to join. That would never happen because most Canadians reject the idea, and they wouldn't want us to vote anyway. 

We'd be Puerto Rico. A protectorate with no voting rights.


----------



## cgyflames01 (26 Nov 2004)

I'd have to imagine that England would be pissed.


----------



## Disillusioned (26 Nov 2004)

cgyflames01 said:
			
		

> I'd have to imagine that England would be pissed.




Yeah, but they haven't sided with Canada for a long time in our disputes with the U.S......maybe we should reject the British and the American empire, as we did the French empire.

We could also annex the Turks and Caicos and have beach parties.


----------



## clasper (26 Nov 2004)

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> He's a PhD at Ottawa, not Rick Mercer.



Which doesn't mean that his tin foil hat isn't on a little too tight.  His PhD is in economics, so I would say he's wandering outside of his area of expertise.
http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/eco/eng/profdetails.asp?login=mchossudovsky


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Nov 2004)

Puerto Rico has been offered the chance to leave, and declined.   It pays better to stay on the US teat.

[BTW. What makes you think a PhD carries any weight?  A few of my profs were complete wastes of skin.]


----------



## Storm (26 Nov 2004)

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> Yeah, but they haven't sided with Canada for a long time in our disputes with the U.S......maybe we should reject the British and the American empire, as we did the French empire.



Nobody rejected the French empire. France lost the war and pulled out of the area. Note that this was also long before "we" even existed, so "we" didn't do a damn thing to influence the fact that we ended up being run by Britain and not France.


----------



## X Royal (26 Nov 2004)

Lets get it right the only one Bush is a friend of is big money. When he was governor of Texas there was a Canadian on death row for killing a rich older woman in Texas. An appeal to the governor to delay the sentence was made in respect to if it was a fair trial. The accused had known mental problems and was defended by a public defender. The special prosecutor was a very high paid lawyer paid for by the victim's family. Money CAN buy justice in Texas. NO DELAY -  EXECUTED


----------



## Bograt (26 Nov 2004)

X Royal said:
			
		

> Money CAN buy justice in Texas. NO DELAY -   EXECUTED



Money can also buy some great mexican food and margaritas.
I graduated frm the texas hgh scul sytem. It wus da bst six yeers of me lif.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Nov 2004)

Here we go again. 

If the US wanted to invade countries for resources etc. they would have a long time ago. Why go half way around the world to Iraq when Alberta has a trillion barrels of heavy oil just a few hours north of the border? Check the fit on your foil hats people, and see the CQ if they feel a bit tight.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Nov 2004)

> Lets get it right the only one Bush is a friend of is big money. When he was governor of Texas there was a Canadian on death row for killing a rich older woman in Texas. An appeal to the governor to delay the sentence was made in respect to if it was a fair trial. The accused had known mental problems and was defended by a public defender. The special prosecutor was a very high paid lawyer paid for by the victim's family. Money CAN buy justice in Texas. NO DELAY -   EXECUTED



 :


Boo hooo. And all of the steps of the appeal process were tainted too.. or do you think it went straight from the original trial to the execution? Better yet, tell me what you actually know about the American justice system, other than what you've read somewhere. If you're anti death-penalty, fine - this would have annoyed you, regardless of where it was.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Nov 2004)

100% correct Muskrat, there was years of appeals through all levels of courts and he lost, even when he got the "money" lawyers if you will, and as far as Bush having anything to do with it :....his was just the last call type-thing after all those appeals failed. What, your saying he is that damn good that he knows more than all those judges put together? 8)

http://www.bobmillsmp.com/intouch/intouchdetails1999.asp?ID=41
June 23, 1999 
There are some subjects that people generally don't want to talk about across the dining room table. Understandably, capital punishment is one of them. With the nightly news telling us about the latest school shooting or the most recent atrocities committed somewhere faraway, it is perfectly reasonable for ordinary, law-abiding, citizens not to want to focus on the death penalty. But last week they had little choice. The execution of Canadian-born and convicted murderer Stanley Faulder in Texas monopolised one whole evening's coverage on CBC Newsworld.


However, the one-sidedness of that broadcast undoubtedly enraged many ordinary, law-abiding people. Had someone unfamiliar with the Faulder case relied solely on TV, they would most likely have assumed that an innocent man had been unjustly sentenced to death. Forgotten amid all of the heart-wrenching commentary about last minute appeals by the Canadian Government was the homicidal brutality of the act that landed Faulder before the Texas court and led to his lawful execution. So, what did he do? After drifting south into the United States in the early 1970s, Faulder committed a variety of petty crimes. One evening, after asking to use her telephone, he killed a law-abiding Texas woman by beating her head in and stabbing her in the heart with a butcher knife as she lay hog-tied on her bed. The impact of this sickening image is not lessened by the more than two decades since the crime was committed.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no=9920542cv0
1.   1 When this court denied Faulder's earlier petition for habeas relief, Faulder v. Johnson , 81 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 1996), the court specifically rejected a claim based on Texas's breach of the Vienna Convention. Before the court in that proceeding as in this was a letter dated September 1, 1992 from Texas Assistant Attorney General Zapalac to a representative of the Embassy of Canada, which explains the contacts between Texas and the Canadian government during Faulder's prosecution and the fact that Faulder maintained from the time of his arrest that he had no desire to contact his family in Canada. For that and other reasons, this court earlier held that the violation of the Vienna Convention amounted to harmless error. 

