Sorry to interrupt...this will only take a moment.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
Because you have viewed at least a few articles now...
Can you give a small donation to keep us online?
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
This site is an independent reader-supported project.
The cost of keeping it running are considerable.
If you can spare a few dollars it would help us enormously.
We can give you e-books and audiobooks and stuff.
×
×
Experimental Feature

Select 'Atmospheric Audio' from the Audio menu to add subtle background audio to certain portions of the article.

America's Secret Plan to Invade Canada

Article #163 • Written by Greg Bjerg

At a length of 5,522 miles (8,891 kilometers), Canada and the United States share the longest non-militarized border in the world. Today we think of the two nations as the friendliest of neighbors, but at one time both nations had somewhat detailed plans for attacking one another... just in case.

The U.S. plan was titled "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan – Red," and it included plans for the invasion of Canada by the United States as part of a larger worldwide military action. War Plan Red was actually designed for a war against England and it’s Commonwealth. The scenario imagined a conflict between England (code name Red) and the United States (Blue) fighting over vital international trade and commercial interests.

The plan was devised by the Pentagon U.S. military in 1934. In the event of such a military conflict, American planners assumed that England would use Canada (Crimson)-- a part of the British Commonwealth-- as a staging area for attacks on the United States. The Army had even researched which beaches the British might use for amphibious landings.

The American military wasn't going to ignore a possible Anglo-Canadian threat, so a strategy for a preemptive takeover was devised. The ninety-four-page document outlined plans for stopping British reinforcements by taking the port of Halifax, then seizing the hydroelectric power plants at Niagara Falls while the Navy blockaded Canada's Atlantic and Pacific ports. The Navy would also take control of the Great Lakes. Special notice was made about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and how they were not a force to be taken lightly in a military action.

Next the U.S. Army was to attack in force on three fronts – advancing from North Dakota towards Winnipeg, moving from Vermont to capture Montreal and Quebec, and moving from the upper Midwest to take over the nickel mines of Ontario. The plan also called for a convoy to travel up Route 99 to Vancouver, and for the British colonies in the Caribbean to be taken. The goal of the U.S. was not only to defeat Canada, but to claim it as a prize, as described in the document:

“BLUE intentions are to hold in perpetuity all CRIMSON and RED territory gained. The policy will be to prepare the provinces and territories of CRIMSON and RED to become states and territories of the BLUE union upon the declaration of peace.”

All of the plans were discovered at the National Archives when they were declassified in 1974. The original War Plan Red was one of many “color plans” developed as academic exercises in a War Department with too little to do in the 1920s and 30s. The plans were an outgrowth of the creation of the new U.S. Army War College and the U.S. Army War Plans Division. With the development of a planning capacity the Pentagon figured they should get some practice.

As for the Canadians, they had their own plan outlining the invasion of the United States. Developed in 1921, it was called "Defense Scheme Number One," and it called for Canadian soldiers to march on Albany, Minneapolis, Seattle and Great Falls, Montana. They were well aware that they lacked the military strength to defeat the U.S., so the thrust of the plan was to buy time for the British to arrive and help their commonwealth ally.

The department in Canada responsible for war planning had an annual budget of just $1,200. During the clandestine information-gathering for Defense Scheme Number One, staff members of the department actually entered the United States to take photographs and to procure free maps at gas stations.

Even though these war plans were just wildly imaginative speculation, there have been real invasions of Canada by Americans in the past. During the Revolutionary War, General Benedict Arnold led a failed attack on Canada, and during the War of 1812 U.S. troops attacked Canadians several times, but were driven back. In 1839, Americans and Canadians met in a deadly confrontation over a border dispute... it cost the life of one American cow and a Canadian pig.

In 1866, about eight hundred Irish-Americans in a group called the Fenian Brotherhood tried to make a statement for Irish independence by invading Canada to agitate the English. After crossing the Niagara River into Ontario they defeated a small group of Canadian militia. But when the British approached with a large force of troops, the Fenians mostly retreated back to the United States, where they were arrested. Some were captured by the Canadians and were eventually hanged.

Today some Canadians are still sensitive to talk of an American takeover. The two countries have at least four unresolved border disputes. In 2003 the Canadian Army set up an Internet chat room where citizens could discuss military issues. The Ottawa Citizen reported:

“One of the hottest topics on the site discusses whether the U.S. will invade Canada to seize its natural resources. Many individuals stated that if the such an attack did come, Canada could rely on a scorched-earth policy similar to what Russia did when invaded by Nazi Germany.”

Regardless, within years of the development of War Plan Red, Canada and the United States were allies in World War 2. Eventually both nations developed a common defense strategy for North America and both were charter signers in NATO. For Americans, Canada has secured it’s place in the "Axis of Congeniality," and today the U.S./Canadian border has the largest number of legal crossings of any border in the world.

So you might wonder, is there an up-to-date 21st Century War Plan Red hidden away some obscure Defense Department office? When asked if such a plan existed today, a spokesman for the Pentagon said, "We don't acknowledge which countries we have contingency plans for. We don't acknowledge any of our contingency plans."

That’s certainly not a denial. So, better not try any funny business, Canada. We might just have a plan.

Article written by Greg Bjerg, published on 14 April 2006. Greg was born and raised in Iowa and graduated with a degree in Journalism from Drake University. Sadly, he passed away on 20 March 2011.

Article design and artwork by Alan Bellows. Edited by Alan Bellows.
SHARE

More Information
Related Articles


246 Comments
monzer4819
Posted 14 April 2006 at 10:08 pm

Like maple syrup, Canada's evil oozes over the United States


ForestGrump
Posted 14 April 2006 at 10:38 pm

mmm...canadian bacon...


NuTT98
Posted 14 April 2006 at 11:25 pm

That's a rather unnecessarily complicated plan. Just cut off the supply of maple syrup and the country will fall into the dark ages.


kerad13
Posted 14 April 2006 at 11:39 pm

as a canadian i would like to say that canada succesfully burned down the americans white house.


PresMatt
Posted 14 April 2006 at 11:48 pm

The BRITISH burned the white house in 1814... If you're going to claim the same victories as the British then you shall also claim the same defeats. America saved Canada from Hitler in WWII!

ugh...


rp2
Posted 15 April 2006 at 12:29 am

Canada shmanada. What aboot it, eh?


scottmcl
Posted 15 April 2006 at 12:42 am

PresMatt
Canada didn't become as sovereign nation until 1867. In 1814 the lines between British/Canadian was not well defined at all (unless you were first Nations.)

And your point about "America saved Canada from Hitler in WWII!" makes absolutely NO SENCE!


Berkana
Posted 15 April 2006 at 01:43 am

Don't forget the Quebecois. They tried to seceed. How might that factor in? Who knows?

Ah, this is like playing RISK.


Arcangel
Posted 15 April 2006 at 01:56 am

Yah, the USA invade Canada, (LOL) Hell we would probably sit down with you and discuss fishing over a Tim Horton's coffee. You'al come back now.


Arcangel
Posted 15 April 2006 at 02:03 am

Oh and if you are really serious consider Iraq. You guys are having a tough enough time over there and with Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, need I go on? Better that you consider us allies then enemies. Seems you have a world full of them.


Mark
Posted 15 April 2006 at 02:15 am

I love Canada! Never been, mind, but any country that speaks French is just fine with me.


Korgmeister
Posted 15 April 2006 at 03:00 am

Well, one of the things about being in the high echelons of the military is you have to be incredibly paranoid. It helps you to consider and make plans for any possible situation, no matter how ludicrously unlikely (like a war in Canada).

Of course, it does bear in mind that in an alternate history where a very isolationist (or even Axis-alligned!) America stayed out of the war and England had to retreat to Canada, such a plan may have in fact come in useful. Fortunately, that didn't end up happening.

I think Canadians are being a bit unrealistic when they think Americans would invade them for natural resources. It's much cheaper to get Canadian natural resources the old-fashioned way: Buy them.


MaddMan
Posted 15 April 2006 at 03:32 am

The whole thing is, America could actually pull something this stupid off and get away with it, because no one has the resources to stop them.


Chad Cloman
Posted 15 April 2006 at 04:14 am

"four unresolved border disputes" -- Would you provide more details.


Korgmeister
Posted 15 April 2006 at 04:30 am

Well, MaddMan, it doesn't really matter if they could, so long as they don't want to.

And considering that America isn't presently even interested in attacking (let alone invading) countries that are openly threatening them *cough*Iran*cough* then I think Canadians don't have anything to worry about.


JustAnotherName
Posted 15 April 2006 at 05:34 am

I was pretty much thinking the same thing other posters touched on. The U.S. should have been as concerned about the REAL THREATS they had prior to 9/11. If they had put as much thought OR listened to the FBI and/or CIA was desperately trying to convey for years as they did with the Canadians invading....well, you know what I am saying.


Marius
Posted 15 April 2006 at 05:45 am

Well, having spent most of my life in Florida, I have first hand knowledge of the Canadian battle plan. Hordes of Qebequois(forgive my spelling) will head south in giant RVs with Hyundais in tow, drive very slowly and erratically, and clog up our freeways, truck stops, and Denny's, and all the while refusing to leave tips for the wait staff. ;-)

And I can't help but wonder if the 1839 dispute gave rise, Reeses Peanut Butter Cup-like, to the egg McMuffin.

cough! (no sense of sarcasm, indeed)


Furnace
Posted 15 April 2006 at 06:06 am

There's probably a better chance of another American civil war than any type of military conflict with Canada. It's only a matter of time before a state or region seceedes successfully. It then wouldn't surprise me if (1) the reason behind it was so asinine that the media hypes it to the point where the rest of the country doesn't care, (2) if a military threat is immediately placed on them, and (3) if the majority of Americans were more concerned about the look of the new flag than any social, economic, or political impacts than anything else.


1c3d0g
Posted 15 April 2006 at 06:24 am

Nah, Canada, U.S, we're all friends. ;-) People lived in pretty chaotic times, so you could imagine what it must've been like - back then. Things have certainly changed, and North America ain't gonna fall in no war, trust me.


Farrell_J_McGovern
Posted 15 April 2006 at 06:27 am

Well, I am fairly sure that the US has full fledged plans to invade Canada...there are many reasons for this.

- Most of the Uranium that has been used by the US comes from Canada
- The Oil Sands of Alberta have a 200+ year supply of oil
- Most of the electricity on East Coast of the US is supplied by hydro-electric dams in Canada
- Canadian lakes and rivers hold nearly a third of the fresh water in the world
- Three billion dollars of trade crosses between the Detroit-Windsor border *DAILY*

As well, Canada has a much more liberal view of the world...something that threatens Fundamentalist Christians like President Bush...Canada allows same-sex marriage, and we don't have the same "war on drugs", either. Canadians have more civil rights than Americans do.


another viewpoint
Posted 15 April 2006 at 06:40 am

If Americans are looking North because of possible problems with Canada, then their backs are facing the real problem to the South!


Korgmeister
Posted 15 April 2006 at 07:04 am

Well, Farrell, the last dot point on your list really touches on why it's laughably implausible. If America went to war with Canada, they wouldn't be getting that $3 Billion per day of sweet, sweet international trade. Not to mention all that electricity from Canadian Hydro-electric dams.

No matter how you look at it, America gets a greater economic benefit from co-operating with Canada than they would from annexing it.

BTW, Justanothername, the point was that back before 9/11, most people weren't convinced there was a real threat. It took some unscheduled aeronautical demolition work in the middle of New York to convince people otherwise. Even so, lots of people still aren't, unfortunately.


grey matter
Posted 15 April 2006 at 08:28 am

I see, the habit of invading and bullying weak countries of the US is quite old.


DesolataX
Posted 15 April 2006 at 08:55 am

Americans are so ignorant. Canada would have half of the nations in the world backing them up. Canada is probably the most highly regarded nation, IMO. America would get this sh*t bombed out of them by other nations, including Canada. Anyways... Doesn't canada supply 1/3 of the USA's power? And a lot of softwood?
America wouldn't survive. Plain and simple.


Phil
Posted 15 April 2006 at 09:11 am

Chad Cloman:

I don't know about the 4 of them, but I know that we are still feuding over lumber trading, and cattle trading (because of mad cow desease).


Greg Bjerg
Posted 15 April 2006 at 09:32 am

Here are the FIVE border disputes between Canada and the United States:

* Machias Seal Island (Maine / New Brunswick)
* North Rock (Maine / New Brunswick)
* Strait of Juan de Fuca (Washington / British Columbia)
* Dixon Entrance (Alaska / British Columbia)
* Beaufort Sea (Alaska / Yukon)

A few of the disputes are actually about where the boundary is set at sea.

Canada also has an internal dispute between two provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador against Quebec.

A few states also have border disputes and the United States has disputes with some Native American nations most notably the Lakota nation.

For more information on the Canada/US disputes go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States


Xiphias
Posted 15 April 2006 at 10:39 am

Has Canada ever been attacked?


PaulS
Posted 15 April 2006 at 11:19 am

Why is it that I hear more and more Canadians' knocking the USA? When I think of Canada I think of a brother nation. I'm proud to Canada next to us and hope that the two of our countries will always be close allies and friends. I hope you Canadians don't take offense, but when I go to your country I feel like I never really left the USA. We share the same language, values and ideas.

Just some thoughts from a Connecticut Yankee


LessThanStella
Posted 15 April 2006 at 11:57 am

Yeah PaulS, I totally agree with you. I am a proud Canadian but I think that some of my fellow countrymen should get off thier high horse. When it comes down to it, Canada and America are more alike than they are different. I've travelled throughout Canada and America and, other than your crazy mono-coloured money, I hardly even notice I'm in a different country.


Nilgan
Posted 15 April 2006 at 12:01 pm

Yes, they are very similar but there are definitely some major differences.

As for whether the US will invade Canada sometime in the future, I think it is definitely plausible. I understand the point that it makes more sense to trade rather than invade. but that is right NOW. In the future, the USA will just not have many resources to trade with Canada, and that is when I see the use of military force.


Marius
Posted 15 April 2006 at 12:05 pm

I think that the future of Canadian/American relations leans more toward a dissolving of the border than military aggression. IMHO, of course.


Pointless_Yelling
Posted 15 April 2006 at 12:06 pm

In reponse to DesolataX's post above:

HAHAHAH!! Man, I needed a good laugh today. Thanks DesolataX; I really needed that...looks like someone has a slight inferority complex.


Stuart
Posted 15 April 2006 at 12:24 pm

If a war was to ever break out between USA and Canada then I reckon the first casualties would be the Baldwin's, quickly followed by the Arquette family. A harrowing thought I think you'll all agree.


Gingitsune
Posted 15 April 2006 at 12:26 pm

...My boy friend is in Canada and I'd go for the boarder break down...as well as a comment I probably can't post here heh...damn expensive go between prices


bryon
Posted 15 April 2006 at 12:29 pm

All this talk of invading my country is getting out of control. As an token of peace, We would like you to take Quebec. Please. No really, we're serious.


slyfed
Posted 15 April 2006 at 12:30 pm

After a lifetime of Budwieser and Schlitz, a couple of bottles of real, (Canadian), beer would send the US invaders into a slumber thereby ending any hopes of conquest.


kyle11
Posted 15 April 2006 at 01:04 pm

This is so interesting.

"The plan was devised by the Pentagon in 1934. "

Especially because the Pentagon wasn't operational until 1943


tza
Posted 15 April 2006 at 02:16 pm

First and foremost I would like to say f-you to all of you american eletist. I'm not sure why so many people in the US have such a grave hate for canada. I lived there for 5 years, and after moving to the US, I recieved more hate from the public then I did moving from RUSSIA to GERMANY, or from Germany to Canada for that matter. So seriously, STFU. There is no justification for any of this.

Cut of maple syrup and they will fall into the dark ages? They MAKE the sht, how are you going to cut them off without taking over the country? Idiot.
I've witnessed, too many times, of how superior Americans think they are. Canadians are lucky in the sense that their Government doesn't strip of them of nearly as many 'rights' as the American governemnt does to its people. I will admit, the CA medical system is absolute dogsh*t. I was put on a 2 year waiting list to have heart surgery. After I talked to a cardiologist here in the States (Rochester MN, Mayo Clinic), not even 10 days later I was on an operating table with all kinds of goodies messing around with my insides.
All in all, I think Americans need to get off their high-horse. Yes it is the most powerful nation in the world, but it doesn't mean that you can be a dick to everyone.
Also.. if the US ever did take over Canada, I highly doubt any nation would do anything about it. What are they going to do? Bomb the US? Their country would be turned into a wasteland. Remember Pearl Harbor? The Japs fuked with one military base, and two major cities got NUKED. Deterant enough if you ask me..
Quit the hate.. please.. it's not necissary. Someone should write an article on Mans Inhumanity to Men.


HenryHSCheng
Posted 15 April 2006 at 03:10 pm

I once heard it in a WW2 movie that there was a difference in opinions between 2 American soldiers--one said we could overrun them in 2 weeks and the other said it would take 2 days. They were just teasing their Canadian counterparts then.


SpectraL
Posted 15 April 2006 at 03:31 pm

Well, if you don't invade Canada, we won't have to hunt down and hang any more of you again. Deal?


Glenn
Posted 15 April 2006 at 04:52 pm

tza said: "First and foremost I would like to say f-you to all of you american eletist. I'm not sure why so many people in the US have such a grave hate for canada. ... I've witnessed, too many times, of how superior Americans think they are. ...

The elitists are probably *not* the people who have a hate for Canada. OTOH, the "redneck patriots" may have projected hate while beating their chests about something or other. (I'm originally from North Dakota, and I never heard any hate for Canadians there, nor since.) I hope tza can associate with a better class of US citizens. As for the sense of superiority, I must agree, unfortunately.

Farrell_J_McGovern said: "Well, I am fairly sure that the US has full fledged plans to invade Canada…

I agree, but not because of Canadian resources, but because it would be a stupid expenditure of money -- just what the Dept. of Defense specializes in.

Farrell_J_McGovern said: "…something that threatens Fundamentalist Christians like President Bush…"

This seems to me the more likely military action -- that some moron President (can you imagine that?) believes that he's found terrorist cells in Canadian mosques, and the Canadian government isn't suppressing them to his satisfaction. Still, even that's quite unlikely.

bryon said: "All this talk of invading my country is getting out of control. As an token of peace, We would like you to take Quebec. Please. No really, we're serious."

No. Please, no.


Kojack
Posted 15 April 2006 at 05:03 pm

kyle11 said: "This is so interesting.

"The plan was devised by the Pentagon in 1934. "

Especially because the Pentagon wasn't operational until 1943"

Yeah, it'd be more proper to say, " The plan was devised by the U.S. War Department in 1934."


Bluecity
Posted 15 April 2006 at 05:40 pm

As an American (from Michigan, so we have plenty of contact with Canadians here); I've always found it fascinating when I talk to or read comments from "Canadian nationalists" that they basically define themselves and their country as being "non-American" rather and telling you what being "Canadian" is. Canadians and Americans are culturally so close, there is probably more regional differences in the United States itself than between the two countries. So what's all the fuss about?

The United States wouldn't invade Canada militarily. Why bother? These arguments that the US would/does invade other countries to get resources don't make any logical sense; if that was the real reason we invaded Iraq for example, we wouldn't be putting up with $70 a barrel oil right now (and make no mistake, it's not like the current administration is all that popular here). It is still much more cost effective to buy something on the open market than to spend on the military to invade to get it; and last time I checked Canada wasn't run by a rouge dictator or was violently hostile theocratic state. Again, so what's the fuss about?

Most Americans don't pay much attention to Canada, it is true, but this isn't due to hatred or ignorance of the Canadian people, but rather because most of us consider Canada such a close friend and ally that is culturally so like us, that Canada is nothing (for us) to worry about. That's a good thing.


Jono
Posted 15 April 2006 at 06:32 pm

Lighten. Up. Please.


Pointless_Yelling
Posted 15 April 2006 at 06:51 pm

First and foremost I would like to say f-you to all of you American elitist...so seriously, STFU

(1) Name calling is not going to get you anywhere; it shows everyone reading just what kind person you really are inside.

I've witnessed, too many times, of how superior Americans think they are.

(2) Well, congratulations. I have witnessed Canadians that think they are superior to the United States but that doesn't mean I go around calling them profanities. See number (1).

I will admit, the CA medical system is absolute dogsh*t.

(3) If our medical system is so awful then why are Canadians coming over the border to use it? Socialist medicine...please.

All in all, I think Americans need to get off their high-horse. Yes it is the most powerful nation in the world, but it doesn't mean that you can be a dick to everyone.

(5) There you go stereotyping all Americans again; I for one don't appreciate that...

Also.. if the US ever did take over Canada, I highly doubt any nation would do anything about it.

(4) Now that is something we agree on...

Remember Pearl Harbor? The Japs fuked with one military base, and two major cities got NUKED.

(5) Wow, if you think you seriously think the only reason we nuked Japan was because of Pearl Harbor, you need a new history book; I think you got ripped off...

If you want Americans to treat you, personally, better you may want to begin by not having a nasty attitude. Maybe people didn't treat you well because you suck as a person; not because you are Canadian. Man, ignorance really pisses me off...


Oax
Posted 15 April 2006 at 06:56 pm

another viewpoint said: "If Americans are looking North because of possible problems with Canada, then their backs are facing the real problem to the South!"

Yeah, but if you're in Detroit Michigan and head due south, what's the first foreign country you come to?

I think any dislike or mistrust we have for Canada, is because of our Propaganda Ministry, better known as right wing talk radio.


Ming_of_Mongo
Posted 15 April 2006 at 07:00 pm

I think the whole concept of conquest by invasion and annexation is no longer relevant to Western warfare in the 21st Century. Think about it - when was the last time that a country in the West annexed another? 60 years ago. In fact, during the last 60 years, most of the old Empires have actually allowed member nations to secede either by peaceful or forceful means (eg. Papua New Guinea from the Dutch, Algeria from the French, India from the British).

The more modern concept seems more akin to 'invasion by trade'. I'm from Australia. We import more than we export - not a good financial situation. We are a Western country living in the East - all of our immediate trade neighbours are Asian and South-East Asian. Without access to trading partners such as the United States, our economy would be in poor shape.

A lot of what we produce is already produced in the United States (beef, grains, etc.) but with subsidies such that there is a clear disincentive for the States to import from other nations. Our only means to gain access to this market was a Free Trade Agreement - this put us on equal footing with American farmers.

The Free Trade Agreement binds Australia to uphold US interests in a number of areas. Intellectual Property laws, which since the DMCA came into law in the States have been more relaxed in Australia than in the States, now are enforceable across jurisdictions. Essentially, US copyright law now applies in Australia.

Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Sceme (PBS), whereby all Australians (and visitors from countries with reciprocal agreements) received subsidised medicine - no life-saving medicine costs more than $29 per month, or $5 per month if you're on a pension or dole - has always been an exemplar of socialised medicine. Not so much anymore. Instead of the Government bargaining with pharmaceutical companies for drastically reduced wholesale prices, any US pharmaceutical company can now appeal and claim the "right" to have their product supplied on the PBS at a more "comfortable" price. Also, US pharmaceutical companies can now block the subsidisation of "generic" medicines in some cases.

The Free Trade Agreement also blocks us from further regulating, within our borders, some industries that most enlgihtened individuals would consider essential - eg. water, power, gas.

The Agreement also allows the US to challenge Australian laws. Laws that apply only within our borders are now able to be challenged by a country several thousands of kilometres away.

There are many more examples whereby, in order for our economy to remain stable, we've had to sacrifice some of our independence as a nation in order.

Instead of having our sovereignty taken by invasion, we've had to give it away.

This is the new form of control that countries exert over others in the 21st Century.


Jono
Posted 15 April 2006 at 07:06 pm

Americans and Canadians, I'm talking to both of you. Don't jusge each other based on what some idiots say on this page. Every country has its idiots. It doesn't mean we're all idiots.


Pointless_Yelling
Posted 15 April 2006 at 07:10 pm

Jono said: "Americans and Canadians, I'm talking to both of you. Don't jusge each other based on what some idiots say on this page. Every country has its idiots. It doesn't mean we're all idiots."

I concur. I was trying to convey that in my post.


Oax
Posted 15 April 2006 at 07:14 pm

Ming_of_Mongo said: "The Agreement also allows the US to challenge Australian laws. Laws that apply only within our borders are now able to be challenged by a country several thousands of kilometres away.

There are many more examples whereby, in order for our economy to remain stable, we've had to sacrifice some of our independence as a nation in order.

Instead of having our sovereignty taken by invasion, we've had to give it away.

This is the new form of control that countries exert over others in the 21st Century."

That's how it is when you dance with the Devil...
I think most Americans respect Australia and consider it a friend, probably for the reasons above.


Oax
Posted 15 April 2006 at 07:19 pm

Jono said: "Americans and Canadians, I'm talking to both of you. Don't jusge each other based on what some idiots say on this page. Every country has its idiots. It doesn't mean we're all idiots."

I want to stand up for idiots, only because no one else will. No, wait a minute, they have plenty of backing...


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 15 April 2006 at 07:48 pm

Well, I am also an American who lives in Michigan, and as such have a more unique view on Canadians. Yes, for the most part, they are a great people. But they suffer from the same problem America has: An unsilent, highly vocal minority. All you ever hear on CKLW is all the bad things in America, but all the good things you hear are Canadian. This is not the fault of the People per se, just the socialist mind set. I have also heard the "ugly american" moniker stuffed in my face all to often. I invite the "superior" Canadians to come view the tennis shoes and other items discarded in the parking lots of the local shopping centers ( or centres, : ) )because they are to lazy to put them in the trash. This is done so they become "duty free" when they cross the bridge. (yes I am aware of how other americans litter, rest assure when I and others see it, they get reported as fast as I get my cell out). Would America actually invade Canada now, I do not think so, but I could be wrong, but there is nothing of use militarily to the US, as the Navy and Air Force can reach any area we need. Petroleum is a good possibility, but hopefully we as Americans can ween ourselves off of the oil nipple so it is not necessary. Could we do it, Yes, and easily too. Why: Well, we have footed the bill for there National Defense for quite some time ( or Defence, if it makes you feel better) We do the job, so why should they use there tax dollars for a large military. We patrol the borders for them, and the rest of the world knows that if you mess with Canada, you mess with America. I would also point out that the Canadian Military had to train an additional 6 weeks just to be allowed on the battlefield by the coalition. I also will believe, to the day I die, that the friendly fire incident was the Canadians Fault, and our Military took the hit so the Canadian Military could save face. But the biggest reason why we would not, is that we already have enough socialists in America, ie California (or as the govenator pronounces it Cally 4 knee uh), Washington, etc. We do not need any more. Oh, and when will the rest of the world realize that the ugly-americans that travel abroad are the rich, snobby bastards that can afford to do it, and that they treat the other 95% of Americans the same way. Seriously though, despite all of the bickering, they are the staunchest of allies. And to answer the question why we are having difficulty in Afghanistan and Iraq: Simple, Americans care about Civilian Losses. Yes they happen, but we do our level best to limit them. We could have used a tactical nuke a long time ago and have been done with. Read between the lines my brother and sisters.


Prince
Posted 15 April 2006 at 07:52 pm

I dare say that a country ignorant enough to elect Bush has no chance of a successful take over of Canada.

Im not taking the Canadians side but Bush thinks Canada is an overseas country for christ's sake! and I quote "My job takes me to lots of overseas countries, like Canada"


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 15 April 2006 at 08:07 pm

tza said:

I've witnessed, too many times, of how superior Americans think they are. Canadians are lucky in the sense that their Government doesn't strip of them of nearly as many 'rights' as the American governemnt does to its people.

tza would do well to remember that the Canadians have never had as many rights as Americas have had. Possibly why we have so many move to America ( I do not really consider California an American State, but the map says otherwise.) I would also reference the Canadian Goverment removing a good percentage of the firearms from its people (shades of Nazi Germany) despite not doing a better job on the roving biker gang problem. (what, never heard of this problem...do the research) And do I need to mention the Canadian Government policy on the First Nation Peoples? And yes I am aware of how many liberals want to do away with the Second Amendment, rest assured, it will not happen without a fight. Canada would do well to remember the Spirit of Laura Secord ( again, do the research)


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 15 April 2006 at 08:14 pm

Furnace said: "There's probably a better chance of another American civil war than any type of military conflict with Canada. It's only a matter of time before a state or region seceedes successfully. It then wouldn't surprise me if (1) the reason behind it was so asinine that the media hypes it to the point where the rest of the country doesn't care, (2) if a military threat is immediately placed on them, and (3) if the majority of Americans were more concerned about the look of the new flag than any social, economic, or political impacts than anything else."

There will not be another civil war, We will have another Revolutionary War, in which the people take back the Government and force the Constitution back into Law


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 15 April 2006 at 08:25 pm

grey matter said: "I see, the habit of invading and bullying weak countries of the US is quite old."

quite right, never mind the amount of terrorist that come out of these "weak" countries. Of course, it is fault of America, we are only interested in the countries for there oil. We pay them HUGE sums of money for pleasure of them constantly berating us and saying that all the problems in there rich little countries are again, the fault of the Americans. Hmmm, how about feed your people instead of buying palaces, custom mercedes, and gold-plated AK-47s. The list of small countries we have invaded is quite large. Germany (to free its people), Italy (Same reason) France (same reason) Korea (stop Communism) Viet Nam (same reason) Most Americans do not think, and fully know, that our Country is not perfect, but it is the best political experiment to date, and that makes a whole lot of us proud


beanaroo
Posted 15 April 2006 at 08:49 pm

tza said: "Cut of maple syrup and they will fall into the dark ages? They MAKE the sht, how are you going to cut them off without taking over the country? Idiot."

I think you need to look up sense of humor in the dictionary. It was a joke for Christ sake. Relax or you might end up having to get more heart surgery.

tza said: "All in all, I think Americans need to get off their high-horse. Yes it is the most powerful nation in the world, but it doesn't mean that you can be a dick to everyone. "

All in all I think you might need to get off YOUR high horse and stop being a dick to all Americans. Not all Americans are assholes, just like not all Canadians are nice.

And if this is such a shitty country you can always move back to Canada.


fuzzhammer
Posted 15 April 2006 at 09:58 pm

i hate patriotism. especially Canadian patriotism. Canadians haven't been brainwashed with nationalism to the degree that Americans have, yet they always get so defensive about things like this. people always say 'we did this,' even though they personally had nothing to do with it. Most of Canada is the same culturally as America, slightly different maybe.


RichVR
Posted 15 April 2006 at 11:11 pm

If we go to war with Canada and they institute a draft, where will all the draft dodgers run to? Mexico?


rexrufus
Posted 16 April 2006 at 01:00 am

"Straight Dope" covered this three years ago. Read their article too -- it's not much longer than DI's and adds several other important details. To summarize, public awareness of war plans against distant European powers (read: Germany and Russia) would've been political suicide in the Thirties because popular isolationism reigned supreme at the time. Canada was easier to "pick on" not only because such a concept was already farfetched even back then, but our long border justified such a plan out of necessity. It is a central task of every nation's military planners to "be paranoid" so to speak, in the sense of assuming the worst based on their nation's geopolitics. This is not some distinctively American hubris, any more than it is paranoid of Canadians to prepare contingencies for a US invasion.

Canada and America are allies, so please treat this as the history that it is.


JustAnotherName
Posted 16 April 2006 at 04:44 am

Xiphias said: "Has Canada ever been attacked?"

My family went to Expo '67 when I was 6. Does that count?


grey matter
Posted 16 April 2006 at 05:33 am

nutritionalalchemist said: "quite right, never mind the amount of terrorist that come out of these "weak" countries. Of course, it is fault of America, we are only interested in the countries for there oil. We pay them HUGE sums of money for pleasure of them constantly berating us and saying that all the problems in there rich little countries are again, the fault of the Americans. Hmmm, how about feed your people instead of buying palaces, custom mercedes, and gold-plated AK-47s. The list of small countries we have invaded is quite large. Germany (to free its people), Italy (Same reason) France (same reason) Korea (stop Communism) Viet Nam (same reason) Most Americans do not think, and fully know, that our Country is not perfect, but it is the best political experiment to date, and that makes a whole lot of us proud"

I'm not proud but sick of it........

I'm not from USA,
but from one
which hasnt invaded any country in the last 50000 years.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 16 April 2006 at 06:08 am

grey matter said: "I'm not proud but sick of it……..

I'm not from USA,

but from one

which hasnt invaded any country in the last 50000 years."

Great....we have the extraterestrials weighing in on this now.....the real threat to the world... : )


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 16 April 2006 at 06:22 am

RichVR said: "If we go to war with Canada and they institute a draft, where will all the draft dodgers run to? Mexico?"

hmmmm. interesting thought. But I think they will run to California and be safe under the "dont ask, dont tell law : )
This does bring up a theory I have always had. Just as Americans are allegedly brainwashed with Nationalism (some are, I am aware, but on the whole, no) Canadians are bred from people who have disliked America since its inception. After the Revolutionary War, anyone who hated America had a choice: back to Britain if you had the money, Mexico (nuff said) or Canada. Same with the Civil War if you did not want to live in the south anymore, but quite a few did go to Mexico then, which is a possible reason for some of the problems during World War II (and now also, possibly, but doubt it) And MANY went during the Korean and Viet Nam war. They are almost genetically programmed to hate and distrust Americans.


sfurules
Posted 16 April 2006 at 06:54 am

Getting back to the real topic on hand (screw politics....lose lose talk if you ask me)

Is it not possible that there was a plan for invading Canada as a tactical idea, not to defeat the Canadian people, but instead if Canada were to somehow be conquered by another country?

Hypothetically, if Canada were to be attack and annexed (in the 30's this would have been much more of a possibility, mind you), then it would be very prudent to have a plan for invading the Northern Lands to reclaim them from whatever evilness took them in the first place.

Although it isn't exactly the same, think of France in WWII (ever heard of D-Day?). They were taken over, and we had to take them back!


Furnace
Posted 16 April 2006 at 07:02 am

I think it's ironic that an article written with a tone that says, "Depsite the fact that America and Canada co-exist so peacefully, there were once contingency plans in case of the need for war.", has suddenly sparked a verbal war among readers. Let's all be happy and build a giant rollercoaster where the border lies.


gursh
Posted 16 April 2006 at 09:56 am

Plans like this have always been around. John A Macdonald the first prime minister of Canada also had a plan....

John A. Macdonald - "War will come some day between England and the United States and India can do us yeoman's service by sending an army of Sikhs, Ghoorkas and Belochees & c, & c, across the Pacific to San Francisco, and holding that beautiful and immoral city with the surrounding California as security for Montreal."


Harvard_Homeboy
Posted 16 April 2006 at 11:24 am

"I see, the habit of invading and bullying weak countries of the US is quite old."

Yes, it's been a part of American foreign policy for about the last 90 years or so, since the first time we invaded France to save them from the bootheel of Prussian imperialism.


J. Tithonus Pednaud
Posted 16 April 2006 at 04:38 pm

fuzzhammer said: " Most of Canada is the same culturally as America, slightly different maybe."

Not to make a big deal out of this but, FYI, it is that sort of ignorant comment that truly offends and upsets Canadians.

Canada is a distinct society made up of distinct societies; where differences are acknowledged and encouraged. Our forefathers tamed much of a rural and harsh country with their blood and sweat and many of our grandparents and ancestors died defending this country and its concepts.

We are not Americans or British we are Canadians and we are proud of our distinct heritage and to be Canadians.

When the efforts of our forefathers and current leaders are dismissed by saying we are ‘no different than America’ it stings. It is a slap in the face of the people who built this country.

It would be the same as saying you Americans are the same as the British. There are similarities but very distinct differences as well.

On another note, are any of you familiar with the Canadian World Domination website? cwd.ptbcanadian.com

J. Tithonus Pednaud
Purveyor of Peculiar Physical Phenomena
And Puzzling Prodigies of the Past.
http://www.thehumanmarvels.com


egarrard
Posted 16 April 2006 at 05:16 pm

sfurules said:


Is it not possible that there was a plan for invading Canada as a tactical idea, not to defeat the Canadian people, but instead if Canada were to somehow be conquered by another country?

Hypothetically, if Canada were to be attacked and annexed (in the 30's this would have been much more of a possibility, mind you), then it would be very prudent to have a plan for invading the Northern Lands to reclaim them from whatever evilness took them in the first place.

I bet China has just such a plan. It would be much easier to invade Canada and set up a base of operations rather than attack the US directly. And look at all the Chinese in Canada right now who could help.


fuzzhammer
Posted 16 April 2006 at 05:28 pm

J. Tithonus Pednaud said: "Not to make a big deal out of this but, FYI, it is that sort of ignorant comment that truly offends and upsets Canadians.

Canada is a distinct society made up of distinct societies; where differences are acknowledged and encouraged. Our forefathers tamed much of a rural and harsh country with their blood and sweat and many of our grandparents and ancestors died defending this country and its concepts.

i am also a Canadian. this is the sort of nationalism i was talking about. its normal for Americans to believe in this rubbish, which i guess is why it is popular in Canada too. patriotism/nationalism is a religion with no god, you worship the government and some abstract notion of a 'distinct heritage.' when im driving around town all i see is more america, ruled by a different set of kings.


Ming_of_Mongo
Posted 16 April 2006 at 05:40 pm

nutritionalalchemist said: "our Country is not perfect, but it is the best political experiment to date, and that makes a whole lot of us proud"

Without reference to any text book or website, can you please explain why the political systems of Belgium, New Zealand, and South Africa are not as good as that of the United States?

If, as I suspect is the case, you can't, then you're not qualified to make blanket statements about the superiority of one political system over another, and you're just falling prey to the mindless patriotism that others here seem to think typical of Americans (I'm not going to weigh in on *that* part of the debate...)


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 16 April 2006 at 08:00 pm

Ming_of_Mongo said: "Without reference to any text book or website, can you please explain why the political systems of Belgium, New Zealand, and South Africa are not as good as that of the United States?

If, as I suspect is the case, you can't, then you're not qualified to make blanket statements about the superiority of one political system over another, and you're just falling prey to the mindless patriotism that others here seem to think typical of Americans (I'm not going to weigh in on *that* part of the debate…)"

Well, if I was a "mindless patriot", I would have said something like " America is the best....yada yada yada."
If there was a a book or website that stated that quote, and I referenced it, you would have then said, "well sure, your quoting a mindless patriotic site" As far as I know, no book or site exists. And I did not say it was a better political "system" I said it was the best political "experiment" going. Experiment means it is not done yet, it is constantly changing, and will continue to do so. This is its stength. ( and I would suspect its greatest weakness.) And, while this is not quantifiable, but if those systems are indeed so much better (and they could very well be, I am not an expert in politcal systems, history is more my thing) why does America have such a large immigrant population. If our system is so bad, and we are "evil incarnate" why do do many come here? Our system allows us (if we so choose, unfortunately) to elect any braindead moron with a ivy leauge education (reference out last 2 presidents) And as far as mindless patriots go, I despise them as much as anyone. These are the flag wavers that say America is the greatest place on earth, while collecting wellfare and throwing 2 liter bottles of pop full of urine out of the window of there 30 year old, camo-painted dodge pickup. I assure you, that is not me.
However, thank you for actually voicing an intelligent question. That is why I love that I have found this site.


Arithon8
Posted 16 April 2006 at 08:02 pm

I started reading the comments and having a chuckle, then I began to detect a hint of seriousness. I am kinda stunned. Being Australian, I did not realise there was any venom between America and Canada. I would have thought the border between Canada and America was the safest on Earth. I understand the cultural similarities, and I understand Canadians being unhappy about the comments.

America does not have to invade militarily to conquer. Cola-colonialism is alive and well. When we study Popular Culture in Year 10 History, I always get my students to make a list........Favourite Band, Favourite Music, Favourite Movie, Favourite Actor, Favourite Fashion Brand, Favourite Saying etc...............95% of the results are American. Australian teenagers are totally influenced by American culture. I keep having to say "It's Zed not Zee" (thanks to Sesame Street). I recognise the "invasion", but I mourn the loss of what is distinctly Australian.

Okay, I have just deleted two paragraphs that were a political rave. Was about to submit, then I figured this is supposed to be a comment on interesting articles, not a political forum to rave on about my views, so I deleted said articles. Sigh..........would have enjoyed a discussion too. Oh well.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 16 April 2006 at 08:14 pm

sfurules said: "Getting back to the real topic on hand (screw politics….lose lose talk if you ask me)

Is it not possible that there was a plan for invading Canada as a tactical idea, not to defeat the Canadian people, but instead if Canada were to somehow be conquered by another country?

Hypothetically, if Canada were to be attack and annexed (in the 30's this would have been much more of a possibility, mind you), then it would be very prudent to have a plan for invading the Northern Lands to reclaim them from whatever evilness took them in the first place.

Although it isn't exactly the same, think of France in WWII (ever heard of D-Day?). They were taken over, and we had to take them back!"

very insightful. I can honestly say I would have never thought of this. Nice thinking!


J. Tithonus Pednaud
Posted 16 April 2006 at 08:17 pm

fuzzhammer said: "i am also a Canadian. this is the sort of nationalism i was talking about. its normal for Americans to believe in this rubbish, which i guess is why it is popular in Canada too. patriotism/nationalism is a religion with no god, you worship the government and some abstract notion of a 'distinct heritage.' when im driving around town all i see is more america, ruled by a different set of kings."

My friend, no disrespect, but the root of patriotism and national pride is showing respect for the people who worked hard for the freedoms you enjoy. It is not and should not be the ‘worship’ of governments or even global concepts. I fail to see how this sort of respect is ‘rubbish’. Again, that idea is both ignorant and insulting.

I have no idea of what part of Canada you live in but perhaps you should explore the rest of Canada as well – then travel and compare it to other countries so you may better appreciate and acknowledge the differences. If you have aready done so - I am at a loss.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 16 April 2006 at 08:33 pm

Arithon8 said: "I started reading the comments and having a chuckle, then I began to detect a hint of seriousness. I am kinda stunned. Being Australian, I did not realise there was any venom between America and Canada. I would have thought the border between Canada and America was the safest on Earth. I understand the cultural similarities, and I understand Canadians being unhappy about the comments.

America does not have to invade militarily to conquer. Cola-colonialism is alive and well. When we study Popular Culture in Year 10 History, I always get my students to make a list……..Favourite Band, Favourite Music, Favourite Movie, Favourite Actor, Favourite Fashion Brand, Favourite Saying etc……………95% of the results are American. Australian teenagers are totally influenced by American culture. I keep having to say "It's Zed not Zee" (thanks to Sesame Street). I recognise the "invasion", but I mourn the loss of what is distinctly Australian.

Okay, I have just deleted two paragraphs that were a political rave. Was about to submit, then I figured this is supposed to be a comment on interesting articles, not a political forum to rave on about my views, so I deleted said articles. Sigh……….would have enjoyed a discussion too. Oh well."

Well, if it makes you feel better, bands like INXS, Men at Work, Midnight Oil, AC DC, Kylie Minogue, etc have made a HUGE impression on American kids ( Myself included, I am 35) I think all countries are both guilty of doing this, and being affected by it. Look how many woman have Chinese script tattoos on there body (most have no idea what they mean) Hollywood is highly influenced by other cultures, and this in turn influences the country. I think the best version of Mad Max is the original with the Australian accents (very rare here, but findable) If that same question was asked of students here, very little would be American. As long as there is one Australian who remembers, it is never lost ot forgotten.


rp2
Posted 16 April 2006 at 08:46 pm

ok wow, of all the touchy subjects on Damn Interesting.. this seems to be the most touchy of them all. O Canada!


valbrun
Posted 16 April 2006 at 10:06 pm

hum...

Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary.... come check out Montreal or Quebec city, you'll get an idea where the dividing line stands. Canadians are always trying to distinguish themselves from the United States for totally obscure reasons.... they are pretty much the same (excepted for Nova Scotia and the Newfies) . Anyways, Canada is some sort of culturally non existent massive and bizarre country. When the english ruled, us frenchies were the canadians and now that England is just some old distant identity they clame the canadian title and aren't about to let us seceed!

It always make me laugh when I hear english speaking canadians argue about their cultural uniqueness... Their cinema; music; litterature; boring food and beer are 100% american. When a country needs to call it's worst beer "Canadian" to get some national identity boost, it's pretty depressing (not to mention it's produced by a Quebec based brewery). The only major differences from the US lie in hockey and beer (and then again, go to Minnesota or Wisconsin they might think otherwise)... How pathetic! They can't even produce any star-system cause all their artists prefer NY and Los Angeles.

Thank god for french, it's preserved some interesting and valid differences in Quebec's culture. Not to say we don't have a big interest for things american, it's just that we have another culture to compare it to as opposed to our anglo-counterparts. I understand it's difficult for Canadians to admit it but that's life. This explains their irrationnal divaguations on cultural differences and the more liberal attitude has nothing to do with it. Don't tell me NY, Seattle or San Fran are conservative bastions... please.