There is lots more once you get past the 3 pages of waa-waa sites,  one less killer=good thing


----------



## X Royal (26 Nov 2004)

Never once did I say I was against capital punishment or that he may be innocent. My point was the original trial was not fair by reason of the fact the victims family was able to buy a high priced prosecutor. Any appeals court in this country would overturn the verdict in these circumstances and order a new trial. Why should an accused face a different justice system just because the victim was rich.

Best Wishes


----------



## Guardian (26 Nov 2004)

Buy a high-priced prosecutor? What on earth are you talking about?

Prosecutors work for, and are paid by, the State. No family can "buy" them. And many make far less than the defence lawyers they are pitted against.

Your point is ridiculous. Check your facts.


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

hehe.  high price prosecuter.  that's cute.  let me guess, the family bought Bush too  ;D


----------



## Dogboy (26 Nov 2004)

the point of the US taking over Canada is a non issue 

theirs no money in it 
its cheaper to by our resources with their stronger dollar (for now )
then it would be to get them at their prices 

the only way the stars and bars will fly over Canada soil is if IF their is some sort of massif upheaval in our contry and they "volintear" to help with it and never leave 
something like a small civil war or economic collapse (witch is more likely to happen down their then up hear )


----------



## Shec (26 Nov 2004)

But maybe,  just maybe,  we should sortie all 80 operational CF-18s, 60 odd Leopards, 3 sort of serviceable Upholder class subs, call out the militia, and launch a pre-emptive strike to invade them before they invade us :


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (26 Nov 2004)

The Americans would never try to invade us, it would take their entire 1.5million person army to bring us down with all the underground forces what would spring up as a result of invasion. Canadians are normally so anti-American we need not worry about an annexation vote passing. The only stars and stripes I can see flying on Canadian soil is at the US embassy and at some high priced hotels in downtown Vancouver. 
But it is true that I would feel more threatened by the US then by the Russians. The Russians would never even think about invading us...the Americans on the other hand...
But of course, I would lay my life down to keep Canada free, and Im quite sure many others would to. 
Maybe its time our defense budget was put back up, regular force troops strengthened, new equipment purchased, and we ally ourselves with China!
Vive le Canada


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Nov 2004)

Quote,
 Any appeals court in this country would overturn the verdict in these circumstances and order a new trial. Why should an accused face a different justice system just because the victim was rich.

Guess what, convicted at BOTH trials, he did get a second one and was convicted there also and lost every appeal there after,....
About 15 years worth.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Nov 2004)

But it is true that I would feel more threatened by the US then by the Russians. The Russians would never even think about invading us...the Americans on the other hand...
WHAT!! :.......step away from the bottle.


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

Ontario, Canada -- Canadian Terrence Phillips has grown more and more disturbed in the last few months about America's total non-interest in invading Canada,

"I've talked to dozens of Americans who I met at college & over the internet and not one of them showed the slightest interest in conquering Canada," a miffed Phillips said. "Even when I pointed out to them that our military had absolutely no hope of even slowing down America's armed forces they didn't change their minds. Just what are they trying to say," Phillips continued? "That there's nothing here that's even worth taking?"

Joe Cassidy, One of Phillips' American friends agreed that America had no interest in invading Canada,

"Why would we invade Canada? What would the point be? I don't know anyone who'd be in favor of attacking our little Canuck buddies to the North."

But that was just the sort of answer that infuriated Phillips,

"See that's what I'm talking about," an agitated Phillips said. "Not only do we apparently not have anything America wants bad enough to fight for, but we're not taken seriously as a future threat." Phillips continued, "Sure our military isn't much now but the Americans can't even conceive of the possibility that we'll be dangerous in the future. Iraq? Oh they've got to be stopped before American lives are put at risk. But Canada? They're our 'little Canuck buddies to the North.' What could ever happen?"

When asked if Canada was a threat to America, Tanya McKinney, another American friend that Phillips knew through the internet responded,

"I don't think Canada is a threat. I mean I drove up to a Raptors game once with my boyfriend and everyone was so nice," McKinney said. "They do say "eh" and "aboot" though and I thought that was really cute."

A grouchy Phillips didn't like that answer either,

"So now we're too 'cute' to be a threat to America? What about our oil, and our timber industry," Phillips exclaimed, "are they too 'cute' to be worth billions of dollars? Canadians are well educated, Westernized, hard-working people as well. You'd think we'd be just the sort of people any nation would want to break to their will to be used as slave labor" Phillips snorted. "But instead of hitting Canada the Americans invaded Afghanistan. Yeah, that was a great choice America. Winnipeg alone is worth more than the entire nation of Afghanistan but does anyone ever think about invading us? Noooooooo."

At that point a news report about the latest "Iraqi Invasion" plan that was leaked to the New York Times came on TV,

"Just once" Phillips stated, "I'd like to see a 'Canadian invasion' plan leaked to the New York Times. That would just make my day." 

http://rightwingnews.com/humor/invadecanada.php


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (26 Nov 2004)

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> He's a PhD at Ottawa, not Rick Mercer.



What a relief!  And to think that I was worried that our educational spending was being wasted on ideological nut-jobs trying to indoctrinate unsuspecting students into accepting lunatic left-wing conspiracy theories.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (26 Nov 2004)

On the other hand, maybe there is a little more to this ... from some US Foreign Service Officers:



> Sunday, November 21, 2004
> 
> Canadian Crack-up, Part II
> 
> ...



http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2004/11/canadian-crack-up-part-ii.html


----------



## 48Highlander (26 Nov 2004)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> On the other hand, maybe there is a little more to this ... from some US Foreign Service Officers:



Please.  The guy's just responding to the liberal bufoons who insist on criticizing everything the US does.  I absolutely agree with him.  It's annoying as hell to see all these whiny bastards posturing and threatening, safe in the knowledge that they'll never be held accountable for their statements.


----------



## Thirstyson (26 Nov 2004)

> Ontario, Canada -- Canadian Terrence Phillips has grown more and more disturbed in the last few months about America's total non-interest in invading Canada



It may just be me but I see a lot of humour in the fact that someone named Terrence Phillips believes Canada will be invaded by the US....


South Park movie anyone? Terrene Phillips?


----------



## Disillusioned (26 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Here we go again.
> 
> If the US wanted to invade countries for resources etc. they would have a long time ago. Why go half way around the world to Iraq when Alberta has a trillion barrels of heavy oil just a few hours north of the border? Check the fit on your foil hats people, and see the CQ if they feel a bit tight.



That's the point though. We've become so integrated, they own our oil, (Imperial Oil=Exxon) they own our indsutries, the last thing the want is our water--big batttle over that some day.

The U.S. never "invades" countries. They "liberate" them, two or three hundred times by now.

My whole point was the U.S. has cirrupted our political process, and is trying to get our politicians to sign NorthCOMM, and NAFTA+. Both would make Canad under U.S. jurisdiction--we may still have a flag, but not much else.....no fighting required.

As the article says, Chretien rejected it, so they had a "bi-national committee" do it outside our house of commons, where it coudl n't be seen.  They will try to ram it through eventually, and there will be a fight about it.


----------



## Disillusioned (26 Nov 2004)

To all those who want Canada to eventually increase its power and prosperity as a sovereign country, I hope you've see this site, featuring many of the not-so-well-adjusted people in the White House.

 www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Nov 2004)

>it would take their entire 1.5million person army to bring us down with all the underground forces what would spring up as a result of invasion

What exactly do you suppose Canadians are prepared to die for that we would fear losing under the US "jackboot"?  I've been to numerous destinations in the US, so I have a pretty good idea what to expect.  I must admit I will regret losing some grocery shelf space to pork rinds.

If you promise to fight to the death, I promise to buy you a rifle and ammunition as long as I get to watch your last stand from a safe distance.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Nov 2004)

Better idea, Brad....lets make it a pay-per-view.    *$ching$*


----------



## X Royal (26 Nov 2004)

Guardian said:
			
		

> Buy a high-priced prosecutor? What on earth are you talking about?
> 
> Prosecutors work for, and are paid by, the State. No family can "buy" them. And many make far less than the defence lawyers they are pitted against.
> 
> Your point is ridiculous. Check your facts.



Maybe you should check your facts first. In this mentioned case the prosecuter was a private lawyer payed for by the victim"s family.This is my point exactly. It doesn't happen in Canada but in Texas it did. Also do you think the state rushed out to hire a high paid lawyer for a foreign drifter with known mental problems.In a jurisdiction that not only elects politicians but also judges,district attorneys and senior law enforcement do you not believe big money can't get concessions.

Ps: At the time in Texas it would have been political suicide for any judge or politician to order a new trial Bush included.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Nov 2004)

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> To all those who want Canada to eventually increase its power and prosperity as a sovereign country, I hope you've see this site, featuring many of the not-so-well-adjusted people in the White House.
> 
> www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm





> We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.



Wow, sounds like what has *ALREADY* happened in Canada. Maybe they see something wrong with their political process at home and are thinking about how to make changes....?


----------



## Disillusioned (27 Nov 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >it would take their entire 1.5million person army to bring us down with all the underground forces what would spring up as a result of invasion
> 
> What exactly do you suppose Canadians are prepared to die for that we would fear losing under the US "jackboot"?   I've been to numerous destinations in the US, so I have a pretty good idea what to expect.   I must admit I will regret losing some grocery shelf space to pork rinds.
> 
> If you promise to fight to the death, I promise to buy you a rifle and ammunition as long as I get to watch your last stand from a safe distance.




I agree an invasion would be defensible, but my point was it doesn't matter if our politicians give us away behind our backs.

As for what we would lose, umm, our soveriegnty, our military, (that means you) our technical expertise, our resources, our economy, our jobs, our income, our dollar, our CBC, our politics (we'd never get a vote.) our future, our potential as a future world power, our future as a sane voice in a crazy, corrupt world.


----------



## Disillusioned (27 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> > We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, sounds like what has *ALREADY* happened in Canada. Maybe they see something wrong with their political process at home and are thinking about how to make changes....?




Yeah, but you forgot the part of the site where they say the want "U.S. domination of land, seas, and space, using laser-weapons and nuclear weapons.....you want an insane country running the human race, or do you want an independent voice like Canada to build itself up and become a force for humanity with brains, not psychosis?

As for the comparison you made, it's a little different when the U.S. *already* spends more than 8 times (!!!) more than the next biggest military--China. Their defences don't need to be "rebuilt."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Nov 2004)

Quote,
Ps: At the time in Texas it would have been political suicide for any judge or politician to order a new trial Bush included.

Xroyal....stop reading just the posts you can lie too.......last time,slowly,...he got a second trial and lots of appeals.....he lost them.....drop it....no matter how hard you try you can't put it on Bush.
This was courts and courts only.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Nov 2004)

QUOTE,
_As for the comparison you made, it's a little different when the U.S. already spends more than 8 times (!!!) more than the next biggest military--China._

Disillusioned,
you are wrecking a good rye buzz :....did you ever stop and think just for one second that most of that is because they actually pay thier soldiers enough to make a living on?