When it comes to pinpointing CAN-US differences, Canadians are simply better off keeping their mouth shut. We in Quebec have a much more logical and honest approach : We hate american politics but we love the american people and are fascinated by their weird spirit. We don't want to be a part of it, but we're sure as hell happy to be close to it. As far as Canada is concerned, if it wasn't for federal shmolitics, we Quebecers don't give a rat's ass about fucking Moose Jaw or the Rockies... Quebec society has much much more to do with french speaking Belgium or Switzerland than Alberta or Ontario even though we are an ocean away

Oh and by the way since the FTA, Americans must have absolutely no interest in some invasion since they secured canadian natural ressources through privatizations. Thank god for Hydro Q, we can still make a buck by selling the coal burning US some of our clean energy while enjoying nice social programs. Please... US citizens... just don't care about us separating from Canada, it'll all be the same apart from the fact that we won't have to pretend we're Canadians any more, which we are no more.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 17 April 2006 at 06:52 am

We in Quebec have a much more logical and honest approach : We hate american politics but we love the american people and are fascinated by their weird spirit.

Heck, Americans hate American politics


Haywood Jablome
Posted 17 April 2006 at 08:29 am

Wow, I never knew how much some canadians disliked the states. Sooner or Later there is going to be a WWIII. And its going to be the USA vs. the rest of the World because everyone hates us.


dJCL
Posted 17 April 2006 at 10:28 am

Just to throw another random one out there...
I just find it fun to read some of this stuff, I randomly pick on things about americans, but I also understand that we are basically the same people. I've traveled the entire eastern seaboard of north america, and most people I've run into are great people.

I tend to put it this way: I like americans as individuals, less so as a group.

Another note: a couple of people mentioned that we have some saved up karma to spend if we get invaded. International karma fades over time as each generation dies off. We have not really earned any new karma in the last few, we just do a little to keep our names out there. I personally feel we should re-structure our armed forces into a peacekeeping and humanitarian force with military training and then we could see about earning some of that karma again.

And the ever popular american statement: we came in and saved europe. Read up on some non-american war histories, yes your country played a vital role in defeating our enimies, but careful in your assumptions about what role. Your best service was in supplies for most of the war - give us guns and we can go use them on our enimies who don't have the resources north america did - the same reason japan was screwed when they had not won the war within about 6 months...

Second last: I used to travel more in the US, but I don't like some of the changes that the US government has made that are not being faught by the population. Every once in a while you are hearing of homeland security pulling someone off the street for something stupid, how many are you not hearing of? Just for having a viewpoint sometimes? I personally think this is headed down a bad road, and land of the free is loosing it's appeal.

Finally: US invading Canada - not today, but I agree with the concept of the day when the US does not have the money to pay us for our resources in trade - we've been diversifying our trade to be less dependent on the US - there are pleny of countries that want our resources. As for Canada invading the US - again not today, but in a few years we may feel that American civil liberties have been eroded enought to take action. I foresee us being subtle and convincing a state or two to join us... that would be ugly, but interesting...

Anyway,
Enjoy the fight!


joethecoat
Posted 17 April 2006 at 10:32 am

IRELAND INVADED CANADA!!! Well, Fenians Union soldiers did, after the American Civil War... Got their asses kicked, since the US Army helped out the Canadians...


sierra_club_sux
Posted 17 April 2006 at 11:07 am

Having lived on the Canadian border for quite some time I have made a few observations of my own.

1.- If Al-Queda had drank any Canadian beer those jets would have been in Calgary or Montreal.
2.- In the event of a military strike against Canada the Department of Defense should not attack the usual military targets. A much more effective means of disabling command and control would be the bombing of hockey stadiums.
3.- That's not a ruse, the French people really are that way...
4.- Get to the bridge toll booths in front of them by any means necessary. They can't read toll prices and produce and count pennies for payment.


Sandra Thurston
Posted 17 April 2006 at 11:25 am

Canadians and Americans at war...man, this is like if Brazil decided to invade Argentina just for the heck of it or ohhhhh yeahhhhh we are the biggest rivals in the history of soccer! Gime a break. Peace everyone!


n1cknam3
Posted 17 April 2006 at 11:31 am

Funny how many people do not seem to realize how artificial the notion of 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' is in the U.S. :) I mean.. sure not all of you would agree but if you consider the whole Emersonian transcendentalist tradition permeating all the underlying idealism of the major events in american history and compare that to the actual economical and pragmatic reasons, you will, in my opinion, invetably come to the conclusion that all those stereotypes that display the United States as one nation and one people are to a considerable extent artificial.

There are, IMO, two aspects or questions: First of, how do you form a nation with the same sense of cohesion and reliance on tradition (the way it works in Europe) when the tradition of your country lies mainly in rejecting all conventions and being 'free' (read Emerson a bit.)? The thing is that an average american in the eyes of a european is simply somebody who is blindly unaware of the cultural reality around him/her and yet he/she is absolutely determined to reject it and, as they say today, 'be him/herself'. (Although I understand this is very much a bandwaggon approach and I expect a lot of you americans will disagree with me on this and consider this blatant bullshit).
Secondly, as an answer to the preceding question, you don't. It's just impossible considering the constitution of cultural minorities, the vastness of the country and the way it is organized as a fairly loose federation. With all this diversity, the thing you do is you make up some artifical means of uniting the people under one thought. So what do you do? In the minds of the people, you make america and individual that complies to the general idea of a frontier's man, always struggling for his freedom (physical or intellectual), proud and self-reliant. The problem is that to his surroundings this frontier's man looks mean, selfish and a bit short-sighted. Now I know this is not true, I'm talking stereotypes here. The point is that it seems that americans themselves get entangled in the artficiality of their idealism and actually believe what the people that have glossed the actual philosophy of Emerson have made up.
In the end, one funny article about a plan that with the highest probability was never meant to be taken into practice ignites a string of sour comments. Some of you americans should probably try to get some sort of a critical distance before you shout.
On a side note, could someone explain to me the difference between the actual difference between the canadian and the american cultural development? Could someone prove me entirely wrong (but supported with evidence, pls)? And last but not least, I do not consider myself a superior being possesing all the knowledge of the entire world. This is just the way to show a specimen of european perspective on this (I am from the Czech Republic).


eachus
Posted 17 April 2006 at 11:41 am

I've seen lots of US invasion plans for Canada, mostly for Quebec. But the reason is that Fort Drum, NY a base used for two-week National Guard training, is right near the border. Also, I now live in New Hampshire, and both my son, when he was in the Reserves and the NH National Guard have done map exercises planning an invasion of Canada. Of course, in some of those exercises, Canada invaded the US instead. ;-)

As for real invasion plans, the US, and many allies including Canada have a complex distributed database logistics system JOPES which is part of GCCS: (http://www.disa.mil/gccs-j/index.html). Just as with the National Guard and Reserves, I am sure that there are lots of plans for invading Canada in there for the same reason as above: because the long border makes for good practice exercises, with lots of different potential routes for invading units.


sierra_club_sux
Posted 17 April 2006 at 12:06 pm

Geez, you guys keep writing and ol' Dubya might get ideas... ...how's the dove hunting around Camp Ottawa? I hear there is killer fishing at the new ranch in New Brunswick...


bryon
Posted 17 April 2006 at 12:23 pm

J. Tithonus Pednaud said: "Not to make a big deal out of this but, FYI, it is that sort of ignorant comment that truly offends and upsets Canadians.

Canada is a distinct society made up of distinct societies; where differences are acknowledged and encouraged. Our forefathers tamed much of a rural and harsh country with their blood and sweat and many of our grandparents and ancestors died defending this country and its concepts.

We are not Americans or British we are Canadians and we are proud of our distinct heritage and to be Canadians.

When the efforts of our forefathers and current leaders are dismissed by saying we are ‘no different than America’ it stings. It is a slap in the face of the people who built this country.

It would be the same as saying you Americans are the same as the British. There are similarities but very distinct differences as well.

On another note, are any of you familiar with the Canadian World Domination website? cwd.ptbcanadian.com

J. Tithonus Pednaud

Pednaud;
Whatever makes your heart swell. In spite of the way you want to put your own spin on it, we are culturally similar to our neighbors to the south.


Carcer
Posted 17 April 2006 at 12:57 pm

I love America. I love Canada. I don't want to invade Canada because I fear, like we all should, Petey Williams and his Canadian Destroyer.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 17 April 2006 at 02:13 pm

dJCL said: "Just to throw another random one out there…

And the ever popular american statement: we came in and saved europe. Read up on some non-american war histories, yes your country played a vital role in defeating our enimies, but careful in your assumptions about what role. Your best service was in supplies for most of the war - give us guns and we can go use them on our enimies who don't have the resources north america did - the same reason japan was screwed when they had not won the war within about 6 months…

nutritionalalchemist says

America was supplying Europe with supplies well before the sh0oting actually started. This is one reason hitler had nazis' in Mexico for a strike at our southern border. Yes, we did sit the first two years out because we were so isolationist. I find it curious now that the rest of the world wants us to return to that foreign policy. Our current policy was formed when the first bomb dropped on pearl and has become more aggressive since then (for better or worse, who knows) However I would not want to be the individual to tell some mother that there dead sons involment was a 'minor involvement" And America did not do it because it had to, the majority wanted to, and would gladly do so again. Most of America is decended from Europe and those ties are Blood, just as our ties with the Canadians are. Yes, we bicker like siblings, until some outsider threatens the other. I believe all of this is just that sibling rivalry, and no more.


topaimz
Posted 17 April 2006 at 05:19 pm

I share with you, an old, yet entertaining pic that holds 'some' significance with the above discussion
[html][img]http://www.basetree.com/graphics/jesusland-small.jpg[/img][/html]

LOL.

Anyways, I believe many Canadians saw the TV specials with Rick Mercer, going around the states and
asking Americans really simple questions about Canada, and they would get it terribly wrong...
That was pretty harsh, yet entertaining.
For example, Rick Mercer asked a politician (I think it was a mayor of a northwest state, not sure which one) to come up to the Camera and congradulate the Canadian people on adopting the 24hr day...
and to many people's surprise, he bought it, and thought it was real, and with sincerity said it...

That was couple years back, so I know Americans are not that ignorant anymore (especially with all the world issues that has occured, urging the Americans to educate themselves in various nations, cultures/societies; due to natural disasters, war, etc.)

IMHO, Canada and the US live in a mutualistic symbiosis. With out one another, one would suffer greatly, if not 'die' all together, economically, politically, etc. So either one would jepordise their own wellbeing by invading/killing the other off, so theres not much to be said :P

P.S.
US ain't thinking much about invading countries 'physically' (exception of the war).
Anyone realize the steady decrease of the US currency value? You think thats bad?
Think about that, and outsourcing ;)
If you connect the dots, you'll see that US is slowly trying to get back its economic dominance
over countries that may become economically dominant over them in the future... *cough China *cough


chrislewis
Posted 17 April 2006 at 09:11 pm

HAHA racial hate.

Look at australia vs new zealand. Perfect example.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 18 April 2006 at 05:28 am

topaimz said: "I share with you, an old, yet entertaining pic that holds 'some' significance with the above discussion

[html][img]http://www.basetree.com/graphics/jesusland-small.jpg[/img][/html]

LOL.

Anyways, I believe many Canadians saw the TV specials with Rick Mercer, going around the states and

asking Americans really simple questions about Canada, and they would get it terribly wrong…

That was pretty harsh, yet entertaining.

For example, Rick Mercer asked a politician (I think it was a mayor of a northwest state, not sure which one) to come up to the Camera and congradulate the Canadian people on adopting the 24hr day…

and to many people's surprise, he bought it, and thought it was real, and with sincerity said it…

That was couple years back, so I know Americans are not that ignorant anymore (especially with all the world issues that has occured, urging the Americans to educate themselves in various nations, cultures/societies; due to natural disasters, war, etc.)

IMHO, Canada and the US live in a mutualistic symbiosis. With out one another, one would suffer greatly, if not 'die' all together, economically, politically, etc. So either one would jepordise their own wellbeing by invading/killing the other off, so theres not much to be said :P

P.S.

US ain't thinking much about invading countries 'physically' (exception of the war).

Anyone realize the steady decrease of the US currency value? You think thats bad?

Think about that, and outsourcing ;)

If you connect the dots, you'll see that US is slowly trying to get back its economic dominance

over countries that may become economically dominant over them in the future… *cough China *cough"

You would be surprised of how little Canada knows about itself. I work at a Correctional Facility in Michigan, and our Health Care staff is from a Health Group in Canada. On a whim one day, I asked if anyone knew who Laura Secord was. Not a one did. Laura Secord is one of Canadas greatest Patriots, during the War of 1812 she performed a service very much like Paul Revere, Willaiam Dawes, and Samuel Prescott. (everyone knows the first name, lets see how many know the last two... : ) )


TKO
Posted 18 April 2006 at 06:19 am

chrislewis said: "HAHA racial hate.
Look at australia vs new zealand. Perfect example."

I'm trying to work out whether you're Aussie or Kiwi to help in my plan of attack here. But hey, so long as NZ still remains the king of Rugby Union I don't think it matters. ;) (Okay, that's more an illustration of the seriousness of that rivalry than anything else. But hey, I'm sure the fact that I have no idea of which of us hold most of the major trophies right now will come back to bite me ... [prays]I don't want to have to resort to Netball results here.[/prays]) :D

I still get concerned with how I see complete misinformation thrown around on this page to suggest superiorority. It's nice to see some more rational thought creeping in at times. But the sheer volume of posturing is a bit worrying. If it's representative of the general feeling of Joe Public well, I can only think that's good argument against open democracy. ;)


Virginia Beach
Posted 18 April 2006 at 08:09 am

The smart money is on encouraging Quebec to finally secede so that the other provinces can apply for statehood. The majority of Canadians have more in common with the United States than they do with Quebec.


Virginia Beach
Posted 18 April 2006 at 08:20 am

The really smart money is on encouraging Quebec to finaly secede so that the other provinces can apply for statehood. The rest of Canada has more in common with the United States than with either Quebec or France.


Joshua
Posted 18 April 2006 at 08:38 am

All this talk about a U.S.-Canada war and no one's brought up the South Park movie yet?

"Blame Canada, blame Canada..."


rp2
Posted 18 April 2006 at 09:06 am

I want to quote every person on here just to say you're all wrong. :)


Lurker
Posted 18 April 2006 at 11:00 am

:o


rp2
Posted 18 April 2006 at 12:19 pm

oh damn you, I thought I would get the 100th comment!


ronangel
Posted 18 April 2006 at 02:51 pm

Get the writers of South Park to come up with a plan they did ok on the last one!


bryon
Posted 18 April 2006 at 04:25 pm

(I think it was a mayor of a northwest state, not sure which one)

"Mayor of a northwest STATE."??

Perhaps Mercer should be interviewing Canadians about the US for some good laughs too.


Lurker
Posted 18 April 2006 at 04:54 pm

I own the 100th comment. >:P


myname
Posted 18 April 2006 at 07:24 pm

Ok, I just read ALL of this. And it was AMAZING. I love a good debate, and this one was so multifacted that I think I actually grew as a person.

That said it cant be denied that the US and Canada are as close as two countries can be both politicaly and culturaly, not including Quebec. As for the plan itself...it was a contingencey for the worst case scenario....I mean Canada IS a border country, U have to be prepared. I assure u every country in europe has similar plans.

And yes, Free Trade is the new colonialism.


scottlac
Posted 18 April 2006 at 08:49 pm

"Arcangel says: Oh and if you are really serious consider Iraq. You guys are having a tough enough time over there and with Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, need I go on? Better that you consider us allies then enemies. Seems you have a world full of them. "

Actually, the Islamo-facists hate Canada too. They hate everyone who does not belive the way they do. Don't worry we will keep doing the thankless job of protecting you as we protect ourselves. Envy is an ugly thing.


dcue_2
Posted 18 April 2006 at 10:16 pm

PresMatt said: "… If you're going to claim the same victories as the British then you shall also claim the same defeats. America saved Canada from Hitler in WWII!

ugh…"

I have heard this before - American's claiming they saved us or the Brits from the Nazi's or Hitler. Let's just examine that under the light of a few facts.

Canada raised the largest volunteer army (per capita) during WW2 - and was the ONLY allied country to not need conscription.

At Normandy on D-Day, the Canadian 3rd Division landed at Juno Beach (USA landed at Omaha & Utah and the Brits at Gold & Sword). Yep a country 1/10 the population of the USA and less than half the population of Britain managed to raise a military force (virtually from scratch) and have a Normandy Beach to itself. Canadian forces were the ONLY allied forces to reach their objectives on D-Day. At the same time other Canadian Divisions were coming north through Italy from Sicily and from landings in the south of France.

Canadians were also fighting the Japanese in the South Pacific (Hong Kong) on the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

Canadians were also helping to defend Britain during the Battle of Britain and the Canadian Navy in the North Atlantic was defending the convoys of US goods being sold to the Brits so that there would BE a Britain to stage an invasion on D-Day.

So to say that America saved Canada from Hitler is to show ignorance of history and is disrespectful to the 42,000 Canadians who volunteered and lost their lives along-side American and British soldiers.

I do not mean to diminish the efforts and bravery of US troops in WW2 but only to point out that this type of remark ("we saved you from Hitler") is rooted in anger and not fact.

WW2 was a team effort and it was fought because a strong bully had attacked its weak and defenceless neighbours. Perhaps a reason why the USA is having trouble with its friends right now is because it is looking more and more like the strong bully beating up defenceless kids in the play ground (Grenada for example).

Now not all of America's military moves in the past have been bully moves - some were needed and condoned and assited by other nations including Canada - Afganistan for example where Canadian troops are there now fighting and dieing.

Others have made remarks about America "paying" for our defence. I disagree. We are in a symbiotic relationship. Perhaps we need your defence - but I am not sure who would invade us - perhaps Denmark because of a dispute over ownership of that island in the Arctic ;-) - but you DO need our resources. So far you seem to be happy with the resources we provide and we thank you for your defensive perimeter. But this too serves you because after all a safe North America is a safe America - right?

Like Aretha Franklin said "R-E-S-P-E-C-T ... gimme a little respect"! And that is a 2-way street.

To my Canadian compatriots who say our culture is the same as America's (including those from Quebec who hold the view that only the Quebecois have a culture) ... does the American sense the tragedy of Tom Thomson's early death? Does the mention of Paul Henderson's name give him goose-bumps? What pride does he feel about Vimy? Does the his blood boil when he hears about the Avro Arrow? Isn't a culture built on the blending of it's arts AND history? Why is it that only Canadians with a rich cultural history as ours would claim we don't have one?

Here's one more Andy Rooney style question (a Canadian by the way): If socialized medicine can be defined as the state collecting taxes to pay for free health care for all, then don't we all drive on "socialized roads"?

Thanks for the forum and keep the comments intellegent folks!


white_matter
Posted 18 April 2006 at 11:26 pm

To Whom It May Concern: (Please read entire post before telling me how wrong I am)

Ok, I realize that this is esentially an internet message board and anybody with a keyboard can chime in and spout off their 6th grade, Micheal Moore, shortsided (in other words: ignorant) version of politics but there is something that you are all missing. Americans don't hate Canada. That is to say, they don't hate them the same way that Nazi Germany hated the Jews and visa versa. I will now attempt to explain it.

What is so wrong with America, Americans? Being one, I have to ask myself why such animosity towards my home country. Did we do something wrong? Are we all evil people? Not at all, we have one problem in relation to the rest of the world...we are the top dog. We are the single world power. We are the HNIC, BMOC and any other accronym that you want throw in there. I say this with no conceit whatsoever. We dictate the worlds popular culture and if that doesn't do the trick...well hell, we'll just blow 'em up if we have to. Not that we're war mongers but if something needs to happen, we're Jonny on the spot.

We are hated because we're on top and not much else.

This is nothing new. When the Brits ruled the world, they were hated. When the Romans ruled the world they were hated as well. The same goes for France, Japan, the Monguls and any one else who was a dominant power. So, because we're on top, we're proud of it, as we should be. We run of at the mouth, make lavish claims and just be general asses. Hey, it's Human nature.

We don't hate Canada, but we're the biggest and baddest in the world. We're like the big, rich jock in high school. Somebody needs help, we help 'em but if one of the nerds has something we want, why pay when we can just threaten them? And Canada, well Canada is the guy that sits next to us on the way to school as we keep repeating "Why are you hitting your self?" as we're punching him in the face with his own hand. No meanness intended we're just picking on him, that all.

It's not fair and it's not right but it's the way it is. Someday, America's grasp on the world will slip. Someday we'll fall apart as nations tend to do and we'll fall right in with everybody else. But until that day, we're in charge and we'll do things as we see fit.

This is just how I see things. I have been wrong once or twice and this maybe one of those. America and Americans are not enheirantly evil. We're just big jerks but still fairly nice guys. One day, someone else will be at the helm but until then, "Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself? Why are you hitting yourself?..."


valbrun
Posted 19 April 2006 at 12:05 am

Quote: " To my Canadian compatriots who say our culture is the same as America's (including those from Quebec who hold the view that only the Quebecois have a culture) … "

I don't recall implying that only Québec has a culture. What I was trying to say is that when traveling to Anglo-Canada or the US, I see the same references, the same north american culture and most importantly, the same language... you get what i'm saying. There definitely is a certain cultural mix in Canada and very intelligent and creative people just as anywhere else, but that's not the point. Culture is not about jetfighter planes or how many guys got killed on Juno beach... ok it's part of our culture, of a certain heritage... fine, but it's not what drives a culture, what makes it really thrive. Canadian culture does not excite me, I don't see it thriving, being recognized as such. It's in a identity deadlock with america, it tries to convince the rest of the world that its all peaceloving and all... while we all know that international politics isn't at all about fucking peaceloving... it's this kind of hypocritical blah blah that's not fooling people as much as it used to.

It's time to stop using stereotypical phrases about canadian identity and start asking the real hard questions. Another one I love... but we're the home of free universal medicare (oops you're going to have to take the universal from there first and replace it with partial)... as if socialised medecine was again some sort of a beacon of the canadian identity kit. Gimme a break, again you'll rest your identity case... on some derivative from social-democracy called medicare... Shit that's hardcore! Social-democracy is dead at the moment, the tv said to the taxpayers that they had to have enough, that from now on they were better to give their money to corporations instead of wasting it on government... thank you Milton. And you'd like to use that as some sort of a cultural expression... it's already dead I tell you, Harper's gonna take care of it if it isn't dead yet, Charest's already done a good job here in Québec.

And then Hockey comes up again... I love the sport, but it's just a freaking sport! (The habs have made it! yeepee!) And when you talk about Canada's contribution to the World Wars... and fail to mention that it fell short of uniting canadians once again.

Quote: " Canada ... was the ONLY allied country to not need conscription."

Hum Hum... no, there was no need for conscription... you'd better go back to your history books my friend because at the time the country plunged into a deep crisis when Quebec men didn't want to have nothing to do with Her Majesty's Army and contested conscription. Trust me, we weren't in hurry to go save France's ass just 'cause they were speaking french, and above all, certainly not under british command. We were treated like shit in the army and told to speak white. How come we were always fighting with the Poles and the Czechs...

That said you are totally right about Anglo-Canada's contribution to the war, per capita it's big, no denying that. But then again, loosing 42 000 men in order to get a major industrial boost just in time for a mass consumption society isn't a bad deal at all... in capitalistic terms of course. Just look at Belarus's toll just in WW2, a quarter of the civil population dead, industries ravaged and then some dude from the NKVD comes in, and tells you you'll have to share your flat with 3 uzbekhis families.... Ok i'm loosing it right now... sorry.

Just one more thing : NO! the Avro Arrow doesn't make my blood boil! And to finish this comment, let's quote some MP from Ottawa who's political party has more to do with getting a pension than anything else, but who sometimes manages to slip a good one through :
" We're different, not better, not worse, just plain different."


Arcangel
Posted 19 April 2006 at 12:10 am

Nice post dcue_2 says. Sets the record straight about our involvement in WWII. Gotta love that we saved a lot of peoples asses back on D-Day.

As far as the US invading Canada, well the Bush wacker is said to be considering nuking Iran so I guess we are not on the short list to be invaded anytime soon.

Dam it I wanted that 100th comment too. I'll be waiting for the 200th position and from the looks of it, it won't be long off.


Arcangel
Posted 19 April 2006 at 12:19 am

Oh and white_matter, you keep that attitude up and we will have to nuke you guys with another one of our mad cow specials. :)


valbrun
Posted 19 April 2006 at 12:20 am

Quote 1 : "Americans don't hate Canada. That is to say, they don't hate them the same way that Nazi Germany hated the Jews and visa versa. I will now attempt to explain it."

Quote 2 : "We run of at the mouth, make lavish claims and just be general asses. Hey, it's Human nature."

Quote 3 : "But until that day, we're in charge and we'll do things as we see fit."

Hum..... keep trucking dude... Just because you are proud to be a realist, it doesn't exempt you from critical thinking!! no further comments.


myname
Posted 19 April 2006 at 08:35 am

dcue_2 said: "I have heard this before - American's claiming they saved us or the Brits from the Nazi's or Hitler. Let's just examine that under the light of a few facts.


Canada raised the largest volunteer army (per capita) during WW2 - and was the ONLY allied country to not need conscription.

At Normandy on D-Day, the Canadian 3rd Division landed at Juno Beach (USA landed at Omaha & Utah and the Brits at Gold & Sword). Yep a country 1/10 the population of the USA and less than half the population of Britain managed to raise a military force (virtually from scratch) and have a Normandy Beach to itself. Canadian forces were the ONLY allied forces to reach their objectives on D-Day. At the same time other Canadian Divisions were coming north through Italy from Sicily and from landings in the south of France.

Canadians were also fighting the Japanese in the South Pacific (Hong Kong) on the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

Canadians were also helping to defend Britain during the Battle of Britain and the Canadian Navy in the North Atlantic was defending the convoys of US goods being sold to the Brits so that there would BE a Britain to stage an invasion on D-Day.

So to say that America saved Canada from Hitler is to show ignorance of history and is disrespectful to the 42,000 Canadians who volunteered and lost their lives along-side American and British soldiers.

I do not mean to diminish the efforts and bravery of US troops in WW2 but only to point out that this type of remark ("we saved you from Hitler") is rooted in anger and not fact.

WW2 was a team effort and it was fought because a strong bully had attacked its weak and defenceless neighbours. Perhaps a reason why the USA is having trouble with its friends right now is because it is looking more and more like the strong bully beating up defenceless kids in the play ground (Grenada for example).

Now not all of America's military moves in the past have been bully moves - some were needed and condoned and assited by other nations including Canada - Afganistan for example where Canadian troops are there now fighting and dieing.

Others have made remarks about America "paying" for our defence. I disagree. We are in a symbiotic relationship. Perhaps we need your defence - but I am not sure who would invade us - perhaps Denmark because of a dispute over ownership of that island in the Arctic ;-) - but you DO need our resources. So far you seem to be happy with the resources we provide and we thank you for your defensive perimeter. But this too serves you because after all a safe North America is a safe America - right?

Like Aretha Franklin said "R-E-S-P-E-C-T … gimme a little respect"! And that is a 2-way street.

To my Canadian compatriots who say our culture is the same as America's (including those from Quebec who hold the view that only the Quebecois have a culture) … does the American sense the tragedy of Tom Thomson's early death? Does the mention of Paul Henderson's name give him goose-bumps? What pride does he feel about Vimy? Does the his blood boil when he hears about the Avro Arrow? Isn't a culture built on the blending of it's arts AND history? Why is it that only Canadians with a rich cultural history as ours would claim we don't have one?

Here's one more Andy Rooney style question (a Canadian by the way): If socialized medicine can be defined as the state collecting taxes to pay for free health care for all, then don't we all drive on "socialized roads"?

Thanks for the forum and keep the comments intellegent folks!"

Im certain that that statement was mostly a joke in retort to a similar one written by a canadian. So no need to get flustered.

As for the Canadian involvement in the war, I know enough of it to respect it and appreciate the goodwill and support of our CLOSEST ally.

That said the allies lose without U.S support, I can not say the same of canadian involvement with anything approaching the same degree of certainty.

To be fair the same goes for Russian involvement down the stretch, it was absolutely critical. Invading them was a stupid move on germany's part.

@ Valbrun
Good retort.


dcue_2
Posted 19 April 2006 at 08:55 pm

to valbrun: Your words were "Not to say we don't have a big interest for things american, it's just that we have another culture to compare it to as opposed to our anglo-counterparts."

Sounds to me that you are implying Quebec has a culture seperate from the US (which I do not dispute) and the "anglo-counterparts" (the rest of Canada) does not. Perhaps I misunderstood this ... please clarify if you wish.

My point with the stereotypical references was that these are the things that typify the basic Canadian culture that at the same time mean nothing to an American ... therefore the cultures are different... not better ... but different. Your blood may not boil over the Avro Arrow but an American would not know it from a hole in the ground. (No disrespect to Americans it is just something they would not be exposed to).

I have to say I envy Franco-Canadians because they have their linguistic culture to protect them some what from the US culture-machine. Try being an anglo bombarded by this all the time - the fact that there is a semblance of an anglo-Canadian culture at all is a wonder. Even Australians in this forum have commented on the prevalence of the US culture there on the other side of the planet. Try it when 90% of your population lives within 200 miles of the US border.

Conscription: I said we did not NEED conscription. You are right there was a conscription crisis ... but when the conscripts finally made it to Europe ... the war was over ... hence, we did not NEED conscription. As an aside I am an ex-Quebecer from a small town where people still tells stories of those who hid out in the bush to avoid going to war and of those who volunteered. Which ones do you think are well regarded in those stories?
Oh and Go Habs Go!

To myname: My comments about WW2 were in direct response to a comment that claimed the US saved Canada as if the single reason the allies won was because the US entered the war. I am sure you can agree that this is not the case. And as I said before and say again it was a team effort. I wanted to make it clear that Canadians were not cowering here in Canada but were actively involved in a major way from day one.


SneezeWhiz
Posted 20 April 2006 at 06:10 am

PresMatt said: "The BRITISH burned the white house in 1814… If you're going to claim the same victories as the British then you shall also claim the same defeats. America saved Canada from Hitler in WWII!


ugh…"

Hitler didn't want Canada.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 20 April 2006 at 06:42 am

I will never understand how any one outside of America thinks we have this huge, culture gobbling machine we force on the rest of the world. First, American culture is a mixture (for better or worse) of the rest of the world. Second, our culture is constantly changing because of an influx of people and there cultures. Look at how America changed when one band (The Beatles) came to America, haircuts, clothes, etc. Yes there were some that complained, but so what, America survived, and I believe we were the better for it. Besides, If you notice, there is almost NOTHING with the Made in America stamp on it anymore. We cannot be the blame for this anymore. And if everyone in the world hates America so bad (yes I have a short-wave (the original internet) and listen to it daily) like the international newsfeeds say frequently, why are other countries looking at our culture?


valbrun
Posted 20 April 2006 at 09:23 am

Quote: "Sounds to me that you are implying Quebec has a culture seperate from the US (which I do not dispute) and the "anglo-counterparts" (the rest of Canada) does not. Perhaps I misunderstood this … please clarify if you wish."

Quote : " the fact that there is a semblance of an anglo-Canadian culture at all is a wonder."

I think you pretty much answer yourself there. I can see differences, yes, but nothing really dramatic. As I pointed out before, culture revolves around language, this aspect is most important. Speaking french, going to a french school or university you get cultural content that is strongly influenced by authors, actors, researchers who work in that particular language... And therefore your references, your views evolve around them.

It is often said that Québec's more european that the rest of North America, that's no accident, it's because when we sit down to read a book there is a heck of a good chance it'll be Camus, Sartre, Maupassant, Baudelaire, Houellebecq or Malraux... this influences your perception of the world in a certain way. Or again when I sit down to write an essay for my university studies, there is a good chance I'll be more inclined to find books that revolve around some french school of thinking rather than american or british. All in all, this affects the way we see society, it establishes in many subtle ways the cultural outlook we have.

That said, people read less and watch more tv. Cultural differences tend to disappear more and more because of that trend, simply put: there are not as many tv channels than there are books. In Québec, per capita media production is tremendous in all aspects, cinema, radio, theatre, tv, publishing... it's a bit like we're paranoid so we double the output.

Different cultures have diverse ways of dealing with America's imperialistic cultural (read economic) domination and penetration. But there are some recurrent patterns : normally at first you just buy it and enjoy the differences, the thrill and the entertainment provided and you wish you could do the same (most of the countries in the world are at it right now, especially China), but then as time passes societies tend to get a more mature stand on things american and start wanting to copy it in some domestic version (at least that way they can kickstart local production even though they still only reproduce pretty much the same thing). In a latter stage, they start to rebel and criticize, wishing they could not just be copycats but something more. That's when societies start to really construct something new, borrowing some american models but mixing them with their own innovations, and more and more often they restart from scratch and build something truly new and independant.

Québec has just gotten to this stage. Not many 7 million nations can claim this at the moment. And it's not a question of superior culture, it's a question of awareness, proximity and experience. Montreal being an hour's drive from the US, we've been experiencing first hand the american cultural domination and we've been forced (yes...forced) to react. We reacted on the basis of language, because that's the only thing that truly differentiated us from the Americans. Right now it seems the Americans are more and more inclined to apply some sort of a darwinistic perspective on culture survival, the survival of the fittest. This truly scares us, because we know the fittest equal the wealthiest and nothing more.

It's not an accident Québec's Louise Beaudoin was fighting like mad at Unesco against american pretentions that cultural goods should be treated just like any other commodity. Québec is at the forefront of an international alliance of the cultural underdogs who wish to oppose America's concept. We don't think the economy should dictate cultural contents yet we fully understand why american representatives wish it would be so. Money. (And I would pursue this by saying the economy shouldn't dictate nothing at all!! The people should, we seem to have forgotten that)

And we're not even an independant state and are still querelling ourselves with our canadian counterparts who do't even recognize our distinct status yet and try and go around the world teaching about fully working federalism!? You get the sense of despair here? How many of you people do know Québec has not even signed the constitution of Canada. It's a weird weird country when 25% of your population has not signed the freaking paper! And no efforts are being made for that to change, just sweep the issue under the rug and everything will be fine. keep on dreaming people, keep on dreaming.... (and you keep wondering why we organize referendums on separation)

Québec knows it has to defend this concept of cultural diversity, it's a question relating to the survival of it's very own identity. In this regard the canadien position is much less evident. Canada, just like Autralia have been fueling the american cultural model like crazy! Just look at everything Canada's been sending down there! When I first started realizing the number of Canucks and Aussies that were playing in American superproductions... it's very disturbing. Americans believe they have the biggest and most innovative culture but that's total bullshit! They have the most Capital and the biggest corporations for spreading it that's all. As far as content is concerned, it's bizarre to see it most often comes from some little Toronto suburbs or Saskatchewan....

Quote: "I will never understand how any one outside of America thinks we have this huge, culture gobbling machine we force on the rest of the world."

Man... please take your head out of your ass !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


rp2
Posted 20 April 2006 at 10:10 am

you first


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 20 April 2006 at 10:52 am

Quote: "I will never understand how any one outside of America thinks we have this huge, culture gobbling machine we force on the rest of the world."

Man… please take your head out of your ass !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

First of all, you are comparing what an American Business does, to what the American people believe. If you read any of our media whatsoever, you will know this not true. If you do not want this "EVIL" influence, block it out. China, North Korea, Most of the islamic countries do an excellent job of it. Curious though, these are considered the people we are butting heads with. I know every other citizen in the world is well versed in what every other citizen does, unless you are an American of course. Americans are constantly berated because we do not take the time to understand other cultures. Excuse me for saying this, but so the hell what. I am fairly certain that a big part of the educational requirement in Europe is not what the average American has for breakfast. But I believe I have finally been able to put into words what Canadians do that irritates Americans so much: Canada thinks it is the conscience of America, anything that we do wrong: Politics, economics, enviroment, and of course our humongous culture gobbling machine, some canadian is right there to correct us. Ok, fair enough. Maybe we do need this. However, I find it extremely interesting that when any other country returns the favor, they are politly told to shut the hell up and then they will get extremly childish. I know that if I do not back this up I will get lambasted, so I will. If anyone can remember about a month ago with the canadian seal hunt being protested by Sir Paul McCartney, do they remember what a leading politician told the media ( no, I cannot remember his name, but I know that any Canadian reading this will) I will paraphrase here, but it went something like: it is none of his business, and I never liked the Beatles anyway...wah wah wah. On top of this, I read a few days ago Neal Young (hey...he is Canadian) will be producing an album to protest the war in Iraq. There goes the American Culture.

Well I heard Mr. young talk about her.
I heard old Neal put her down.
Well I hope Neal Young will remember,
A Southern Man dont need him round, anyhow


valbrun
Posted 20 April 2006 at 12:33 pm

Quote: "First of all, you are comparing what an American Business does, to what the American people believe. If you read any of our media whatsoever, you will know this not true. "

I'm studying political marketing and the media in general, I run a faculty student journal and am an avid reader of both mainstream and alternative american media. Trust me I'm interested in this shit. Not all Americans love the way their economy is being run, ok. Alternative ideas exists but so long as they are not put to the forefront nothing will happen. Meanwhile, your government is bulldozing anybody who dares to stand in its path and the American people don't seem to give a fuck. The vast majority of the american people believe in their business model and are proud of it. They don't care if it kills or impoverishes millions, destroys cultural cultural diversity or the environment as long it brings back a buck.

Quote: "Americans are constantly berated because we do not take the time to understand other cultures. Excuse me for saying this, but so the hell what. "

That's exactly what's pissing off 6.5 billion people. If the US wouldn't mess with every other nation in the world, it would be futile to ask you to care, but it's not the case. You pretend to have a higher cause, it's time you assume higher responsabilities too. Like knowing what you are doing across the globe.

Quote: "If you do not want this "EVIL" influence, block it out"

That's exactly what progressive thinking people are trying to do all around the world. But it's not easy: we ain't got the same kind of ressources. But we still try. You should too. One suggestion, try putting back the 435 G$ military expenditures in free universal education, maybe that could be a starter. Maybe you'd actually start to enjoy learning about the rest of the world.


Dr.Grimgravy
Posted 20 April 2006 at 01:36 pm

Well, I for one conduct nightly raids on Canadian targets...

On my American High Horse
Followed by a Gas-Guzzeling H2
Spending insane amounts of money on bottled water
But then again, why not, we practically own the world... and everyone knows God is on our side :)

(BTY: this is meant as a sarcastic comment, not to be taken seriously!)


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 20 April 2006 at 02:09 pm

ok....hmmmm. where should I start.

Meanwhile, your government is bulldozing anybody who dares to stand in its path and the American people don't seem to give a fuck. The vast majority of the american people believe in their business model and are proud of it.

I dont recall any country being bulldozed, so you will have to be more specific. I was royally chewed the last time I did not back up anything I said, so I believe the same applies to you. Since you do not (and could not possibly) know the majority of America, this is a just a blankest statement. 90 percent of America go about their lives just trying to make ends meet. Yes this means buying products made in countries who do not give a rats ass about their people. Do I like this: HELL NO, and I would say that same 90 percent do not. As I stated, it is next to impossible to buy something made in America, but believe me, I try. Can you say the same? where are your clothes made, do you check the label? Does it say Made in Canada? Maybe, maybe not.

Alternative ideas exists

Yes they do. Are you refering to communism, Naziism, Facism, or the Socialism that you are well familiar with and work so well under?

That's exactly what's pissing off 6.5 billion people.

Again I point back to why so many poor people of those nations that the 6.5 billion belong end up on our shores. No one claims to have a higher cause when we go to war. I will be honest with you. Most Americans do not like war, and alot of us are really unsure as to what is going on right now. However, this I know, If we did not do anything after September 11th, what would the world have said then?
I have a better idea for you. Instead of putting the verbal boot on America for the cheap products we buy from Nations that treat there people like shit, how about take the bullet out of the gun and start a campaign against them. You know why you dont? Because they would tell you to go hell, with a handbasket. And if you made enough of a nuisance, they would probably be at war with you. read: cough, CHINA, cough. Or, even better, why do you not head on over to the Middle East the next time OPEC has a meeting and complain on how much you spend for gas per litre. But you probably will not do this because your head would be sawed off with a rusty, dull sword and it would be left to rot on a roadside.

One suggestion, try putting back the 435 G$ military expenditures in free universal education, maybe that could be a starter.

HEY!!! Thats a great idea. But first I need you to do something for us. Go around to all the other countryries and get them to promise not to invade another country, or engage in any racial cleansing, or threaten anyone, or invade us, or blow up a destroyer, or the Twin Towers (Twice, thank you Bill Clinton) and while you are at it, Have then not ask America first when they need money or people (the same money and people who are killing them and their culture) when a natural disaster happens.

Just so you know, quite a few of us enjoy learning about the world, unfortunately we end up black and blue afterwards.

Did I cover everything to your satisfaction? If I left anything out, sing out.
signed,
The no longer silent majority


oldhogger
Posted 20 April 2006 at 02:12 pm

Canada was attacked in the 60's by some mailbox hating people in Quebec....they called themselves FLQ. Mailboxes were blowing up everywhere.

The Chinese, Koreans and a few others already own the US. Just hold your horses, I want to buy some Ammex tax free gas in Detroit tomorrow.

Who would want to come near Canada they have free healthcare.

Once the attack starts roll a big coner and open a two four, they can't handle good medicinal smoke or high test beer.


BR54
Posted 20 April 2006 at 04:45 pm

oldhogger said: The Chinese, Koreans and a few others already own the US.

...explain?

Anyway, alot of these post are kind of funny. It amazes me how arrogant some people are (American and Canadian). I dont see what half of these post have to do with a 1934 plan of attack against Canada and Britain. As far as us attacking Canada...I dont see it happening. It seems that at one part ("The original War Plan Red was one of many “color plans” developed as academic exercises in a War Department with too little to do in the 1920s and 30s.") the reading is trying to tell you that, well, the War Department had nothing better today so they woke up one day and decided they would draw up plans to invade Canada, just for fun.

Another thing. That whole America saved Canada from Hitler, I think the person was just trying to say that since the Canadians claimed a British victory and burnded down the white house then they should claim the British defeats to. Which comes to the reason the poster would say that the Americans saved Canada from Hitler. So I'm assuming the person who posted that thinks Americans are the reason Britain survived the war with Germany. That just what I think the person meant, but, I could be wrong.

As for the whole thing about some Canadians hating America thing. I dont see why Canada hates American so much. I've never met an American who hates Canada. Sure Americans joke around some times, but I'm sure Canadians do too...right? I always thought Canadians were nice people, and I still do. I have met alot of Canadians and they said they liked America because they were so comfortable here because ---*GASP!*--- it was just like America. If it makes any of the Canadians feel better who hate being told they are just like the country right under them....we could put it this way just to make you feel better...American is just like Canada. Sure America was a country first, but hey, if it makes you guys less pissy. I never realy thought there were some Canadians (some not all, most are nice :) ) out there that hated America with such a burning passion that they could think of all these demeaning things to say. Then there were some of you who assumed that if Canada stopped trading with America they would shrivle up and die. Well it would hurt yeah, but do you seriously think you are getting nothing of importance from America? That if Canada stopped trading with America that only America would be affected? Theres a key word there...TRADE. So the point is, both countries need each other, whether some of you like it or not. You can't walk if your missing a leg.


cutterjohn
Posted 20 April 2006 at 07:47 pm

I've gone to canada fishing a few times, and my dad and brother went there to hunt caribou.. As far as i can tell Canadians and Americans are pretty much the same people. Of course, it should be obvious that this would happen.. We've had extremely friendly relations for a very long time now, share a large, open border, and even share a language(except for you crazy quebecians ;)).

The things the are the biggest factors in creating cultural differences are heritage, geological location, and language. Considering we are neighbors, with much the same climates, our living conditions are extremely similar. Our heritage is also very similar to one another, being primarily of eastern european descent. And since we share a common language, the exchange of information and ideas flow very easily across the border(even easier considering how easy it is to cross..)

Really.. how can anyone be surprised, or upset, at the fact that canadian and american cultures are more alike than unalike?


fuzzhammer
Posted 20 April 2006 at 08:15 pm

cutterjohn said: "being primarily of eastern european descent.

i think you mean primarily western european descent


valbrun
Posted 20 April 2006 at 10:53 pm

Hum... I don't know exactly where I should start... and I'm a little bit drunk right now. Let's keep this short and sweet. We should get down to a beer, that would probably resolve everything ;)

What I simply want to point out is that when you have the biggest and most efficient army in the world, you usually don't use it to help people out, stop ethnic cleansing, or prevent wars. You use it to maintain your overwhelming power and your influence around the world. Stop the morality, it hurts.

As for bulldozing, don't take it literally. By bulldozing I mean the "either you are with us or against us" kind of attitude. Or the "international law is good for other countries, but we choose when it's ok for us". Check the record of your government in South America... I mean it just speaks for itself. Your government isn't interested in helping out those countries, making their economy better for the people, it's simply looking to establish a framework for privatizations. When they (south americans) elect a new government, the US ain't interested in what they'll do for the local population. All they want to know is "is this new regime pro-privatizations", if not then they help any other political party be it totally retarded or autocratic.

I guess you must think I'm some proud socialist who thinks everything should be nationalized and we would all be happy going to work in large coops and stuff... hell no. I just don't like capitalism, I don't like the thought of every living thing being subordinated to the law of profit. That's all. And it just so happens America is THE number one advocate of capitalism in the world right now. And not only is it advocating capitalism as some natural thing, it's imposing a very distorted vision of it across the globe. And it's using it's allmighty army for that cause. I don't have anything against entrepreneurs or the business spirit in general. It's just that I don't want these guys running my government, or the government of the world (a.k.a. the US government).