----------



## NavyGrunt (27 Nov 2004)

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> Wow, sounds like what has *ALREADY* happened in Canada. Maybe they see something wrong with their political process at home and are thinking about how to make changes....?




Yeah, but you forgot the part of the site where they say the want "U.S. domination of land, seas, and space, using laser-weapons and nuclear weapons.....you want an insane country running the human race, or do you want an independent voice like Canada to build itself up and become a force for humanity with brains, not psychosis?

As for the comparison you made, it's a little different when the U.S. *already* spends more than 8 times (!!!) more than the next biggest military--China. Their defences don't need to be "rebuilt."



Its hard for any of us to take you seriously when you refer to the Americans as an "Insane country" without "brains"and suffering from "psychosis". Your tin foil hat is a little too tight. Im glad that americans spend 8 times what China does. Keeps China from eyeing up Canada(who doesnt spend enough). Someone has to be King Shit on Poop Mmountain. Better America than China.....or and other country that crosses my mind at the moment.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Nov 2004)

> Yeah, but you forgot the part of the site where they say the want "U.S. domination of land, seas, and space, using laser-weapons and nuclear weapons.....you want an insane country running the human race, or do you want an independent voice like Canada to build itself up and become a force for humanity with brains, not psychosis?
> 
> As for the comparison you made, it's a little different when the U.S. already spends more than 8 times (!!!) more than the next biggest military--China. Their defences don't need to be "rebuilt."



I'd rather have US domination than, say Chinese domination of land, seas and space. 

As for Canada being the voice of reason, have you paid attention at all during the last ten years or so, as people like Lloyd Axeworthy trumpeted "Soft Power" and the "Human Security Agenda" while doing absolutely nothing to implement it, besides hectoring the Americans and staying silent during UN votes targeting democratic Israel? Ever wonder why I was in Bosnia helping supervise the "Dayton Peace Accord" (as in Dayton, Ohio) rather than, say the "Montreal Peace Accord"? I think the shoes of reason and psychosis are switched in your worldview.

As for the expenditures on defense, the US is not only paying their soldiers a living wage, modernizing their Armed Forces to incorporate technologies and organizational advances undreamed of 20 years ago, but also putting a defense umbrella over a global community of freeloaders against hostile powers like China.

You may not like the ideas that are being discussed on the "New American Century" site, but at least someone is thinking about the future and offering alternatives. If you don't like them, then I suggest you offer some *BETTER IDEAS* instead of name calling.


----------



## oyaguy (27 Nov 2004)

To answer the post, no, annexing Canada is not a part of Bush's military agenda. When it comes to resources, the Americans do what everyone else does, and buys them. People who say Bush invaded Iraq for oil don't understand that strategic resources only matter if there is a strategic threat. 
Besides, if the US did invade Canada, things will be worse than just the US invading Canada. The rule is democracies don't fight each other, and I think there might be one or two small exceptions, but for two well developed democracies like Canada and the US, war is simply an impossibility. For all the lack of attention the average American gives to Canada, an agressive war against Canada would simply be impossible to justify.
For the sack of argument though, lets explore this possibility of an American invasion of Canada.
To begin, American simply doesn't have the military and economy to fight a war against a well-developed country like Canada. I sincerely doubt Canadian politicians would be blind to the writing on the wall that America is planning an invasion either, and we could: 
A) build up our military, which with conscription involved we could have 2-3 million in uniform waiting on the border. Note, very conservative numbers.
B) Engage in economic warfare. This would entail Canada stopping commerce from crossing the border. This would probably hurt Canada as much, if not more than the US, but if it is an invasion we are talking about, so be it. If we could get China and Japan on our side, overnight they could destroy the American currency, and tank the American economy. How? If you have ever wondered how the Americans can run such huge budget deficits, they do so by selling treasury bonds(?? Please don't quote me on this, I'm not sure if it is treasury bonds) and the Chinese and Japanese like buying these up to prop up the US dollar against the Yen, and Yuan. They do this to keep up their trade deficits. Dumping the currency is what the US did against Britain during the Suez Crisis, sparking a run on the pound, and making the Brits say uncle {Yes there was a little more to it than that}. 
C) WMD. If all that still doesn't make the Americans back off, we could always pull out a few nuclear weapons. We have the resources and technical expertise, and a whole lot of big nothing to hid a couple dozen nuclear weapons in. Also, they would only have to be intermediate ballistic missles {not intercontnental}, making the technical challenge that much easier.
Of course to fight off this hypothetical American invasion would destroy the Canadian economy and cost hundreds of thousand if not millions of lives for both sides. Throw nuclear weapons into the equation and Canada and the US will cease to function as nations.
So again, no, annexing Canada is not a part of Bush's military agenda.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Nov 2004)

>As for what we would lose, umm, our soveriegnty, our military, (that means you) our technical expertise, our resources, our economy, our jobs, our income, our dollar, our CBC, our politics (we'd never get a vote.) our future, our potential as a future world power, our future as a sane voice in a crazy, corrupt world.

Our potential as a power is already stillborn.  I see no evidence Canadians are willing, let along eager, to pay the freight to gain power and influence abroad, to say nothing of mere respect.

I am not sure why you feel we would lose all those things, except sovereignty as Canadians (and the CBC, which you are incorrect to assume has value to everyone).  Even the armed forces might very well be absorbed into US forces, if the offer were made and accepted.  Otherwise, I assume everyone would return to factory and farm.  I am not sure how you expect to motivate people to fight in defence of the CBC, or of mining and forestry conglomerates, or of pictures of the Queen on the $20 bill.  There would still be jobs, income, and legal tender.