Why is it that capitalism is such a good system if 90% of the population of the richest country in the world go about their daily lives just trying to make ends meet? (as you mention) Isn't that just crazy? Why would someone want to export such a system elsewhere? You guys have some hyper-economy producing just about anything you would need or want but 90% of the population can't make ends meet. We're in 2006 and we haven't resolved those issues at home, but we'll go 10 000 miles away and tell others that this is the way to go!? Something is twisted somewhere.

cheers


cutterjohn
Posted 21 April 2006 at 01:55 am

fuzzhammer said: "i think you mean primarily western european descent"

That i did ;)

Thanks for the correction.


cutterjohn
Posted 21 April 2006 at 02:03 am

valbrun said: Why is it that capitalism is such a good system if 90% of the population of the richest country in the world go about their daily lives just trying to make ends meet? (as you mention) Isn't that just crazy? Why would someone want to export such a system elsewhere? You guys have some hyper-economy producing just about anything you would need or want but 90% of the population can't make ends meet. We're in 2006 and we haven't resolved those issues at home, but we'll go 10 000 miles away and tell others that this is the way to go!? Something is twisted somewhere.


cheers"

I don't know about the rest of americans, but i am considered nearly at poverty level(if i made a bit less i could get money from the government.. Not that i would of course. I hate welfare.), yet i have no trouble making ends meet. of that 90% figure you stated(which is grossly overstated), i'm willing to bet that a vast majority have trouble making ends meet because they try to live beyond their means. Want a new boat? Mortgage the house! New tv? We have credit cards for that!

The one major problem of capitalism is it takes advantage of people's stupidity, and their belief that they need every single new widget that comes out. I have cheap hobbies(not because they are cheap, but because i enjoy them). I live in a cheap house. Not dilapidated, just not more than i need. My car is modest. And despite being near poverty(by government standards) i still put several hundred dollars a month away. I have no lacks.

People cause their own problems, not the system. Its the same as any other governing or economic system, flawed by the people that it is there to support.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 21 April 2006 at 05:41 am

As for bulldozing, don't take it literally. By bulldozing I mean the "either you are with us or against us" kind of attitude. Or the "international law is good for other countries, but we choose when it's ok for us". Check the record of your government in South America… I mean it just speaks for itself. Your government isn't interested in helping out those countries, making their economy better for the people, it's simply looking to establish a framework for privatizations. When they (south americans) elect a new government, the US ain't interested in what they'll do for the local population. All they want to know is "is this new regime pro-privatizations", if not then they help any other political party be it totally retarded or autocratic.

In this above text, you are mostly correct. But the last time I checked, it should be up to the people down there to elect ( or whatever) their own leaders. I think it is similar to when China stated that it supported the Democratic Canidate when Gore was running. Alot of Americans thought "What the Fuck" If a population does not like its leaders, it is on them to remove them. Ok, if the US government is backing them (and sadly, that happens, and America does not find it out for 10 years. Yes, this ticks alot of people off) it will be very difficult, however not impossible. Afghanistan kicked Russia's ass just because it did not want a pipeline through its country.

What I simply want to point out is that when you have the biggest and most efficient army in the world, you usually don't use it to help people out, stop ethnic cleansing, or prevent wars. You use it to maintain your overwhelming power and your influence around the world. Stop the morality, it hurts.

All I can say to this, is you have never been in the Military.

I guess you must think I'm some proud socialist who thinks everything should be nationalized and we would all be happy going to work in large coops and stuff… hell no. I just don't like capitalism, I don't like the thought of every living thing being subordinated to the law of profit. That's all. And it just so happens America is THE number one advocate of capitalism in the world right now. And not only is it advocating capitalism as some natural thing, it's imposing a very distorted vision of it across the globe. And it's using it's allmighty army for that cause. I don't have anything against entrepreneurs or the business spirit in general. It's just that I don't want these guys running my government, or the government of the world (a.k.a. the US government).

Well, if you are not Socialist, and sure as hell not Capitalist....it would give the rest of us a great insight into your posts if you tell us what you are. Yes, I am a capitalist, however, the system is flawed for the reasons you state. Meaning, it should be tempered with "what it takes to make this dollar" I do not know where you live in Canada, however, I can assure you this quiet Revolution is taking place as we speak all over the Country as people start to wake up a little Spiritualy. Will it happen over night? Nope, but it will happen just the same. As people wake up ( and the products are more avilable) they will purchased rather than the blood-stained alternative. Read (or Red) cough CHINA cough

Why is it that capitalism is such a good system if 90% of the population of the richest country in the world go about their daily lives just trying to make ends meet? (as you mention) Isn't that just crazy? Why would someone want to export such a system elsewhere? You guys have some hyper-economy producing just about anything you would need or want but 90% of the population can't make ends meet. We're in 2006 and we haven't resolved those issues at home, but we'll go 10 000 miles away and tell others that this is the way to go!? Something is twisted somewhere.

Capitalism is a GOOD system, not a GREAT system, and needs to be tweaked for the reasons I stated above.
The biggest reason people are just trying to make ends meet are "trying to keep up with the Jones" They buy shit that they do not need and cannot afford. It happens quite often over here that child protective services have to go in and remove a child because there is no food in the house, but they have a 50 inch tv, dvd-surround sound, and a 3000 dollar computer. I just noticed that cutterjohn made a similar statement above, before I typed this. What he said is very valid

Please do not misunderstand me, I and I would say the same 90 percent of America do not think what is going is all peachy-keen, and we are taking the steps to correct them when we are able through the quicksand system we have. It will take time, but know that we are aware of the problems, and as I stated well above, it just gets irritating that it is usually a Canadian that points it out. It is kind of like being invited over as a guest, then pointing out that the carpet is the 70's ugly green shag, the host needs a haircut, and oh, by the way, I hate roast beef, could you whip me up a steak back there. We see the problems, we know the problems, please let us handle them, and if we need help (or advice) you will be the first we ask

And as I have posted numerous times above, I ( and I would say most of America) do not hate hate Canadians. Just please stop picking the scab ( I know this icky, it is just the only term I can use to make the point), we know there is a problem, just stop pointing it out.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 21 April 2006 at 05:58 am

Why is it that capitalism is such a good system if 90% of the population of the richest country in the world go about their daily lives just trying to make ends meet? (as you mention) Isn't that just crazy? Why would someone want to export such a system elsewhere? You guys have some hyper-economy producing just about anything you would need or want but 90% of the population can't make ends meet. We're in 2006 and we haven't resolved those issues at home, but we'll go 10 000 miles away and tell others that this is the way to go!? Something is twisted somewhere.

And as I have stated, and you yourself, nothing is produced in America, and part of the problem you have with us is that we buy products with blood on them. If we have this huge hyper-economy that produces everything we need, then we cannot be guilty of supporting these human rights violating countries with the dollar. You cannot have it both ways....which is it?
And as for the richest country in the world, I would have you look at china and the opec countrries. Bush may not be the greatest, but he has never bought a custom-painted BMW, or a gold plated ak-47 with blood-stained tax dollars. And as I have stated before also, start writing those countries about the human rights violations...let me know how it turns out. As pointless as I know it would be...I will still help you.


oldhogger
Posted 21 April 2006 at 05:48 pm

Well BR the info regarding the Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and British to name a few owning the US came from watching Detroit Public Television and listening to NPR. Within the last few months both PTV and NPR mentioned the attempted takeover bid made by the Chinese Socialized Oil arm. The American firm accepted a lower bid to avoid the Chinese assuming control of such a large US refinery. I received most of my information from watching, reading and listening to US media.

I live along the border and have worked on both sides for over 35 years. The concept of the US planning how to over run Canada is quite humorous and rings of "The Mouse That Roared". There is probably a Tully Bascombe living somewhere in Canada.
Furthermore, US senior citizens do not want Canada attacked, as they require the quality less expensive drugs available here.

To a fan sitting in the stands, it looks like unbridled Capitalism and the Global Economy seem to reflect "Dr. Strangelove, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb". The US government ran the anti drug campaign using the terrorist connection. I was surprised they did not continue to run with the same ball and tell their citizens to stop buying petroleum products because they to subsidize terrorists. It is obvious the present US regime has fashioned their plans after another fine film “Catch – 22”.

In general, this Canadian only wants to enjoy the rest of my time on a fresh water lake hidden on this polluted planet. Moreover, it would be nice if we could get the “Wanker” Prime Minister we have out and a real sentient human in.

Unlike some Americans who came to North America for some righteous extremist religious right reasons my clan came for a good fight. The war is over; all we have now is fresh water, natural resources, free healthcare (until some wannabe ruins it) for everyone, great beer, bacon, maple syrup, lumber. Do you get the picture or should I continue?

“Be happy while you are alive, for your long time dead”


redapollo
Posted 22 April 2006 at 02:22 am

As a "US Citizen", I'm afraid I'm going to have to balance the scales a bit here.

I agree with most of what the most "anti-US," anti-capitalism people (mostly canadians) have stated.

Honestly, I find the popular movement(s) that have sprouted in the last 20-30 years in the US to be of a rather sinister and dangerous kind. I don't think I need to explain this to many non-US citizens; and I don't think it will really affect a damned thing if I start spouting more political diatribes to those americans that I think this about (republicrats and republicrats alike). In any case, much of what could be stated has already been stated. More than anything, I just wanted to come out and say that there are quite a few of us in the states that hate nearly everything about it, possibly moreso than people outside of the states. You forget, we actually have to live in the belly of the beast.

And for the record, in anticipation of being called a "liberal middle class moonbat" or something of the sort, I'm a blue collar worker that lives on the poverty line as well. Most US workers I've talked to don't love the system.. most of them hate it. They're simply so overwhelmed with living day to day that anything beyond that currently seems utopian.

But really.. nobody should be surprised that the US had plans for an invasion of Canada (or vice versa), especially given the turbulent time period in which the plans were formulated. It'd be a real surprise if such plans didn't exist.


cutterjohn
Posted 22 April 2006 at 03:02 am

More than anything, I just wanted to come out and say that there are quite a few of us in the states that hate nearly everything about it, possibly moreso than people outside of the states. You forget, we actually have to live in the belly of the beast.

And i would like to point out that more than a few people do actually think its a great place to live, and love nearly everything about it. Personal preference i guess.

But it will turn out fine.. The lovers and the haters will continue to hammer away at each other until equilibrium is found. Then somebody will find something new to hate, and we can start over.

Thats life. :D


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 22 April 2006 at 07:29 am

redapollo said: "As a "US Citizen", I'm afraid I'm going to have to balance the scales a bit here.

I agree with most of what the most "anti-US," anti-capitalism people (mostly canadians) have stated.

Honestly, I find the popular movement(s) that have sprouted in the last 20-30 years in the US to be of a rather sinister and dangerous kind. I don't think I need to explain this to many non-US citizens; and I don't think it will really affect a damned thing if I start spouting more political diatribes to those americans that I think this about (republicrats and republicrats alike). In any case, much of what could be stated has already been stated. More than anything, I just wanted to come out and say that there are quite a few of us in the states that hate nearly everything about it, possibly moreso than people outside of the states. You forget, we actually have to live in the belly of the beast.

And for the record, in anticipation of being called a "liberal middle class moonbat" or something of the sort, I'm a blue collar worker that lives on the poverty line as well. Most US workers I've talked to don't love the system.. most of them hate it. They're simply so overwhelmed with living day to day that anything beyond that currently seems utopian.

But really.. nobody should be surprised that the US had plans for an invasion of Canada (or vice versa), especially given the turbulent time period in which the plans were formulated. It'd be a real surprise if such plans didn't exist."

Well, I would first like to say that I am a Constitutionalist, though I vote Libertarian and give money to them because they have more of a chance to get voted, and the only disagreement I have with them is on the weed issue. I love America and would not want to live anywhere else. You are crazy to say this is the belly of the beast without living anywhere else and under the rules of that country. You only have what to compare it to by the opinion given to you by our media. I have lived in quite a few countries when I was in the Military, some were great, some I was afraid to walk out the front door (jokingly, of course, but you need to understand the laws in place in some countries if you think America is restrictive) I would point out by your screen name and some of the views you stated in your short commentary that you probably are socialist (most likely a communist in California) and I do not really need to say anything else. If America is so bad, let me know, I will buy you a ticket to China. I hear that the sweat shops are hiring and the cost of living is low (as are your expectations, I expect) If you are near poverty level, please explain how you can waste money on a computer and a internet connection? just a few thoughts.
And no, this is not a Utopia, no one promised it would be. If does give you the right to try to the best of your ability to make it, if you slip and fall there are sytems in place to help you, but you have no one to blame but yourself if it does not work out for you. The "pursuit of happiness" is not a promise you will find it, but the ability to keep loking for it.


sparklemomma
Posted 22 April 2006 at 12:12 pm

Eh, I like Canada, Quebec included. And yes, I've actually been there, so shut up. Haha.

Ming_of_Mongo, your comment on Free Trade laws for Australia was absolutely fascinating. So much so, that I'd love to see a Damn Interesting article on what you've said. Thanks for informing me!

white_matter, I think your comment was the most interesting for me, regardless of whether or not your opinions are 100% correct (I just don't care enough to argue with you). Thanks for making me smile with your analogies.

I think this is my favorite Damn Interesting article and comment section so far...Yay for debates! :)


valbrun
Posted 22 April 2006 at 02:34 pm

To nutritionalalchemist

You just seem to be totally intolerant to any form of criticism towards the US. You always divert any constructive argument on the basis of what's going on elsewhere. China does this so stop yapping... Iran does this so stop yapping.. whatever.

Quote : "If America is so bad, let me know, I will buy you a ticket to China."

What's that suppose to mean to a fellow compatriot? It's the same kind of blindness we've been getting used to since 9/11. Don't criticize or you are a traitor. Be with us (the government) or you are our enemy. If I were an American this would deeply disturb, and it does regardless of nationality. I feel bad for my friends down south who have to put up with this kind of attitude.

What's being produced in these sweat shops around the world is intended for american/european markets and it's designed, organized, and most of all wanted buy the rich countries corporations. They simply exploit local undemocratic and underunionized countries because it's more profitable. The political elite of these countries strike lucrative deals with your government and use force or whatever means necessary to ensure a smooth operation. What, Wal-Mart is chineese? Nope! But they go around China with the help of the chineese government trying to force workers to do more with less so they can get better profits when they sell the goods, back in the US. Check the figures, how much Wal Mart imports in the US, it's just astounding.

Please stop implying that what goes on in other countries is totally disconnected from broader US trade policy strategies. It's just plain ridiculous. What was the leader of the the Chineese government doing at Bill Gates just a week ago. The US (regarding trade) don't care if countries have totalitarian regimes or are even communist (look at China) just as long as they have a pro-business line of thinking. In this regard, the chineese example is just crazy. It's still a totalitarian collectivist regime, yet it's creating capitalistic enclaves where they permit a totally different trade perspective. Did you know that if you are born in a poor province of China (most are except for the shorelines) you get that region's nationality and can't come and benefit from the tremendous economic boom going on elsewhere. The inequalities are just mind-boggling. A friend of mine just came back, he says it's like night and day. An urban minority with cell phones and better conditions than in the US, a somewhat larger contingent working their asses off for shit pay, and an overwhelming majority still in the dark ages. Not only that but the army crushes any form of dissent, and you still pay with bills bearing Mao's face. Nevertheless, America's government and corporations love doing business there and are all excited at the prospect of abolishing good paying jobs in the US in order to transfer them overseas. That doesn't bother you?

As far as defining my political stance, I'm not an "ist" of any kind though I definitely lean left because I want things to change and am not interested in the status quo that conservative people cherish. I hate ideologues, dogmatism of any kind be it left or right. Though it may sound akward, i'm some sort of a pragmatic idealist. I wish for better ideas to be fulfilled, but I try and keep my feet on the ground and keep on looking for practical ways of making them part of reality.

For me capitalism is the most efficient system of production and also of exploitation. The problem is that it negates large (very large) dimensions of human interest, to the profit of production and exploitation. I'd like to see them (human interests and needs)more properly integrated in some new system and I think we will succed in that regard.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 22 April 2006 at 09:35 pm

Reply to Valbrun
Have you not read any thing of what I wrote. I am not intolerant of any form of criticism torwards the US. I live here. I know all to well the problems this country faces. As I have stated, and will state again, I just get tired of Canadians constantly being being the ones to point it out.

What's that suppose to mean to a fellow compatriot? It's the same kind of blindness we've been getting used to since 9/11. Don't criticize or you are a traitor. Be with us (the government) or you are our enemy. If I were an American this would deeply disturb, and it does regardless of nationality. I feel bad for my friends down south who have to put up with this kind of attitude.

First of all, the person clearly had an agenda. As you sound intelligent, you will know that we have (and you yourself) have far to many groups that try to put forth an agenda, without realizing the full ramifications of what there actions. I have stated (and will do so again) I am not "with" the government. I am NOT HAPPY with what this administration (or the last) is doing.

I am well aware of the fact that wal-mart is the largest trading partner with China. I do not shop there for that reason. I am also aware thet this country, as well as your is a symbiotic part of the world. What we do affects every other country. That is why there is such a movement in this country (perhaps you could look at the good we do sometimes) for products that are made in fair manner.

Yes it bothers me that jobs are getting shipped across the border. yet again go back and look at my posts and see how many times I mention I look for american made products.

As far as politics goes, do not be mad, but we are pretty much the same.

But I go back to my previous statement. Why does no one go after the countries like china, and start a campaign for them to change. Just once I would like this answered. Our views on Capitalism are also the same, if you read some of my posts.

I am not a dewey eyed idealist either (borrowing a phrase from star wars) If you would like to know, I actually have a wind turbine system on my property, and produce part of my energy requirement. I also am doing the best I can to make a change.

I stand by my complaints. I know America is not perfect, I would just like to know why it seems that Canada voted itself our moral mentor.

Am I wrong with this stance. I thought I made it pretty clear, but I think you are getting a mixed message.


redapollo
Posted 22 April 2006 at 11:47 pm

...I would point out by your screen name and some of the views you stated in your short commentary that you probably are socialist (most likely a communist in California) and I do not really need to say anything else.

So what you're saying is that you disagree with me, politically or otherwise, and therefore will ignore it?

If I had to be boxed, I'd probably fit into that of anarcho-communist. If you don't know what that implies, by all means look into it.. I don't have the time right now to explain where I fit "politically." What matters, I believe, isn't that I'm left or right or communist or a market libertarian, but that I belong to the same society that you do, and I came from the same one as well. And no, I don't live in california. Believe it or not, I live in the rust belt.


If America is so bad, let me know, I will buy you a ticket to China. I hear that the sweat shops are hiring and the cost of living is low (as are your expectations, I expect) If you are near poverty level, please explain how you can waste money on a computer and a internet connection? just a few thoughts.

I might hate china even more than I do the states, or more than I despise the former USSR. As for the computer and internet connection: it's one of my few luxuries, and I sacrifice other "luxuries" for it--like eating ramen noodles instead of campbells soup. Believe it or not, however, those of us on or below poverty level can, in fact, afford a ten dollar a month internet connection (though to be honest, I've found ways around that expense). I don't receive welfare, food stamps or unemployment compensation. I manage my living expenses appropriately. What we can't afford is thousands of dollars in x-rays to find out what disease we may or may not have, or the [b]mandatory[/b] insurance just so that we might be able to drive to work to pay for insurance to drive to work to pay...


And no, this is not a Utopia, no one promised it would be. If does give you the right to try to the best of your ability to make it, if you slip and fall there are sytems in place to help you, but you have no one to blame but yourself if it does not work out for you.

Tell that to the homeless that are sleeping on the steps of the capitol.. seriously, that's a disgrace. But I guess if there's anything that defines american politics, it's the rich steering the government to make themselves richer while the poor sleep on the opposite side of the wall.


The "pursuit of happiness" is not a promise you will find it, but the ability to keep loking for it."

Just like your right to freedom, so long as it doesn't impede upon profits!

Valbrun: don't waste your breath, I'm used to the "love it or leave it logic," and so are a great many other of your disenfranchised neighbors down south. :)


mercyonme
Posted 23 April 2006 at 12:08 am

Oh my god, no one here has a sense of humor, do they? This plan was created one year after Hitler was elected, when the US was at the depths of the Great Depression and too concerned with domestic troubles to worry too much about thins abroad. That left a lot of bored military planners with too much time on their hands. Take this whole thing as one of those military paranoia jokes, like the idea that hiding under your desk could protect you from nuclear attack.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 23 April 2006 at 06:58 am

reply to redappolo:

Anarchist communism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favor of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs.

Anarchist communism is also known as communist anarchism, anarcho-communism, or libertarian communism. However, while all anarchist communists are libertarian communists, not all libertarian communists are anarchists, such as council communists. What distinguishes anarchist communism from other variants of libertarian communism is the former's opposition to all forms of political power, hierarchy and domination.

Well...I called it right, not bad. Actually I was fairly sure what the term meant from the context, but wanted to post the definition for everyone else. Wow...sounds like a great Utopia. However I have seen one thing from history is that this type of system will not work, reference what Russia should have been. And from 1929 to 1953 20 million lost there lives to Stalins Utopia. Yes, you belong to same society I belong to ( and for everyones information who is not American, we usually pride ourselves with not agreeing with each other) I yes I disagree with you politically. Your type of system is fraught with problems, mostly being relying on humane nature to "do the right thing". Humans are not that evolved yet, American or otherwise.

You want to discuss the healthcare issue! Excellent How many overweight, un healthy eating Americans constantly go to the doctor for antibiotics or other drug (make the drug companies very rich) rather than take responsibility for their own health. I would steer you torwards natural health sites but you are to busy stealing from an ISP and eating your ramen noodles and driving up my co-pay and deductables to do that.
And I do not know what state you live in, but I live in Michigan and the local health department supplies free or mostly free health care (free to poverty level individuals, whether it is not their fault or they are to lazy to get off the couch, but out of my tax dollars.) Most of it (as I just called to verify with Saint Clair County) includes vitamins, free dental, checkups, etc. If you do not have that in your state, Start a letter campaign with your representatives, as is your duty to do as an American citizen. If you see a problem, You gather a group together and make this known.

So...America is the only country with homeless....I was not aware, thank you, I will take this up with my congressman.

And for the third time I have stated. The relentless pursuit of profit is the main flaw in capitalism when it runs over humanity. Yet again, go back and read my posts before you write something.
And yes, I have a sense of humor. This is just my stick point. I get tired of people complaining, yet they do nothing to correct the problem(read most of America)
This is natural though. During the revolutionary war, only 30 percent agreeded with the war, and that started to wane as the war went on. Sound Familiar?


valbrun
Posted 23 April 2006 at 10:27 am

Quote: "I know America is not perfect, I would just like to know why it seems that Canada voted itself our moral mentor."

I can understand Americans getting tired of hearing Canadians demonizing their government ant its actions, when they themselves don't like it. But I think it is also very important that we have these kinds of discussion because they help us towards a mutual understanding. I try and carefully read what you state in your posts, getting mixed messages might to a large extent be related to the virtual aspects of this conversation. I like debating, but never consider myself to have some moral superiority, and don't pretend to be referred to as a mentor. I try and always learn new things, and my political ideas are not fossilized, they modify themselves according to new elements that come into consideration.

You seem to have a critical stance of your own, and I appreciate it though we might have different outlooks at times. It seems our claims stem from fundementaly different perspectives, but recoupe themselves in certain aspects. I think the major divergence sprouts from your individualistic inclinations, as opposed to my wish for more collective oriented actions, but that remain firmly entrenched in a definition of interest that must be rooted in individual thinking. Nonetheless, consensus is always possible.

An example: I applaud your autonomous approach towards energy, but would find it more efficient if such iniatives would be backed and more rapidly implemented through collective legislations. Nevertheless, I consider it very important to take command and not simply wait for hypothetic public actions. That said I find that to many people try and tell us that the government can't do it anymore, so we only have to rely on ourselves (individually) to make it happen. Not only does this approach play well with our government's neo-liberal stance, but most importantly it also seems to forget what politics and democracy are all about. I'm not implying you necesseraly have that perspective, (you were talking about some forms of involvment) but it's part of an increasingly popular cynical view on political change.

Quote: " don't waste your breath"

I think trying to understand each other even if it implies wasting breath is a valuable aspect of democratic life. I very much understand your position, and was happy to hear you explain that poverty is not a simple thing to describe. That it doesn't necessarily mean you live in a trash can, that it relates to much much more. I totally agree with you on that.

Anarchism, anarcho-communism or the likes have very radical and very interesting outlooks on how to solve many problems of the actual system, by of course demolishing and starting on fresh foundations. The main problem I have with it, is that it often relies on wishfull thinking and is often conditionned by dogmatic views on how to solve our political problems. I go to a university where the militant core is mainly attached to these views. And after 5 years of experiencing it I must say they don't amuse me anymore.

As far as revolution is concerned, I don't believe it's a question of starting from scratch. Not only is it impossible and overtly utopic, it relies upon the belief that by simply implementing a well devised ideological platform everything will fall into place. History teaches us, it's not that easy. I don't know if you are aware of a german philosopher named Peter Sloterdijk, but he said in one of his recent books, that revolutionnary perspective must be thought along the lines of some mediation of what you wish to keep, and what you wish to create, I strongly adhere to this view. The tabula rasa idea is just not something I would wish for. Far too often, leftits ideologues try and tell us we should scrap the whole thing and just because we'll start anew, everything will be fine. To me this is very dangerous thinking.

The problem with the anarchist or anarcho-communist point of view is that whenever someones implies this idea I've just described (what to keep,what to create) , they're automatically labelled "reformist" or even "reactionnary". And this practice of accepting or rejecting people on the basis of some abstract ideological grid just makes me go crazy. It's in many ways antithetic to the whole concept of mass mobilization that is needed in order to achieve this kind of revolution. And it is also prone to the evils of a sectarian thinking, because you are always trying to see if people fit your theoretical grid or not.

Just so you know, here in Québec we are celebrating last year's major student's protest, the biggest since the sixties. More than 200 000 thousands university and college students on a general strike, for a total population of less than 7 millions, that's quite an achievment considering the predominant political apathy. The anarchists and communists were the ones who in a great part initiated the movement, and made sure that our demands were as radical as I would've liked (free universal education from kindergarden to post doctorate, and don't tell me it's impossible, just look at Finland which has about the same population and economy as Québec, and it doesn't seem impossible for them). A slight majority of the overall population was supporting us (about 55% from the polls conducted by private firms), but soon the ideological dogmatic views, as well as the blatant incapacity to compromise with other students unions of the militant core started to make themselves apparent.

They did not want to use the media, or very reluctantly agreed to do so (because the media is bourgeois), they did not want to negotiate with the government because they now thought that they were leaders of a movement on the verge of creating revolutionnary conditions (that was total wishfull thinking), so they set about to block the port of Montréal, and made similar actions of economic disturbances while not condemning any of the violent outbursts that originated from them. They also wanted nothing to do with the softer students unions (which nevertheless federated a 120 000 students out the 200 000). So we had seperate demonstrations, separate antagonistic voices trying to help the student's economic status. Soon this proved to be fatal. Of course, the government shitted their pants and were ready to cut a deal. But who do you think they cut it with, the radicals with ideas, but no mediation approach, or the softees? The deal was shit (they returned the 103 millions in loans to burses, which had originated the mobilization), and we we're back to square one, gratuity being relegated to the backburner. Of course the anarchists and communists put the burden of this failure entirely on the shoulder of the softees, it was of course all their fault, as always. Being pragmatic is not always the solution, but in this example, it might have initiated greater change, for the better. Instead, the dogmatic ideologues of this student's movement showed that they can create it, and that they also can make it crash down in flames. All of this because they can't put their ideological grid rooted in some ill-devised social theory aside for one fucking minute.

I know this is way off topic, but I just wanted you to get that perspective, since people in America and also Canada must not always be submerged about news of social unrest happening here in Québec. I think this example goes further than a simple local incident and gives a good insight as to were the anarchists and communists ideologues of this world have got it all wrong.


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 23 April 2006 at 09:20 pm

quote:I can understand Americans getting tired of hearing Canadians demonizing their government ant its actions, when they themselves don't like it. But I think it is also very important that we have these kinds of discussion because they help us towards a mutual understanding. I try and carefully read what you state in your posts, getting mixed messages might to a large extent be related to the virtual aspects of this conversation. I like debating, but never consider myself to have some moral superiority, and don't pretend to be referred to as a mentor. I try and always learn new things, and my political ideas are not fossilized, they modify themselves according to new elements that come into consideration.

Dont laugh, but most of my dearest friends started off by being in a debate about one subject or another, and we nearly whacked each other with a stick to get the point across. I will say this, even if we never become friend (I doubt that because I like about 90% of your views) you are VERY impassioned debater and this is some that every one must respect and admire.

quote: An example: I applaud your autonomous approach towards energy, but would find it more efficient if such iniatives would be backed and more rapidly implemented through collective legislations. Nevertheless, I consider it very important to take command and not simply wait for hypothetic public actions. That said I find that to many people try and tell us that the government can't do it anymore, so we only have to rely on ourselves (individually) to make it happen. Not only does this approach play well with our government's neo-liberal stance, but most importantly it also seems to forget what politics and democracy are all about. I'm not implying you necesseraly have that perspective, (you were talking about some forms of involvment) but it's part of an increasingly popular cynical view on political change.

You have know idea the trouble we had with Edison. I really depends on the state you live in. California and Colorado are net-metering states, which means they work with you and will buy back electricity on a on-par basis. When we brought this idea up with edison, which we had to legally as it is there grid (however flawed it is, dont get me started) I got the distinct impression they looked at us with crossed fingers, and that the secretaries were in the back calling the pope to get a dispensation. I have however seen legislaton on the federal level the with equalize things between the states.

quote: To me this is very dangerous thinking.

I had a college course, I believe it was poli-sci, in which we discussed how Germany could go from being on top of the world with technolgy, and quickly degraded in to Naziism. The moral of his story was this: dont think it cannot happen again, and do not ever think that it could not happen hear. I see power hungry people in supervisory positions all the time (who has not, really) This is a BIG concern of mine with our Government gobbling up the Constitution the way it does.

Quote: I know this is way off topic, but I just wanted you to get that perspective, since people in America and also Canada must not always be submerged about news of social unrest happening here in Québec. I think this example goes further than a simple local incident and gives a good insight as to were the anarchists and communists ideologues of this world have got it all wrong.

This actually is news to me, and I listen to CKLW about 4 to 5 hours a day. This is why I have lost all respect for media. I remember about 3 years ago in detroit there was a drive by shooting and the local news covered it. The newcaster did the story and then held up a round and told the viewers that this is the round that almost got the home owner. My jaw dropped, it was a UNSPENT round. There is no way to excuse that type of error ( I do not believe it was an error, I believe it was done on purpose) The nail in the coffin for me is the mayor of Detroit had one of his thugs rough up a local newscaster when he was asking him questions about his visit to D.C. He was roughly shoved into a wall. Yes this was bad. But the news station actually dubbed in a sound that made it seem like a linebacker hit him. I just could not believe that no one called them on this. I wrote an email, but I am sure I was the only one as I doubt anyone else moved the doritos to get to the phone.

I do need to apologize though, as I looked back on some of the posts, and some of my sarcasm ( Some? ) leaked through, and this should not happen in a debate, as I remeber when my speech instructor taught us, when someone attacks you, they have lost the debate.

I will say this though, I look forward to arguing with you in the future, so watch out!


oldhogger
Posted 24 April 2006 at 07:59 am

Sadly, Nutritionalalchemist if CKLW has caused you to lose respect for media, try viewing the "Fox" perspective to eliminate any media respect you might have left, eh! This coming fall try watching "This Hour has 22 Minutes", "Royal Canadian Air Farce" and finally "Rick Mercer Report" (a little plug for CBC/TV) for a light-hearted approach that most Canadians take towards Canada and the world in general.

Of course as this "Damn Interesting" topic was about the US having a plan to attack Canada during the 30's (I was not alive then). Everyone (better make that most, well maybe not that many, but quite a number of literate humans) believes the US and other powerful military countries presently have the same plans. Today governments are spending even more cash (our tax dollars) keeping these scenarios up to date. We would be naïve to believe these types of military plans will ever end. It would make too much sense to spend the money on free healthcare, education and renewable energies.

I think part of the reason Canadians are so vocal about our Southern neighbours is we are so close geographically. This Canadian feels sadness and outrage seeing so many humans suffering so close to us. In addition, there are a number of outspoken narrow-minded people living here too! As a retired Canadian, I have free (or less expensive) time to read, watch television and listen to radio (NPR & CBC… plus some old heavy metal) while enjoying life.

When I read there are three times the population of Canada without healthcare in the US I am sadden. Canadians are presently experiencing an extended waiting time for surgery however, we can all see our family doctors without worrying about cost. For profit medical is a crime and thanks to a great Canadian Tommy Douglas (Kiefer Sutherland’s grandfather), we have socialized medicine. Nevertheless, this subject will probably be discussed in a future "Damn Interesting" spot.

Thanks to the major media companies, like the people of the world that I too could watch (in real time) the World’s Greatest Super Power perform ground contour alterations in Baghdad; I was in awe of the fireworks. Everyone knew Iraq needed a new form of government, but timing and a good plan are everything. Definitely, the republican right winged religious agenda did not see it that way.

Along with the entire world, Canadians witnessed (again in real time) the same World’s Most Powerful Nation let its citizens perish after hurricanes came ashore. Canadians and the rest of the world were appalled as were the majority of Americans to the handling of this disaster. The world's reaction to the Tsunami was to offer aid. Sadly the foreign help was refused offered to the southern US was refused.

One small point is Canadians who live near Detroit are in agreement with your opinion of Detroit’s mayor and his aggressive goon squad. Kwame is still angry they made him return the rented cherry red Lincoln.

Fortunately, we live in an era where we can exchange thoughts and opinions freely. Blog on!


nutritionalalchemist
Posted 24 April 2006 at 06:38 pm

oldhogger said: "Sadly, Nutritionalalchemist if CKLW has caused you to lose respect for media, try viewing the "Fox" perspective to eliminate any media respect you might have left, eh! This coming fall try watching "This Hour has 22 Minutes", "Royal Canadian Air Farce" and finally "Rick Mercer Report" (a little plug for CBC/TV) for a light-hearted approach that most Canadians take towards Canada and the world in general.

No, actually CKLW is pretty good on the international news. It was the local channels in Detroit that were the proverbial straw

Of course as this "Damn Interesting" topic was about the US having a plan to attack Canada during the 30's (I was not alive then). Everyone (better make that most, well maybe not that many, but quite a number of literate humans) believes the US and other powerful military countries presently have the same plans. Today governments are spending even more cash (our tax dollars) keeping these scenarios up to date. We would be naïve to believe these types of military plans will ever end. It would make too much sense to spend the money on free health care, education and renewable energies.

I agree but the most sane reason I saw was if Canada was invaded and America had to go in. I as I posted once though about Nazi Germany: If it could happen there, it could happen anywhere, and at any time, Be it America, Canada, Mexico etc

I think part of the reason Canadians are so vocal about our Southern neighbours is we are so close geographically. This Canadian feels sadness and outrage seeing so many humans suffering so close to us. In addition, there are a number of outspoken narrow-minded people living here too! As a retired Canadian, I have free (or less expensive) time to read, watch television and listen to radio (NPR & CBC… plus some old heavy metal) while enjoying life.

I think not only is it the closeness, but socially we are almost the same, just minor differences in language pronunciation and customs. The are more differences between Michigan and say...Kentucky than between Michigan and Ontario

When I read there are three times the population of Canada without healthcare in the US I am sadden. Canadians are presently experiencing an extended waiting time for surgery however, we can all see our family doctors without worrying about cost. For profit medical is a crime and thanks to a great Canadian Tommy Douglas (Kiefer Sutherland’s grandfather), we have socialized medicine. Nevertheless, this subject will probably be discussed in a future "Damn Interesting" spot.

I will say this about Canadian Health Care. My step-daughter has dual citizenship ( Her Father is Canadian)
and my wife will not take her to Sarnia for anything even though it is free. It is only a 30 minute drive to a Canadian facility as opposed to a 20 minute drive in the states. This is not my experience, and my info is second hand ( though, it is from my wife, hence no reason to distrust) But she said that they are terrible in their manner, and not very caring.

Along with the entire world, Canadians witnessed (again in real time) the same World’s Most Powerful Nation let its citizens perish after hurricanes came ashore. Canadians and the rest of the world were appalled as were the majority of Americans to the handling of this disaster. The world's reaction to the Tsunami was to offer aid. Sadly the foreign help was refused offered to the southern US was refused.

Well, I have another take on that story. I put the blame on the people. Without a doubt Federal aid was slow getting there, but I believe that was in large part that they could not believe they were that stupid in not taking the situation by the balls (pardon my french, I was going to say language, but I thought you would enjoy that pun more!) If I am on a train track, and I see a train coming, is it my fault that I get hit, or the person who say me and kept saying get off the track idiot. I saw an email goind around and it discussed the Northern states and how they are hit with killer snow storms ( I am sure Canada has them much more so) Few die in thoses because people know they are coming, and take the steps to prepare. As for the aid that was offered, it was not refused, it just was not acknowledged. Sadly it was a pride thing, And I think it would have gone a long way to help build international relations. I do believe some of the reasons it was this way was that it was China who did the offering, and I think security was at the fore front of that decision

One small point is Canadians who live near Detroit are in agreement with your opinion of Detroit’s mayor and his aggressive goon squad. Kwame is still angry they made him return the rented cherry red Lincoln.

Please do not get me started. I know this will undoubtedly ignite a firestorm, but the reason why he was re-elected was the same reason coleman young was able to stay in. The black vote wanted a black Mayor because it was believed it would "stick it to the Man" Sadly, the discovered in Detroit, that the people who got stuck were the citizens of Detroit. I am not saying a white mayor would be better, but in the last race, Kwame pulled the race card and said he was the "Blacker" canidate. What kind of idiocy is this.

Fortunately, we live in an era where we can exchange thoughts and opinions freely. Blog on!"

Thank God, Brother, Thank God!!!


rudytjip
Posted 25 April 2006 at 01:56 pm

>>oldhogger says:

>>When I read there are three times the population of Canada without healthcare in the US I am sadden.

This is a "myth" about healthcare in the US. The truth is there are millions of Americans without "health insurance," but this is not at all the same as "without healthcare." I don't know how it is in other parts of the US, but here in my county (in Southern California), low income people (with no insurance) get free health care from the county public health agency, or get subsidies from MSI. There are also free or low-cost clinics operated or financed by charities, state agencies or other organizations. For emergency care, hospitals are by law mandated to give treatment to people even those without isurance (paid for by the state, i.e. other taxpayers). So, even the poorest DO have healthcare.


the100thmonkey
Posted 26 April 2006 at 09:38 am

i just read this thread, and it makes me want to die.

haven't (most of) you people got anything better to do other than quote-each-other-angrily-at-each-other while about which country is 1337er?

god damn continentals...


Shammy
Posted 26 April 2006 at 08:13 pm

I know this is a late reply and no one will see it but oh well.

Why is it that people automatically get so violent about petty rivalries? Canada and the U.S. have basically the exact same cultures, mines the little differences like they like hockey and we like football. Look, no one is invading the other.

Also, the U.S. has plans for war for almost every major nation. Probably the only reason this one was declassified was that we got a new and updated one. We have to be prepared for even the most absurd situations. I wouldn't be surprised, nor would I mind, if Canada, Britain, or and other nation had war plans for a fight with the U.S., in fact, it would be stupid to not have a backup plan to defend against such a power. The fact is that the war didn't come close to happening, and just a few years later we became extremely close allies. For instance, Canada let the U.S. build a road to Alaska which came in handy when the Japanese invaded the Aleutians, and we lent arms to Canada.

What I'm trying to get at is that while rivalries are very healthy to keep each other on our toes, it should stay just that: a rivalry. Having two different systems of healthcare, for example, is good because it illustrates the pros and cons of both. Now, please, keep it at jokes about how Canadians fuel their cars with maple syrup and how Americans...well...I don't know what jokes other people say about America, though there are probably a ton. But anyways, play nice children.

P.S.: I probably made some stupid typos here and I'm too lazy to correct them. God bless American rights to be lazy!


rp2
Posted 27 April 2006 at 08:51 am

Sigh, I was trying to be an ass in that last comment... but it didn't work out. So you can just delete it.


white_matter
Posted 02 May 2006 at 11:28 pm

With the 150th comment let me just say that I rule.

I rule your face! Go USA!!!!


Hayley
Posted 08 May 2006 at 07:30 am

I like how Canada's surveillance and information gathering strategies included free maps at the local midwestern gas stations. No wonder they don't give those out anymore...potential terrorism attack points. We don't want anyone attacking us who can't afford a $20 atlas of our country.


C
Posted 08 May 2006 at 05:30 pm

if America would invade Canada it wouldnt take that long to take control because America is prolly the most powerful superpower in the world. Only country that would come next would be China. Canada may have allies too but many are also allies to the USA and owe us a lot. it would only be a bad idea cause of our poor economy that grows 2.6 billion dollars a day more in debt and the fact that it would be too close to American soil


Arcangel
Posted 10 May 2006 at 10:08 pm

Okay then, I'm drawing an imaginary line (call it the 49th parallel if you will). Now cross it. I dare you!


Melon Head
Posted 15 May 2006 at 08:52 pm

You guys want us. You know it. We are developing the world's largest amusement park. We are starting with the world's largest zoo by putting a fence around Quebec.


i_love_nukes
Posted 07 June 2006 at 06:18 pm

C, you are a f***ing dumbass. Usa is not the world's biggest superpower but i do agree that it is one. On the down side, if Usa invades canada, and three of Canada's allies are Russia,Great Britain, China and India(which is likely), Usa is screwed big time. Russia has over 5,000 nuclear warheads and are in the prime position to invade Usa through Alaska(Russia is only 3 miles from Alaska). India and China are the two biggest armies in the world(India numbering around 2.75million and China numbering around 2.3 million). If Russia, China, India, Great Britain and Canada send all their troops together, they would number over 6.5 million armed forces invading Usa.
On the upside, USA has the world's biggest navy and the third largest army and they have a strong foothold in the south pacific and the North atlantic. THey can move all their ships from the south pacific up to the western side of Canada/eastern alaska and block them off. The North Atlantic Navy can block off the Brits from coming through under Greenland and in from the Arctic sea. So Usa has the upperhand in the ocean but probably not many allies. And the US has over 370,000 troops overseas, so it will be difficult to bring them here to protect us. We only have the National Guard of the Northern states and regular gun totin' Americans to protect us. So in other words, if Usa invades Canada, Canada will probably drive them back. If Canada invades The us, they would probably win, but with high casualties.


Canadaman
Posted 07 June 2006 at 08:01 pm

I would like to say something to a certain crowd at the beggining of these posts:1, Canadian guy, good for sdanding up for your country, and 2, to all the americans who made fun of all Canadians, I fart in your general direction. I found your comments to be rude, and to be insensitive to your healthier counterparts. I do not mean to be rude and stoop to your level (oops, I was rude again), but I feel the vulgar comments of some of the people who posted on this board were unecessary and insulting. I believe I, and all the Canadians on this board deserve an apollogy.


BolognaHeadManVagina
Posted 14 June 2006 at 01:58 am

I don't think America would ever have to invade them, just stop buying exports for awhile and sit back and watch the economy crumble into 3rd world. Also considering there military budget and manpower a stand alone with the states would be futile. Although I'm not an American, it's survival of the fittest.


me09
Posted 06 July 2006 at 05:45 pm

The US do not have an alter-ego or any kind of superiority complex. They're just sooo afraid! haha. Have you noticed, they're kinda like a little kid? MINE MINE MINE! Someone give them a spanking please!!!!


HawkFest
Posted 24 August 2006 at 03:57 am

HAHAHAAAAA!!! USA invading Canada? Whatever the intention for such a stupidity, this would turn Canada into such a «Kanadastan», with much of its population turned into « rebel fighters », that in the end USA would just go back where it belongs...

USA HAS ALREADY TRIED TO INVADE CANADA, TWICE! They would never try again whatever their firepower (they would have to simply erradicate the canadian territory out of the map)... Here's some history explaining why.

► War of 1775-1776 : the US invasion is held off
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

While the US revolution was appening in 1775, George Washington sent two armies up north, under the intention of capturing Quebec city and conquering Canada. On the 31st of december at dawn, american generals Richard Montgomery and Benedict Arnold Launch an attack on Quebec city. Montgomery is killed and Arnold is wounded. However, Arnold's troups have succeeded to reach the lower town, and are ready to escalade the last line of defense which was a big fence. Behind that fence, the french population and its militia, coupling with some british reinforcement soldiers, are preparing for a savage battle and street fighting inside the city... In the end, the american army was repeled and ran away

► War of 1812-1814 : the US invasion is held off, in spite of their numeric advantage of 1o against 1!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

In june 1812, USA declares war to England. Of course the target is once again Canada, by taking advantage of the napoleonian wars context in wich England was directly involved (and where England concentrated much of it's troops). Canadian troops are outnumbered, however US troops are completely disorganized against an unexpected and violent canadian opposition...