Those of you who think it's great fun to tweak the tiger's tail might ask whether the people who actually go in harm's way would appreciate being placed in that situation in such an extreme scenario as a result of your self-indulgence.

Try again: in defence of what do you think people would fight and die?  I am genuinely curious to see what pops out of the keyboards.


----------



## NavyGrunt (27 Nov 2004)

As for losing"being canadian". Yes i would be saddened. But I dont see America as the evil empire. I see them as a kindred spirit. in most things. This entire discussion is upsurd though. If they did you would have to decide on your own what is worth dying for. Healthcare? 

I actually dont see my life changing much though. Except "Hockey night in America"...sounds weird.


----------



## oyaguy (27 Nov 2004)

Aside from the fact that an American invasion of Canada is never going to happen, yeah, I think Canadians would fight. Why? Because it is our country. No matter how free our trade is, or how many big macs we eat, or American magazines we read, movies we watch, we are still Canadian and we still call the shots above the 49th. Parallel. Sorry for anyone who thinks Canadian nationalism is the punchline of joke, but something like a modern American invasion of Canada, would probably do more for nationalism than anything 137 years of history has come up with. Nothing galvanizes a people more than a foreign threat.


----------



## NavyGrunt (27 Nov 2004)

But what are ypu fighting against- the exact same form of lifestyle you have now. Its no different. Nothing changes. Sure "poutine" would be changed to fries and gravy. But to me Id rather see my kids grow up than die fighting for nothing. The way of life stays the same. If the red menace came over Id put my boot in his *** for sure. But its about life for me and my kids/family. If they will be safe and secure and enjoy freedom than I wont die for a name. IF my family is safe. God..these words feel dirty coming out of my mouth.

Politics and governments are what men in suits do far away from my life. I live free and lookout for my family and their freedom. Thats what I stand on guard for.I love Canada and have sworn multiple oaths to her and the Queen and I stand by all of them. But IF(this is so dumb to even talk about) it did happen I would have seriously evaluate how I would react. Economic take over is more plausible than conventional warfare though. Or maybe through political channels- a slow funneling of soveriegnty- "north american citizenship" and "north american currency" and so forth......thats how they ould do it. Those clever Shatner stealing, Mexico touchers ;D

And are they really a foreign threat? Why do we hve so much unguarded border then? It would be my cousins and uncles and aunts coming....bringing their filthy democracy and "english" and freedom of choice.....wait....we already have all that.


----------



## oyaguy (27 Nov 2004)

You have good points.
1. Yeah, this hypothetical American invasion vein, is dumb.
2. As for a political takeover, I don't think that will happen, for the reason the guy {the Prime Minster} signing the agreements doesn't want to give up his power. The whole North American citizenship thing is such reprehensible surrender of sovereignty, I can think of no reason it could possibly happen.
3. Economic takeover I think is becoming less relevant. The US overseas a declining share of the world's economy, so Canada has gotten past the rapids. The American economy at its biggest and baddest didn't swallow up Canada, and now America is in relative economic decline {it will no longer be as strong as everyone else}. A North American currency {Dumb, it would be called the US dollar} is a bad idea for Canada because the US is gearing up for an economic slap in the face when the card castle that supports their budget deficits finally collapses. Also, the Canadian economy is different from the American economy, so a common currency doesn't make sense. Moving money and goods over international borders is easy enough as it is, I don't think a common currency will make it anymore efficient.
4. As for a military takeover, isn't going to happen, wouldn't work.


----------



## X Royal (27 Nov 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Xroyal....stop reading just the posts you can lie too



Bruce I don't care if you are on the directing staff that comment it out of line. Just because we disagree doesn't give you the right to make that accusation. If you would of taken the time to read my other posts you could clearly see it is untrue. As for your comment on another thread about our" resident Bush haters" we may also disagree on Bush but this is a discussion forum not a forum for only people of your view point. It is quite clear neither of us will influence each others view so lets agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Best Wishes


----------



## NavyGrunt (27 Nov 2004)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> You have good points.
> 1. Yeah, this hypothetical American invasion vein, is dumb.
> 2. As for a political takeover, I don't think that will happen, for the reason the guy {the Prime Minster} signing the agreements doesn't want to give up his power. The whole North American citizenship thing is such reprehensible surrender of sovereignty, I can think of no reason it could possibly happen.
> 3. Economic takeover I think is becoming less relevant. The US overseas a declining share of the world's economy, so Canada has gotten past the rapids. The American economy at its biggest and baddest didn't swallow up Canada, and now America is in relative economic decline {it will no longer be as strong as everyone else}. A North American currency {Dumb, it would be called the US dollar} is a bad idea for Canada because the US is gearing up for an economic slap in the face when the card castle that supports their budget deficits finally collapses. Also, the Canadian economy is different from the American economy, so a common currency doesn't make sense. Moving money and goods over international borders is easy enough as it is, I don't think a common currency will make it anymore efficient.
> 4. As for a military takeover, isn't going to happen, wouldn't work.



10-4 I concur


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Nov 2004)

Xroyal..."lie" was the wrong word, something more along the lines of "casually pretend it wasn't there" 
Apologies
....and on another note ,yes I am a moderator but I am also a poster and I keep those things separate. If I need to post as a moderator than I usually will state that if it isn't too obvious.
Do not have a problem with disagreeing with me just because of that.
Bruce


----------



## X Royal (27 Nov 2004)

Bruce if you read your post you can see how I took this to mean that all my posts were lies not just the thread we were disagreeing on. That being said lets just let it rest. Maybe we were both a little too quick to react and had chosen poor words.