▪ THE US DEBACLE NEAR MONTREAL AGAINST THE "VOLTIGEURS"

Apart from the regular british troops defeating an american troop at Crysler's farm (east of Ontario), in october 1813, the Commander Charles de Salaberry and 460 french-canadian light infantry soldiers (called "Voltigeurs") decimates an army of 4000 american soldiers (!!), all along the Châteauguay river south of Montreal, running after the survivors as far as Albany so as to make sure USA would not try to plan another invasion of that type... For USA, such a defeat of ten against one was the begining of a real psychological bomb against any future US pretentions to invade Canada, wich was finally launched in Washington later on by british troops...

Following this debacle, the US army tried to avoid combats against french-canadians and concentrated its efforts in Ontario and near the eastern border. They've suceeded several times, especially from their naval forces on Lake Champlain, at Niagara-on-the-Lake (a village which they totally burned down), but these isolated actions never changed the global military outcome.

▪ YORK AND BORDER TOWNS BURNED DOWN, LEADING TO THE DECISIVE CANADIAN RETALIATION AGAINST WASHINGTON CITY AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WHITE HOUSE

In 1814, the British army finally responds to the burning down of York (nowadays Toronto) and to the attacks against canadian border towns. A british army also composed of a smaller amount of french-canadian "Voltigeurs" and some indians, burns down Buffalo, and finally marches on Washington so as to definitely put an end to this US intention to invade Canada. And for long. Parts of Washington was burned down, and the White House destroyed. That psychological bomb has been launched for good, until nowadays and the future... In december 1814, the Ghand treaty was signed by both belligerents. Even if USA was the big looser, the only thing Canada did was to offer their hand and asked USA to "behave" in whatever future negociations and/or commercial exchanges, and to seal a friendship that would last for long and made this american zone the most prolific one, apart from its spanish counterpart (Mexico, South America, etc..)


canuck99
Posted 26 August 2006 at 12:32 pm

you know, i read all your comments and it makes me sad.

I'm sad because while america is looking to take over other countries, they dont even worry about thier own people. There are too many wars within your own country that should be looked at before you think about taking over our country.
Our country is not perfect either. Yes we have become very liberal, and I want to point out that not all canadians are in agreance with the new liberal laws (ie. Homosexual marriage) We have enough problems with our own country fighting with Quebec, the west verses the east and all that junk.
Let me ask you america, if you so into taking us over, are you ready to take over all our social problems too? Or does that even matter to you? Let me guess, the rich can just get richer and the poor, poorer???
Thats the difference between Canada and America. We try to take care of our people by providing them opportunities to do better. We have free Health care so that the poor who need help can survive, and social assistance programs, First nations rights and freedoms, immigration help.

Now to add a bit of my peeves. I've had alot of international experience and I honestly looked forward to working with different people from around the world. Yet every time we've ever worked with an american team, host countries asked us to never invite them back. Why?
Because on a basic human level, americans where the pickest, rudest, most unmanageable people I've ever worked with. I heard more complaints about a country then them actually helping. We were in charge of getting them what they needed and to make them as comfortable as possible while sacrificing our own comfort. You know, just because you have to eat chicken 3 days in a row is not a big deal. And not every country has Seely comfort top mattresses. No you cant shower every day, and you know what some countries have to monitor thier water levels so yes they do shut it off.
My point, I think america has been spoiled for too long, and your day will come. Sadly you will drag Canada in with you because you always do in all your conflicts.
Listen if your going to go and serve another country, dont think you can take what you have from home and force it on other people.
Just one last point, I have american family and friends so I'm not writing from a biased opinion, I'm writing from first hand experience.
I LOVE CANADA and I AM CANADIAN!!!


HawkFest
Posted 29 August 2006 at 09:07 am

canuck99, hello fellow citizen! ;) I live in Montreal. I am a computer scientist. I've also done business with US organizations, some time ago in Minneapolis-St-Paul (minnesota) representing Air Canada, and more recently in San Diego as a contractual for a company out there. Amongst other less relevant experiences (I too have familly out there, in NY and Texas, but this don't count for whatever global appreciation)... I don't know about the global international perception when it comes to some teamwork involved, but I'll have to admit that myself I was quite enchanted by my personal experiences. Actually, I've never witnessed what you have portrayed - it must have been due to some contextual matter... In Minneapolis, we were received with pompeous honors (read, with the flag, the anthem and so on, wich was quite embarrassing for us arriving there in jeans and unprepared for such a reception). Our staying was just great, and american collaborators were behaving as it says : collaborators or co-workers (at UNISYS headquarters, in 1993).

All I'd have to say, is that contrary to other countries where I've also worked (mostly Europe), americans were not as curious or opened in regards to simple "human exchange" - or social exchange : kind of introvert types... They did not invite us to parties, they did not offered themselves as guides or whatever else, we could clearly percieve a thin curtain between us : it felt like we were two gangs in the same team... I guess we should thank Hollywood and its propaganda to US people, bombarding them with messages about how USA is number one and so on, and insedeously making them feel as part of some "superior" crop, instead of simple «individual human beings» (if it's not USA, it's not interresting or it is irelevent, whoever is standing there and is not from USA)... Anyhow it was not as bad as what you've lived, a professional environment was "de vigueur", and our staying was perfect : hotel services, transport, and myself I liked to rollerblade at Cedar Lake Park, making many interesting encounters. My other example was quite different though : San Diego was the total opposite! California wind? Maybe... It was one of my best experiences ever. Bizzarly, people seemed more prone to show-off their USA tatoo, seemed more distant at first hand (with the exception of vendors), but only a tiny ice-breaker was sufficient to break that distance and let go the forehead sticker : open minded, respectfull, joyfull and inviting, (except for some dumb asses but hey, these people exist all over the world), etc., etc... As we are here in Montreal, which was an agreable surprise! :)

What actually pisses me off is USA's propaganda machine and their political unilateral behavior, as if they were priests of some US domination instead of global harmony. And it seems that US citizens have two personalities! One which is a normal human being, the other which appears automatically, as if out of control, every time some patriotic one-liner can be thrown out, and which is dogmatic, stubborn and putting on hold any reasoning, as if they were members of some "sect"... Weird... They even consider themselves as some perfect model for other countries to copy and embrase.. Why? Maybe because USA was built by immigrants of many origins, who are thus convinced, by «circumnstantial evidence», that they would represent hummanity at large... I don't know. Truth is that this kind of belief and consequently international policy, whatever the reasons, is very lucrative for Corporate Amercica even if this involves behaving as some kind of a rogue country for many others : Venezuella, Chili, Saoudit Arabia, Kuwait, the Shah of Iran before the coranic revolution, and other such dictatorships supported by corporate USA... Even with Canada, by denying their own signature to the NAFTA treaty in regards to the lumber industry. It is as if they could not understand that multilateral negociations could be as prolific (if not more) than any unilateral stance towards US interests! The PNAC and its bunch of fascist goons has corrupted our beloved friend : USA was an Empire since long... But as for the Roman empire, by the time people in power are proclaming about this Empire and thus legitimate the use of force to impose itself to others (since 2000), that Empire is actually in decline, unfortunately...


HawkFest
Posted 29 August 2006 at 09:38 am

I apologise for those typos and errors in my previous message... Since I live in Montreal, english is my second language (which is noticable only in my writings btw... People tell me that I have no french accent).


Canadaman
Posted 10 October 2006 at 03:32 pm

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Stem-Cells.mov
Just wantch it it's pretty funny.


Canadaman
Posted 10 October 2006 at 03:32 pm

*watch


rp2
Posted 13 November 2006 at 07:11 pm

bump! oh wait...


Hugh G. Rection
Posted 10 December 2006 at 05:25 am

America would rape some mounty ass.


Dakart
Posted 13 December 2006 at 01:33 pm

Wait... Canada's a country? I though it was a state!

:P


wagar
Posted 31 January 2007 at 01:07 am

I am a 13 year old from Winnipeg Manitoba, and an answer to everyones question of why so many canadians dislike americans.

Almost any american will look at where I'm from and wont have a clue of where or what it is. Any When I've been on summer road trips through the states, I've met one person who knew what manitoba, or what a province was. Everyone else asked me to speak canadian. Others told us they watched degrassi high,(a show) to hear canadian slang like eh, oot and aboot, ......I dont even know what an oot and aboot is?
someone please tell me.

Ignorance

Look up on the web cnnnn, or talking with americans to get the idea.
When a canadian comedian can get state governors to sign petitions to stop the canadian government from placing the elderly on ice flows, and shipping them off to sea to die, or to stop the Rhino stampedes in northern saskatchewan, you know there is a problem.

Also, how did the Vancouver coast guard get to New Orleans after Katrina 5 days before any american help could arrive? that just blows my mind! AARRGGHH BUSSSHHHH!


Rosie
Posted 11 February 2007 at 01:08 pm

Being an American, I think that it is absurd that any Canadian would actually think that we might possibly still have a plan to attack your country. You are our leading trade partner! Why would sacrifice all of the trade between our countries and our close ties to the British? President Bush may have made a bad name for Americans, but there are actually intelligent Americans out there.

As for all you other Canadians out there, I am sorry that you have meet the ignorant percentage of Americans and I am ever more sorry that you judge a large populous on a couple of unfavorable encounters. What happened to the great Canadians greeting anyone and everyone with open arms? I do not understand why there is so much hatred and ill will toward our two great countries and why it seems as though the “users” on this website are so quick to judge.

Proud to be an American


jfbarbs
Posted 11 February 2007 at 03:44 pm

its lucky i know you rosie...but anyhow, leading trade partner or not, the american government has proven time and time again that if given a little bit of rope, they'll try to hang canada with it. IE. Softwood Lumber tariffs. NAFTA was a brainchild of the US and they completely go against it to screw us over. Anyone who doesn't think this is a serious problem should take a drive by the Keewatin, Ont. lumber yards.

the examples are endless where the US has bullied or tried to bully Canada to tow-the-line, I love conservative talk radio, but when all i here is "canada should be careful because we might roll over one night and crush them" thats the kind of talk that hits me in my patriotic gonads...my reply to that is the US should be careful because one day we'll cut off our lumber, water, electricity, maple syrup, nickel, zinc, copper, uranium and god knows what else and you guys can fend for yourselves, which you can do, until you use all your resources up and have no one else to turn to, because by that time everyone else will hate you....clearly anyone with half a brain can see that the US isn't going to invade canada anytime soon. as im sure someone has already said, these plans are written by West Point grads who have nothing better to do with their weekend nights.

In this world of paranoia we live in it's always better to be safe than sorry. Canada just happens to be one of the west's leading exporters of terrorism because of our lax legal system. under those guidelines, we're ripe for the invading. look no further than Gerald Bull and the Babylon Supergun to see just the kind of people we're capable of pumping out. and those sihks out west in BC who blew up those hindu's over scotland. just thought i'd add my 2 cents and give you people more to ponder.

I love the USA, but I HATE the ignorance some of you regurgitate out for the rest of us to see and hear, in that same breath I also HATE the ignorance the average canadian pumps out claiming to be all righteous and superiour to our brothers down south.

Proud to be a Canadian, who will one day move to the states to avoid Canada's criminal income taxation.


adamj.
Posted 11 February 2007 at 04:50 pm

171st!

Canada's not a state? Good grief,...all this time.

Really, i venture there's not 12 Americans in the whole of the USA that could tell you who the President/Prime Minister/Shah/Head Mountee (whatever the title is) of Canada is.

The only Canadian city most could ever name would probably be Montreal and that only because Andre Dawson played for the Expos when they were able to get a crowd and a team together. (BTW, who's idea was it to have a MLB team in Quebec anyway?)

Anyway, Canada's great,...I guess. Not like I'm ever gonna go there. Why would I?
Anybody sitting around the table planning their summer vacation, "Let's see,...Florida, LA, or Winnepeg? I just can't decide!"

Go Cubs!


rumdog
Posted 14 February 2007 at 12:08 pm

I love the US. In between a period when the entire globe is at war they get nervous in the 30's about little Canada.

Then when a war is cranking just a few years later. They find it best to wait until, Europe is destroyed, England sacrifices her empire. Australia and New Zealand have sacrificed one quarter of its male population then we might play.

So in stroll the US like the cavalry and say "he whats going on, gee you guys all look a bit wankered, looks like you've been at war for 4 years or something?" After the world being at war on and off for 30 years, the US believes janitor work... "is saving arse". Nice mop and bucket guys.

Now Germany was re built for free.
England paid back its War debt last year and gave up its Empire "for Europe and it's own survival" Not money.
Europe was economically in taters.

That leaves the US. Owing its industry and climb out of the great depression to a war it didn't want a part of.

It owes its climb to "super powerdom" to Europe and England. But still you say "you saved us".

You are only where your at economically from the sacrifice of others.

We saved you!

Your nothing with out the French anyway...and they hate you.

You saved us....This coming form a country that eats cheese from a can and holds a world series with one country in it,

comment from Australia.


wagar
Posted 17 February 2007 at 08:27 pm

adamj. said: "171st!


Canada's not a state? Good grief,…all this time.

Really, i venture there's not 12 Americans in the whole of the USA that could tell you who the President/Prime Minister/Shah/Head Mountee (whatever the title is) of Canada is.

The only Canadian city most could ever name would probably be Montreal and that only because Andre Dawson played for the Expos when they were able to get a crowd and a team together. (BTW, who's idea was it to have a MLB team in Quebec anyway?)

Anyway, Canada's great,…I guess. Not like I'm ever gonna go there. Why would I?
Anybody sitting around the table planning their summer vacation, "Let's see,…Florida, LA, or Winnepeg? I just can't decide!"

Go Cubs!"

Do you now understand where the ignorance is coming from?


Jeffrey93
Posted 06 March 2007 at 01:56 am

There is nothing like a good USA vs. Canada debate!

If we aren't permitted to say we whooped yer butts several times because we were "British" back then...then you can't say you "saved" anyone in WWII. D eal? We were still considered a British colony during all of the failed invasion by the Americans, also...WWII was finally getting lined up for an Allied victory when you Yanks showed up. You just helped the rest of us, that had been there for almost 4 years!, do it a little quicker.

Let's for a second say we did drop the gloves and brawl. Just for a minute.

Who would you pick? Well...I know Vegas would have the USA as the obvious favourites. However, I believe that Canadians, along with some allied help, would prevail.

You see...we are a well liked nation. The USA is not. For whatever reasons, we won't get into that now.
So I'd safely assume that the bulk of support would be given to Canada from allied nations. For two reasons, first because we probably didn't start this dust up and two, because well....you don't honestly think that any UN country really likes you guys do you?

We could also garner support from North Korea, Iran, Syria, China, Japan, Russia, Pakistan, etc., etc. Basically from any country you've wronged in the past or just has an embedded hatred towards the USA. That pretty much leaves Switzerland and the USA to fight the world.

If you want to leave all your fancy pants billion dollar weaponry at home and just come up for a tussle...I'm sure we'd do what we always have in the past. Send you home dragging your tail between your legs.

I'd honestly consider this a slight threat, given the current administration. Who knows...we do have a lot of oil and resources that the US could use. Maybe they do have plans to invade.

This would worry me if I thought, even for a second, that anymore than 3% of the citizens of the USA serving in the armed forces had any clue where to find Canada on a map. You can't really invade it...if you can't find it.

Your ignorance keeps us safe, except when you're bombing us during training missions when we're actually trying to help you. Aside from those instances....your ignorance is blissful to us. That's why we let you act all arrogant all the time.

On the sixth day God turned to the angel Gabriel and said "Today I am going to create a land called Canada.

It will be a land of outstanding natural beauty - it shall have tall majestic mountains full of mountain goats and eagles, and beautiful sparkly lakes bountiful with carp and trout. There shall be forests full of elk and moose, high cliffs overlooking sandy beaches with an abundance of sea life, and rivers stocked with salmon."

God continued, "I shall make the land rich in oil so to make the inhabitants prosper, I shall call these inhabitants Canadians, they shall be known as the most friendly people on the earth."

"But Lord," asked Gabriel, "don't you think you are being too generous to these Canadians?"

"No, not really." God replied... "Just wait and see the loud mouthed neighbours I am going to give them!"


Tink
Posted 06 March 2007 at 06:08 pm

Re: Jeffery93:

LOL, Oh honey, you're a laugh riot!
Cute, too cute.


m4gill4
Posted 06 March 2007 at 09:26 pm

Wow.... So much hate here! I'm American and I took a road trip to Winnipeg once when I was 18 so I could drink at the bars, and I had a blast. We were driving down a main road (I forget the name) and in the middle of traffic, just to be silly, I yelled out the window at an SUV with it's windows down "SO WHERE ARE ALL THE GOOD BARS?" Much to my surprise, the driver of the SUV (while both cars were moving mind you,) laughed and gave at least three good suggestions before traffic separated us. That was the moment that will for me, forever define the wonderful Canadian character. Also when we got to the bar, we learned that by law, anyone who volunteers to be the designated driver gets free non alcoholic drinks. How cool!

Anyone who says that Canadians and Americans are the exact same are not correct. Quite similar in many respects, yes, but try going to any American city and carrying on a conversation with a total stranger in a moving vehicle. It doesnt take Miss Cleo to predict the outcome of that experiment. (I love working Miss Cleo references into my blog posts!)

Having emphasised that I very much enjoyed my Canada experience, I also am mildly perturbed at the view that many Canadians seem to have about America, or rather Americans. Please keep in mind that only (and some would say less than) 50% of our population voted for the current administration, and less that 30% approve of it's foreign policy. Please avoid blanket statements condeming us for "ignorance", "egotism" etc... "I" didnt invade Iraq... "I" know perfectly well where Winnepeg, and all other major Canadian cities are located, as do *most* of my friends (hey theres idiots from every country... just look at Tom Green).

Finally I'd like to conclude by saying all of this freindly rivalry between Canadians and Americans is fun, makes for great jokes, and great blogs, but really, all you Canadians who like to talk S**T, don't pretend that you don't know that if anyone ever F**ked with you, we would totally beat their asses.

love from the south


m4gill4
Posted 06 March 2007 at 11:33 pm

Jeffrey93 said:


WWII was finally getting lined up for an Allied victory when you Yanks showed up. You just helped the rest of us, that had been there for almost 4 years!, do it a little quicker.

LAUGH!!! Getting lined up for victory huh? Read a book....

That pretty much leaves Switzerland and the USA to fight the world.

Wow. Umm do you know ANYTHING about Switzerland? That statement alone pretty much discredits everything you have to say about international relations...

Your attitude is everything all those USA haters hate about the USA... and youre Canadian... See above for "hey theres idiots from every country..."

"This would worry me if I thought, even for a second, that anymore than 3% of the citizens of the USA serving in the armed forces had any clue where to find Canada on a map. You can't really invade it…if you can't find it."

Oh you mean the Canada that would ally itself with Iran, North Korea and Syria? Right.... Is it that one big country where that one jackass lives who doesn't know that Switzerland is NEUTRAL?

Sigh...


Jeffrey93
Posted 09 March 2007 at 05:46 pm

Switzerland neutral eh? They are a full member of the United Nations. Hardly neutral!

Thanks for coming out.

If you still believe they can be a member of this organization and remain "neutral", they'd still be the only country the US could hope to align with, because of that exact reason. They're neutral. Get it?

I don't paint everyone with the same brush either. I like Americans, I just don't like America and the actions the country has historically made. I don't 'hate' your country...I'm just not a huge fan.

A lot of poor decisions and misguided/misinformed patriotism.

I have zero problem with Syria, North Korea or Iran. I don't believe they have a problem with me or my country either. You and your country on the other hand? They might have some issues with you.

Your story about the person giving directions in moving traffic...versus what would happen if you did that in any US city, is EXACTLY what I don't like about your country and it's citizens. It's the attitude that you hinted at that is widespread in the US and I don't like it, it's tough to describe my feelings towards Americans and the USA and I'm sure even if I could word it perfectly you wouldn't understand. Which is fine. I'm outside the US near the border...so I can look in and watch your news channels, visit nearby US cities...I know as much about the US as, I'll safely assume, most Americans do. And I don't like what I see for the most part. Should I apologize for that?

I will tell you this...you visit countries around the world and you'll find...I'm in the majority. It's a large majority.


mbdrivr
Posted 24 March 2007 at 12:13 pm

Im not sure how many people on here I speak for but I live in a fairly liberal part of Canada, and the number one (and two... and three) things I hear about are 1) the environment 2) US foreign policy 3) the decadence of capitalism. The way I see america invading us involves these three factors converging. Im going to get this through in a bit of a confusing order so I hope you can all follow me here.

Im pretty sure at this juncture, there are few who still oppose the idea of global warming and climate change. If you do, you are most likely an ignorant tool, and need not read the rest of my post. Some 5000 climatologists the world over agree one one thing: The world's environment is changing. With that change brings new challenges and higher demands on resources. One of only a handful of nations in a position to see some (short-term) gain from global warming, Canada will see its northern lands open up to industrial farming, as the ice and permafrost recede. Not only is there a great wealth of Diamonds, Uranium, Iron-ore, and timbre resources in the north, but the one thing that every living organism needs to survive: water. Canada, at present controls at least one quarter of the worlds fresh water supply (the figure may be higher, I would have to check).

Jumping to number three, the increasingly globalized world sees MNCs (Multi-national Corporations) putting increased pressure on political factions (or buy them - cite George W. and Texas Oil Money) to reduce gov't restrictions on business. NAFTA, established in the Mulruney-Bush Sr. era, opened borders to free trade across the board - EXCLUDING water, as was expressed during talks about the free trade agreement by the Mulruney gov't. The Americans disagree. Already American corporations are sueing the Canadian government for preventing them from taking water from northern-pacific ocean tributaries. They claim the intervention is "unethical" and "anti free-trade". If these companies are continually resisted, as the demand for clean water grows, ESPECIALLY in the decades to come, pressure will grow on the American government to do something about it.

Thirdly I will speak about my view on American foreign policy. Bear in mind that I harbour no ill will towards my neighbours to the south, and am simply putting forward my view on history. Much of the international world, as well as what I hear around my own hometown, feels that your military is a bit of a loose cannon. We see time, and again, military interventions in areas where the conflict is one that ought not to be meddled with. I am not speaking of the Afghanistans, Kuwaits, or Panamas. I am speaking of the Vietnams, Iraqs, Koreas. God forbid American forces enter Iran or North Korea, as it will surely plunge the world into World War III. The muslims will not tolerate another Islamic nation being invaded, nor will the Chinese tolerate an American force so close to their borders again, but I am drifting from my point.

American foreign policy, as many have been the unfortunate witness of, keeps its eye on the goal. It is so focused on this goal that it has been known to turn a blind eye, or even promote the inhumanity and slaughter of fellow man (E. Timor, etc..).