Best Wishes to you Bruce


----------



## Disillusioned (27 Nov 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> Yeah, but you forgot the part of the site where they say the want "U.S. domination of land, seas, and space, using laser-weapons and nuclear weapons.....you want an insane country running the human race, or do you want an independent voice like Canada to build itself up and become a force for humanity with brains, not psychosis?
> 
> As for the comparison you made, it's a little different when the U.S. *already* spends more than 8 times (!!!) more than the next biggest military--China. Their defences don't need to be "rebuilt."
> 
> ...




It's a country has installed dictators, killed demoractically elected leaders, and supplied weapons for coups.......in a recent poll, over 79% of Canadians labelled the U.S. a Rogue nation. They have invaded or interfered with smaller countries over 300 times in the last 200 years.

I guess nuclear weapons in space counds appealing. :


----------



## Disillusioned (27 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> > Yeah, but you forgot the part of the site where they say the want "U.S. domination of land, seas, and space, using laser-weapons and nuclear weapons.....you want an insane country running the human race, or do you want an independent voice like Canada to build itself up and become a force for humanity with brains, not psychosis?
> >
> > As for the comparison you made, it's a little different when the U.S. already spends more than 8 times (!!!) more than the next biggest military--China. Their defences don't need to be "rebuilt."
> 
> ...



First of all--I wasn't name-calling.

Secondly, the U.S. has actually cut benefits to its soldiers, sent two-thirds of its troops to Iraw without simple vests, and has used internationally illegal weapons like depleted-uranium and cluster bombs in places like Iraq, killing innocent people and exposing many of their own soldiers as well to radiation, as many Gulf-War victims can attest to.


----------



## Disillusioned (27 Nov 2004)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> To answer the post, no, annexing Canada is not a part of Bush's military agenda. When it comes to resources, the Americans do what everyone else does, and buys them. People who say Bush invaded Iraq for oil don't understand that strategic resources only matter if there is a strategic threat.
> Besides, if the US did invade Canada, things will be worse than just the US invading Canada. The rule is democracies don't fight each other, and I think there might be one or two small exceptions, but for two well developed democracies like Canada and the US, war is simply an impossibility. For all the lack of attention the average American gives to Canada, an agressive war against Canada would simply be impossible to justify.
> For the sack of argument though, lets explore this possibility of an American invasion of Canada.
> To begin, American simply doesn't have the military and economy to fight a war against a well-developed country like Canada. I sincerely doubt Canadian politicians would be blind to the writing on the wall that America is planning an invasion either, and we could:
> ...




I agree that American is declining, and that a military invasion would be nearly impossilble to pull off, however I don't think you rread the entire site:

My whole point was our political elites right now are trying to put our army and Navy (that means you guys) under U.S. command.....this would be the end of our sovereignty if it were not reversed.

You don't ahve to invade a country, you simply have to corrupt its political process.


----------



## Disillusioned (27 Nov 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> As for losing"being canadian". Yes i would be saddened. But I dont see America as the evil empire. I see them as a kindred spirit. in most things. This entire discussion is upsurd though. If they did you would have to decide on your own what is worth dying for. Healthcare?
> 
> I actually dont see my life changing much though. Except "Hockey night in America"...sounds weird.




A kindred spirit that owns Canada, and has killed millions of people to further their political agenda for no good reason....Healthcare is only the first thing you woudl lose....you'd also be much poorer, as American is more and more becoming a have-not country, except for the few.

Hopefully dying for Canada is a more worthy cause than dying in Afghanistan at the hands of two psychotic U.S. fighter pilots.


----------



## Disillusioned (27 Nov 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> But what are ypu fighting against- the exact same form of lifestyle you have now. Its no different. Nothing changes. Sure "poutine" would be changed to fries and gravy. But to me Id rather see my kids grow up than die fighting for nothing. The way of life stays the same. If the red menace came over Id put my boot in his *** for sure. But its about life for me and my kids/family. If they will be safe and secure and enjoy freedom than I wont die for a name. IF my family is safe. God..these words feel dirty coming out of my mouth.
> 
> Politics and governments are what men in suits do far away from my life. I live free and lookout for my family and their freedom. Thats what I stand on guard for.I love Canada and have sworn multiple oaths to her and the Queen and I stand by all of them. But IF(this is so dumb to even talk about) it did happen I would have seriously evaluate how I would react. Economic take over is more plausible than conventional warfare though. Or maybe through political channels- a slow funneling of soveriegnty- "north american citizenship" and "north american currency" and so forth......thats how they ould do it. Those clever Shatner stealing, Mexico touchers ;D
> 
> And are they really a foreign threat? Why do we hve so much unguarded border then? It would be my cousins and uncles and aunts coming....bringing their filthy democracy and "english" and freedom of choice.....wait....we already have all that.




Most Canadians live in a few concentrated areas, and their lives would be very different.


----------



## NavyGrunt (27 Nov 2004)

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> Most Canadians live in a few concentrated areas, and their lives would be very different.



How?


----------



## Disillusioned (27 Nov 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> How?




Well, that's a good question, and a hard one to anwser, because being "Canadian" is not well-defined yet.

-I live in Toronto, and I can tell you that there is much more of an extreme difference between the rich and the poor in Toronto than there used to be, but it's still nothing near that of a U.S. city....

-Canadians wouldn't morph into different people, but there would be a proliferation of handguns if our border were eliminated, and the U.S. has 10 times the gun murders we do per capita.

--Our arts industry would disappear, not that we have a huge arts industry yet.

--University tuition would continue to rise, until poor people had little access to post-secondary education.

--Any chance of enhancing our bigger and smaller cities would eventually disappear, as our wealth would be American-owned and spent in American cities, and our skilled workers would all have to leave for greener pastures, hence our population would be much poorer--see Puerto Rico.

--Most hospitals in Canada would be privatized, and many rural hospitals closed, as is already happening slowly.

--If you care more about military issues--Canada would never get the chance to repeal that awful 90-year agreement Diefenbaker signed, stating we would "Never build another fixed-wing or flexible-wing military aircraft for 90 years."

Canada has some of the absolute best researchers and scientists in the world, and we would lose our chance to use that expertise to build a Canadian-designed military, fighter jets, tanks, helicopters, ships,  and our own car companie(s), our own farm machinery, our own pharmaceutical companies.

--Also, we'd lose our chance to make our own decisions, and would be governed by manifest destiny, rather than peace, order, and good government.

This is the msot dangerous thing--if the "one-worlders" or "globalists" get their way, we'll be a potential forever lost, rather than a country with the most resources in the world, who could be a middle-power easily now, and much more if we increased our population to say 100 million, not through immigration but through making childbirth more affordable and offering more financial incentives to have kids.

If we did this Quebec nationalism would probably disappear, and we'd have no other huge threat to national unity.....this is a critical stage we need to get past--first step is thwarting Martin and his awful group of globalists, as well as John Manley's NAFTA+ he's trying to sell us.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Nov 2004)

Disillusioned,
Here's the scoop, sunshine.

Start googling some facts to back up these claims as I'm starting to tire of drivel, you have 24 hours to back up this post with some facts or moderator action will be taken.
Good night


----------



## Disillusioned (28 Nov 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Disillusioned,
> Here's the scoop, sunshine.
> 
> Start googling some facts to back up these claims as I'm starting to tire of drivel, you have 24 hours to back up this post with some facts or moderator action will be taken.
> Good night




I'm not sure what you're asking me to prove, you'll have to be more specific and I'll do my best to prove things, but it's hard to find proof of what will happen in the future...I did post a link to start this thread.

No one's forcing you to read anything....why is it I doubt that a U.S. sympathizer thread would've been treated the same way?


----------



## Disillusioned (28 Nov 2004)

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you're asking me to prove, you'll have to be more specific and I'll do my best to prove things, but it's hard to find proof of what will happen in the future...I did post a link to start this thread.
> 
> No one's forcing you to read anything....it's not drivel, but I'll do my best to prove my drivel is accurate.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Nov 2004)

Disillusioned - Forum guidelines regarding Qualifying information are located here:  http://army.ca/forums/threads/17343.0.html

Here are some examples of what Bruce is getting at:




> -I live in Toronto, and I can tell you that there is much more of an extreme difference between the rich and the poor in Toronto than there used to be, but it's still nothing near that of a U.S. city....



What is your experience or qualification to know the socio-economics in a US City?



> Our arts industry would disappear, not that we have a huge arts industry yet



How do you know?



> Canada has some of the absolute best researchers and scientists in the world



Says who?


Hopefully, you get the picture....


----------



## karpovage (28 Nov 2004)

Dissillusioned, and X-Royal, as a diehard hockey fan I too am feeling the effects of NHL withdrawl but I don't believe it is because my President has ordered a pre-emptive psychological warfare strike against your country by acting in collusion with "big money"  team ownership to shut down the league and numb your brains before we come rolling in with Abrams tanks.

You act as if my so called Rogue Nation, who you accuse kills millions of innocent people in the name of "big" money (as opposed to "little" money) is governed by megolomaniac dictators or despots bent on some personal agenda. Have you forgotten what happens every four years? It's judgement day by the individuals who wield the real power. 

This nation was created BY the people and our leaders act in the interest OF the people. If the American people approve of going to war or give our representatives the backing to authorize the commander-in-chief to go to war in OUR national interests then that is the true uknown you, as a fearmonger, must concern yourself with. It is the uknown  _will_ of my fellow citizens through our representative voices. Our voices are very loud and very clear when we approve or dissaprove of our leaders' actions and ulitmately we make this choice at the ballot box so when we are on the right course or the wrong course politically, socially, economically and militarily the American people will make the adjustment. Our leaders spent over $4 Billion collectively just to win the American people's vote. It is the leaders who know where the power lies. This translates into faith in the democratic system. This is faith in our Constitution, in the fact that the American people have a right to turn our government upside down in order to proceed in the right direction. The beauty of this is the built-in checks and balances when a branch of government goes in the wrong direction. And for the purpose of this topic, the right direction does NOT involve  - symbolically - breaking down our friendly, warm-hearted neighbor to the north's front door, entering your sovereign house and confiscating all of your possessions and then annexing your land in the name of greed. If that ever was even attempted in today's climate, believe me, you can count on the American people to right that wrong.  

Now, back to a more important subject - back to hockey - saw my first game of the year tonight Cornell University vs. Canisus College.  Cornell won 3-0. Half of the roster for both teams come from all over Canada. And guess whose national anthem was played first before the game started. Yep. Canada. And the parents who travelled down to Ithaca, NY to come watch their children play sang  your national anthem at the tops of their voices. That pride for your country really impressed me.


----------



## Disillusioned (28 Nov 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Disillusioned - Forum guidelines regarding Qualifying information are located here:   http://army.ca/forums/threads/17343.0.html
> 
> Here are some examples of what Bruce is getting at:
> 
> ...




Yeah sorry, I'm working on that link thing. :dontpanic:

Should've known a military site would thrive on detail. ;D


----------



## Disillusioned (28 Nov 2004)

Here is more on Northcomm: (Northern Command)

www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/



Regarding Ballistic Missile Defence:

www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978077104162&Catalog=Books&N=35&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1


Regarding the problems of American ownership of Canada and influence over Canada:

www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978077104217&Catalog=Books&N=35&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1


David Orchard is a romanticist, but his book is a good account of American expansionism in Canada, and the American takeover of our merchant shipping, farming and defence industries among other things.

www.davidorchard.com/online/2do-index.html


Here is American William Blum's accounts of America's attrocities, which Canada would never be guilty of. Scroll down on the opening page to see the dozens of internationally illegal U.S. interventions in foreign countries. Read the introduction to get a sense of what the book contains, and scroll down for a great list of references:

www.killinghope.org/


York University poltical economist and social-policy writer James Laxer's take on the differences between American and Canadian society, and the country who believes it has a right to dominate the globe and the future of the human race:

www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978067088641&Catalog=Books&N=35&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1


Another Laxer book on the differences between Canada and America and around various parts within America:

www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1565847105/103-7131678-8117417?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=507846


From the Avro Arrow and Avro Jetliner to the first artifical heart, Ralah Nader's book Canada Firsts highlights our technical prowess:

www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978077106713&Catalog=Books&N=35&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1


U of T law graduate Duff Conacher of Democarcy Watch and writes the sequel "More Canada Firsts," highlighting the technical prowess the world could lose should we become too integrated into the U.S. :

www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978077102244&Catalog=Books&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1


Stephen Clarkson is Professor of Political Economy at the University of Toronto. His previous books have won the John Porter prize, a Governor-General's Award, and the John Dafoe prize. Here is his book "Uncle Sam and Us," examining our relationship with the United States, and how NAFTA and neoconservative globalization have affected us, and he highlights the search for a new governing paradigm and the fact that this issue is "not whether Canada will exist, but what kind of Canada will exist."

www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978080208539&Catalog=Books&N=35&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1


Here is a great Canadian history book and forward-looking work by Red-Tory and humourist Stephen Leacock that mentions the importance of raising our declining birth rate,   and raising our population to 100 million, and it was written back in 1941!   "Canada: Foundations of its future." 

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?ph=2&bi=331167012


Here is another NORTHCOMM site:

www.northcom.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=s.who_homefront

"If we lose freedom here [in America], there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." 
- President Ronald Reagan
October 27, 1984

"The AOR includes air, land and sea approaches and encompasses the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, and the surrounding water out to approximately 500 nautical miles. It also includes the Gulf of Mexico, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The defense of Hawaii and our territories and possessions in the Pacific remain the responsibility of U.S. Pacific Command."


----------



## Disillusioned (28 Nov 2004)

Karpovage said:
			
		

> Dissillusioned, and X-Royal, as a diehard hockey fan I too am feeling the effects of NHL withdrawl but I don't believe it is because my President has ordered a pre-emptive psychological warfare strike against your country by acting in collusion with "big money"   team ownership to shut down the league and numb your brains before we come rolling in with Abrams tanks.
> 
> You act as if my so called Rogue Nation, who you accuse kills millions of innocent people in the name of "big" money (as opposed to "little" money) is governed by megolomaniac dictators or despots bent on some personal agenda. Have you forgotten what happens every four years? It's judgement day by the individuals who wield the real power.
> 
> ...





I wish I agreed with you. The U.S. is certainly a republic, and no I don't think an Abrams tank will roll in, I'm afraid Canadian leaders are selling us out.


I won't get into the issue of corrupt electronic voting machines designed by republican fundraisers, or even the provisional ballots which left 150,000+ off the ballot in a very close Ohio race.

Here is an interesting piece of evidence. Apparently, 106% of Wyoming was registered to vote. 

Legit Gov.org 
11-25-4 

According to the 'Profile of Wyoming's Voters Voter Registration and Voter Turnout' on the Wyoming Secretary of State's website, Wyoming had a turnout of 106% registered voters on November 2, 2004. 
mix this into AmeriKan de mockery 
Wyoming had 232,396 registered voters - 62% of eligible voters for the 2004 General Elections; turnout of registered voters was 245,789, or 106% of registered voters. 

Take a look at the official figures... http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/profile.htm


A European's take on the historical background of "manifest destiny."

THE EXPANSIONIST MOVEMENT 
by Michael T. Lubbrage
[Michael T. Lubbrage is a scholar and author for the "From Revolution to Reconstruction" project of the University of Groningen in The Netherlands. In this article, he provides a comprehensive overview of the Manifest Destiny doctrine and the plight of those affected by it.]

www.newhumanist.com/md6.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Nov 2004)

_I won't get into the issue of corrupt electronic voting machines designed by republican fundraisers, or even the provisional ballots which left 150,000+ off the ballot in a very close Ohio race.
That line was the death of this thread.

Here is an interesting piece of evidence. Apparently, 106% of Wyoming was registered to vote.
_   
_ Read it again lad, stop trying to find anything to whine about, check the very last column and check the actual turnout of eligible voters._
Anyway this thread has been a train wreck from the start and its time has expired.  Locking


----------