If any are still wondering what this goal is i will say it plain: Furthering America's survival as top nation. This is the reason that America is in Iraq, to control the oil, not for the purpose of lowering oil prices, but for the purpose of shutting off the tap to their rivals, which at present, is where Iraq (and Iran, and much of middle eastern) oil goes. That rival is China, and theyre getting very, very big. At last I come to why I feel American tanks will inevitably cross our border in the next 50 years. I feel it will happen as pressure mounts from corporations to promote "free-trade". I feel it will be a result of monumental public pressure on the government to provide clean, fresh water as the Nevada desert grows east and the Mississippi slowly dries out. I feel invasion will happen as China's demand for water (while already monumentally high because of the drying Yellow, Yangtse, Xi Rivers) will only grow. It will be a play of political, economic, and humanitarian interests, and at present, I do not see Canada being able to resist such an invasion. My country is great and free, and the hearts of my people are strong, but I fear for the future. The tools for this invasion, by the way, are already in development. If any of you are interested, look up the SMARTRUCK on Youtube.com or just google it. Riot gear and crowd supression tech for the 21st century. It already exists, and it is in the hands of the US Military, not the police forces. That should say something right there.

Hope this wasnt too long and wordy, but I think I got my point across well enough. Comments welcome.


dtaylor
Posted 25 March 2007 at 04:11 am

Im pretty sure at this juncture, there are few who still oppose the idea of global warming and climate change. If you do, you are most likely an ignorant tool, and need not read the rest of my post.

Talk about a blatant attempt to poison the well.

Please spend some time studying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

And: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Some 5000 climatologists the world over agree one one thing: The world's environment is changing.

The world's climate and environment has always been in a state of change.

I am speaking of the Vietnams, Iraqs, Koreas.

I'm not going to get into a debate over those wars except to point out that North Korea is a hell on Earth, and it is America which saved South Korea from that fate and continues to defend the region from a clearly offensive and hostile North Korean army. Be glad we're there.

God forbid American forces enter Iran or North Korea, as it will surely plunge the world into World War III. The muslims will not tolerate another Islamic nation being invaded,

Iran is mostly Shia. The rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. Our problem in Iraq right now is that Iraq is split along Sunni / Shia lines, the only Islamic nation that really is, and they hate each other. If Iraq were entirely one or the other, we would be home, Iraq would be a thriving democracy, and Bush would be a hero for deposing Saddam.

If we attacked or invaded Iran it would cause problems for us in Iraq among the Shia. But I seriously doubt the Sunni world would lift a finger in protest of an attack on Iran. They might verbally rebuke the U.S. if there were a full scale invasion, but that's it. The "Muslim world" is not going to come to defend Iran against the U.S. They hate Iran as much as the U.S.

nor will the Chinese tolerate an American force so close to their borders again, but I am drifting from my point.

China has neither the will, nor the legal standing, nor the military power to engage and sustain a war over North Korea. I'm sure they don't want to see a preemptive first strike, but you're kidding yourself if you think they will come to "dear leader's" rescue in any case. It's not 1950, and they care a whole heck of a lot more about U.S. trade and their standing in the U.N. than they do about whether U.S. troops move a few hundred km closer for a short time. They would be annoyed over the North Korean refugee crisis which would erupt on their border, but that's it.

Ultimately if the U.S. were to occupy North Korea, it would be short lived. South Korea would be granted control and unify the nation, and U.S. forces would leave. China would end up with fewer U.S. forces on their border than they have now. They would be smart to actually help us if war breaks out on the peninsula.

At any rate, I doubt the Korean peninsula will see a war any time soon. Dear leader talks big, but knows the U.S. would ultimately crush him. The U.S. knows its power in the region, but doesn't want to see thousands of South Koreans and Japanese killed in the time it would take to obliterate North Korea's artillery and missile systems. So it's a stalemate.

This is the reason that America is in Iraq, to control the oil, not for the purpose of lowering oil prices, but for the purpose of shutting off the tap to their rivals, which at present, is where Iraq (and Iran, and much of middle eastern) oil goes. That rival is China, and theyre getting very, very big.

As variations of the oil conspiracy theory go, yours is the worst. For one, no single oil producer can influence the world market. If we redirect shipments of Iraq oil to our shores or "allies" only, then that simply frees up oil that would have otherwise been purchased on the global market. Even if we invaded Saudi Arabia, we could not choke China.

For two, Iraq is a second tier oil producing nation. Most years they don't even rank in the top ten. It might surprise you to know that for most of the 20th century the U.S. was the greatest producer of crude, and even today still ranks 3rd. We gobble up all of our own oil and still don't manage to choke China. I don't see how adding Iraq's production to our control could affect anything even ignoring the global nature of the market.

For three, I've seen no evidence that we deny Iraq the right to ship oil to whoever wants to buy it.

And for four, the U.S. and China are huge trading partners. So large that harming China's economy would harm ours. Why would we do that?

I feel it will be a result of monumental public pressure on the government to provide clean, fresh water as the Nevada desert grows east and the Mississippi slowly dries out. I feel invasion will happen as China's demand for water (while already monumentally high because of the drying Yellow, Yangtse, Xi Rivers) will only grow.

China's demand for water has nothing to do with our demand for water because fresh water is not shipped across the globe. (Well...sports drinks not withstanding.)

As for U.S. fresh water: Canada could supply some of it cheaply, but if it refused it would be far cheaper to simply re-route our existing supplies or build some desalination plants. Why would we start a war with a long time friend when we could, for 1/100th the financial costs alone, supply ourselves with water from the ocean? No one is going to go to war over water. We inundate farm land with water at costs cheap enough to keep produce competitive with third world nations. No one is going to die of thirst or demand a water-war in the U.S. (Mid-west farming, btw, is supplied by "fossil water" irrigation, a table of water trapped from the last ice age and largely unaffected by climate. Eventually this will run out, but not due to climate change. As to the Nevada desert growing east...it's going to have a hard time getting past the Rocky Mountains.)

Hope this wasnt too long and wordy, but I think I got my point across well enough. Comments welcome.

Not a very well thought out conspiracy theory. I sincerely hope you don't actually lose sleep over ideas like this.


mbdrivr
Posted 26 March 2007 at 02:57 pm

Actually most of what I mentioned came from a recent presentation at my university by an intellectual by the name of Gwynne Dyer. Perhaps I ought to have cited him.

In any event, I fail to see any fallacy in the presentation of my argument over the environment. There is no clear conspiracy amongst the vast majority of climatologists to lie about the changes in environment.

As per blatantly poisoning the well, I said what I said to prevent exactly the argument that you brought up, from occurring. I think there are very few people left in the world who havent noticed a large shift in the local climate. Here in Toronto, we have had successively the warmest January in some 50 years, followed by the coldest February in roughly the same amount of time, and March is shaping up to be possibly the warmest in a long time. Please note that these record setting months did not occur in sequence the last time they happened.

If you wish to research this, I believe Environment Canada has the statistics to back up this claim.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FD9B0E51-1

2005 had the highest average (mean) temperature worldwide since 1998. 2005 had a very weak El Nino. 1998 had a very strong one. Also, Nineteen of the hottest 20 years on record have occurred since 1980.

For more of these facts I direct you to http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html

"The world's climate and environment has always been in a state of change."

While the climate is always changing, there is a certain level of homeostasis that is (or was) maintained until the advent of the industrial age. A quick google search would direct you to some 73 million resources on the topic of global warming. If I may be so bold as to predict your next argument on the topic; the "Who says its human activity thats causing it", there are many.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/ is a good place to start, and can easily direct you to 650 articles on the topic of climte change. He is arguably the best known environmentalist in the world.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/ is the website of Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth". You could refute this one by saying "Its his political agenda and he wants to get back into the race for the oval office". Ive heard that one before and I personally dont believe it, and Im pretty sure his oppourtunity for presidency is forever gone.

I have chosen the two most well known sources for information, and if you truly have a desire to learn more about it there are myriad articles that I can send you, but beyond that I leave you to do your own research.

As per the political side of your refutations... They were, at least anticipated. The "conspiracy theory" I present was a paraphrasing of the views of a man whos education in such matters vastly exceeds mine, and most likely yours too. Of my views on the invasion of Canada, you have offered little evidence to the contrary. Water may not be shipped across the globe yet, but for a time in the late 1990s, water was shipped by the boatload from small fresh water estuaries in northern BC down to California for bottling. The reason why this practise was stopped was because of growing concerns of the environmental impact of such water extractions. Studies showed that the small rivers contributing to the northwestern pacific had a far greater impact on the ocean 500 miles away than was previously anticipated.

If you dont think that China has an effect on the world's fresh water price, Im afraid you dont understand the principles of business very well. China is an emerging market economy and one with huge demand (1.3 Billion citizens). 1.3 billion people suffering from water shortages in an emerging market economy I think are fairly likely to attract the attention of a few businessmen. It is likely that they will look to Russia first as a neighboring nation, but at least at present, Russia is suffering from political instability.

Now Im going to leave an assumption for you to tear to shreds.

ASSUMING that things in Russia dont change drastically in the next 25-50 years, where will businesses look to supply water to the worlds second largest populace?
It seems that Canada has a rather large share of the world's fresh water supply.

Enough said?

The worlds biggest commodity in the coming decades is going to be water. At present the planet is vastly overpopulated and our water reserves are quickly drying up. Draught & famine will likely result.

If you dont believe what Ive said thats fine dude. u dont have to and to be honest, in this matter I truly hope that I am wrong, but I doubt that I am. You ought to go and see some presentations on the changes happening in the natural environment though. Even if you dont believe in it.


dtaylor
Posted 27 March 2007 at 02:32 am

In any event, I fail to see any fallacy in the presentation of my argument over the environment.

You dismissed critics of global warming models as "ignorant tools", a very clear attempt to poison the well. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

There is no clear conspiracy amongst the vast majority of climatologists to lie about the changes in environment.

First of all, no one said there was a conspiracy. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Second, there are no hard statistics or surveys on which to hang any claims regarding the opinion of the "vast majority" of climatologists. There are many critics of the idea that humans are causing a discernable change in the climate. Even among those who think man is causing a detectable change, there is wide disagreement as to the extent of that change.

Third, if we get down to it, appeal to common belief is also a fallacy. Science is not a democracy. Theories are not established by votes.

As per blatantly poisoning the well, I said what I said to prevent exactly the argument that you brought up, from occurring.

I know why you said it. The whole point of using a fallacy is to try and avoid having to actually prove one's position. Which doesn't say much for the position.

I think there are very few people left in the world who havent noticed a large shift in the local climate.

Even a carefully observed and established change in the climate does not prove or establish cause. Further, what you may think is established observation could in fact be tainted. One of my pet peeves with the global warming movement is their reliance on ground data almost exclusively. Urban heat islands can bias readings sometimes by several degrees C. Toronto, for example, is a known and well studied heat island. Very often city "heat waves" reported in the news are not felt or felt nearly as strongly in undeveloped areas.

Here in Toronto, we have had successively the warmest January in some 50 years, followed by the coldest February in roughly the same amount of time, and March is shaping up to be possibly the warmest in a long time. Please note that these record setting months did not occur in sequence the last time they happened.

Such a pattern is not at all unusual during an El Nino event. And 50-years is not very far back.

Also, Nineteen of the hottest 20 years on record have occurred since 1980.

Not according to the U.S. ground data set.

Another one of my pet peeves is that the global MSU, global weather balloon, and U.S. ground data sets seem to be in fairly close agreement. Only the global ground data set averages out to the curve often published and relied upon by those claiming the most dramatic global warming. Yet it is this data set which stands alone against the others. I cannot help but wonder if the global ground set is being tainted by improper readings and unadjusted urban heat islands.

For more of these facts I direct you to http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html

Ah, an example of my pet peeve: For people living in the Northern Hemisphere—most of the world's population—2005 was the hottest year on record since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide.

Not according to the global satellite series or the U.S. ground series. Which leaves me to wonder: what's going on in the global ground series to make 2005 look so hot by comparison?

While the climate is always changing, there is a certain level of homeostasis that is (or was) maintained until the advent of the industrial age. A quick google search would direct you to some 73 million resources on the topic of global warming. If I may be so bold as to predict your next argument on the topic; the "Who says its human activity thats causing it", there are many.

Actually my next argument, aside from pointing out the extreme fallacy of appeal to common google results, is that the climate was anything but constant prior to the industrial age. Roman warm period, Medieval warm period, Little Ice Age...to say nothing of the extremes which occured in pre-history, including times of massive ice sheets across the globe, and other times when nearly the entire planet was tropical.

I have chosen the two most well known sources for information, and if you truly have a desire to learn more about it there are myriad articles that I can send you, but beyond that I leave you to do your own research.

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fear-Shouldnt-Global-Warming/dp/1882577655

http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Talk-Cold-Science-Unfinished/dp/094599981X

http://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Gases-Patrick-J-Michaels/dp/1882577922

http://www.lomborg.com/

http://www.junkscience.com/

http://www.john-daly.com/

http://www.cato.org/research/nat-studies/global-warming.html

Of my views on the invasion of Canada, you have offered little evidence to the contrary.

You're arguing that the U.S. is going to militarily invade Canada for a resource we have in abundance! A resource we could easily increase through more reservoirs and aqueducts, and/or more emphasis on efficiency. A resource which, in the worst case scenario, can be extracted from the oceans at a far lower cost than war.

I think it's up to you to produce more evidence than you have. To even begin to convince me of an impending water shortage you would have to show projected population growth, projected water consumption growth, projected water availability, potential water supplies given infrastructure improvements, potential savings through efficiency improvements, potential savings through shifts in agriculture, potential supply increases through the tightening of environmental allotments.... You need a few dozen charts and a few dozen tables.

And THEN you would need to explain why the U.S. would fight a war instead of simply desalinizing ocean water. Or collecting water in Alaska and piping it or shipping it to the west coast.

Indeed, I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but...under what potential scenario does Canada possess fresh water desperately needed by the continental U.S., but Alaska does not?

If fresh water supplies ever become constrained in the continental U.S., the strain will be allievated by a shift in agriculture. Some crops, especially feed stocks, can be grown where there's more rain without adversely affecting our economy. Agriculture consumes so much that a few minor changes would be all that was needed.

And that's generally on the west coast because, again, the midwest is farmed using fossil water.

Water may not be shipped across the globe yet, but for a time in the late 1990s, water was shipped by the boatload from small fresh water estuaries in northern BC down to California for bottling.

And purchasing by yuppies who take 30 minute showers in some of the cleanest drinking water in the world, yet still turn their nose at "tap water" because "fresh spring water" is a status symbol.

Is this the best you've got?

ASSUMING that things in Russia dont change drastically in the next 25-50 years, where will businesses look to supply water to the worlds second largest populace?

Assuming China finds their own resources insufficient, assuming reducing waste does not help, assuming Russia will not supply them, then they would turn to desalinization, which would be cheaper than trying to ship it from Canada.

But IF all this happens and Canada can find a way to ship water cheaply, more power to them. The U.S. doesn't need it.

The worlds biggest commodity in the coming decades is going to be water. At present the planet is vastly overpopulated and our water reserves are quickly drying up. Draught & famine will likely result.

Sustainability: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html

Fresh water: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/water.html

You ought to go and see some presentations on the changes happening in the natural environment though. Even if you dont believe in it.

I've seen them, researched them, and found them lacking. Hollywood and science do not mix well.


mvp13
Posted 06 April 2007 at 09:18 am

Hey guys! My name is Mark and I'm from Hungary. I know that most Americans will hate me for me saying this but I think that if America would attack on Canada, America would loose his empire. It's because in each editional 1 second, America has to pay 1 million dollars for other countries. Since the U.S. spends more money than he gets so there is no way America can defeat Canada.

Also, America is planing to attack on Iran to still their oil. But the bad thing is that it can start wwiii since Russia and Iran are allies. So in 50 years America is going to take a field trip to looserville.

P.S. I'm sorry if an American read my opinion :(.


Cdn Sarge
Posted 08 June 2007 at 12:37 pm

This late in the day, it's unlikely anyone will read this (I stumbled across this site just the other day), but I thought I'd take at stab at it. In response to another contributor's comment about "the habit of invading and bullying weak countries of the US [being] quite old" (April, 2006), Harvard_Homeboy wrote:

"Yes, it's been a part of American foreign policy for about the last 90 years or so, since the first time we invaded France to save them from the bootheel of Prussian imperialism."

White_Matter wrote:

"I have to ask myself why such animosity towards my home country. Did we do something wrong? Are we all evil people? Not at all, we have one problem in relation to the rest of the world…we are the top dog. ... Not that we're war mongers but if something needs to happen, we're Jonny on the spot.

"We are hated because we're on top and not much else."

If you wonder why so many people dislike the US, both of the above opinions are a pretty good indication. What sanctimonious pap. From the outset, I am NOT anti-American; there is much I admire about the US; I just detest BS no matter what its source.

That said, I have to agree with white_matter's statement that "America and Americans are not inherently evil. We're just big jerks but still fairly nice guys." Even then I have to admit that, having worked alongside many Americans in the States and overseas during my military career, while I met a few I considered part of the former category, I'm happy to say that most of those I worked with were very much the latter. So, you see, I like Americans as a rule.

Unfortunately, the above responses are good examples of why so many people don't. They merely reinforce what many people around the world already think typifies Americans -- as a nation, not necessarily as individuals -- as self-aggrandizing, woefully misinformed, isolationist, and totally self-absorbed.

To many people -- particularly those who either themselves fought or had relatives who fought in both World Wars long before the States got involved in either one -- the US has never been the "Johnny-on-the-Spot" that white_matter suggested. During both World Wars, in fact, the US was pretty much a "Johnny-Come-Lately," and even then it got involved only when its own interests were threatened.

Consider: WWI started in August, 1914. Canada and other nations got involved from the very start. The US, although already a world power, didn't enter until almost three years later in April, 1917, finally spurred to act by the sinking of an American passenger ship by a German U-boat. Even Japan and Italy, then allied with Britain, Canada, and other countries against Kaiser Germany, joined the fight long before the States stepped in.

WWII began in September, 1939. England declared war on Germany on Sept. 3; Canada declared war on Germany on Sept. 10. The US, as we all know, didn't enter the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor almost 2 1/2 years later. Moreover, while other countries -- particularly those like Canada whose own interests weren't even being threatened -- contributed men and equipment to the war effort at their own expense, the US leased (!) equipment to Britain, a debt the UK finally finished paying off just last year.

No one who has any knowledge of 20th-Century history will deny that the American contribution to both wars was absolutely vital. It's entirely possible that the Allies would have lost one or the other or both wars if it hadn't been for the US. And no one is questioning the bravery and sacrifices of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in both wars.

But the US did not win either war, much less both of them, by itself. It only thinks it did, and it's been reminding the rest of the world of that "fact" ever since. It is that type of arrogance -- often born of ignorance and diminishing, even ignoring, the equally heroic contributions other countries made and made sooner -- that many people find hard to stomach. A little humility never hurt anybody.

From being a Johnny-Come-Lately, the US has gone on to become something of a bully since WWII, insisting on its "right" to do as it damned well pleases and even denouncing those nations that don't support that so-called right. In recent years especially, the big jerk has increasingly smothered the nice guy when it comes to foreign relations. I freely admit that I'd rather have the US as the world's policeman than, say, the old Soviet Union, but throwing one's weight around simply because one has it to throw around has never been a particularly endearing trait.

If you're really concerned about why so many people dislike Americans, consider this: No one likes anyone who hogs the limelight, no one likes a braggart, and no one likes a bully.


Jeffrey93
Posted 08 June 2007 at 01:36 pm

Cdn Sarge, I'm a fellow Canadian and share...well..all of your views on this topic. You put them into words far better than I.

Thank you.


spookum
Posted 20 July 2007 at 08:02 am

BLAME CANADA - THEY'RE NOT EVEN A REAL COUNTRY ANYWAYS!!!! WATCH SOUTH PARK THE MOVIE AND HAVE YOUR EYES OPENED!!!


Former-Marine
Posted 31 October 2007 at 10:54 pm

Oorah! Canada: The Great White North! "We have ways to make you to say the letter "O" correctly" [quote from "Canadian Bacon"]. Those "hosers" - Bob and Doug; Dudley Dooright; Eskimos; Igloos; Bombardier (yeah right...Bombardier..."the maker of pretend aircraft"); Quebec - what a joke (first French, then English?......I don't get it). Other than that, I really like Canada! Oorah!


Cdn Sarge
Posted 05 November 2007 at 03:24 pm

dtaylor wrote: "I'm not going to get into a debate over those wars except to point out that North Korea is a hell on Earth, and it is America which saved South Korea from that fate and continues to defend the region from a clearly offensive and hostile North Korean army. Be glad we're there."

Only the second sentence is true. No doubt South Korea would be overrun by North Korea if it weren't for the continued American presence there.

Having said that, I have to wonder what my father, then a sergeant in the Canadian Army, was doing there at the time if "America [ by which I assume dtaylor means the US] saved South Korea from that fate," or why the 2nd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry was awarded the US Presidential Citation for their part in the war. (That's right: a Canadian unit earned a Presidential Citation that most American units don't have.) Once again, the US didn't save another country from the bootheels of oppression (as another contributor wrote) on its own. Don't you ever watch M*A*S*H?


kmannnn
Posted 08 November 2007 at 06:50 pm

ok, so why on earth would america invade canada, canada and america are the most best friend countries out there, plus canadas friends with everyone, its not like canada would ever let britain invade america through canada, now anyways , canada is like a half nuetrul countrie it helps out alies, if there was a world war 3 canada would help even if it was just america, i mean first of all canada has a army its not the biggest but which, i know because im canadian , there army increases each year , but you americans might notice if you wernt making fun of canada all the time, i meand im not trying to be prejuduce but, come on , you americans dont know crap about canada except for the fact that is cold in the winter. you guys have fun losing a war against iraq


kmannnn
Posted 15 November 2007 at 03:10 pm

ok heres an idea this countys dumb as hell , ok america is like so freaking fat, if i was a lazy ass american id worry more about the stupid retarted president you got there, and about losing the war in iraq and afghanastan , yeah did you americans even prepare for the war, bush is like just send over some unexperianced troops who just signed up for the army, so i can play some call of duty 4 and halo 3, yeah good one dumbasses that will defintly help the us out, along with pullotion and every country hating you, canada could get like every single country to help them out while you get mexico hows that?


Cdn Sarge
Posted 19 November 2007 at 12:39 pm

So much for informed, intelligent debate.


kmannnn
Posted 23 December 2007 at 07:42 pm

yeah so much, its not my fault i had to move here. freedom of sppech. take it or leave it.


kmannnn
Posted 29 December 2007 at 01:52 pm

well all i can say is that america would never do that. first theyd have to finish thier war. in 4 differant countries. then they would have to gather up troops, but canada obviously would put up i could fight. and they would get help from alot of coutries. because canada tries its best not to piss off everyone. i go to toronto every year[ and other parts] where stuff isnt what america thinks it is. but id would know that there army is at least a good army to put up a fight. obviouslt because of ww2 and ww1 when they became a world power. even if you did have canada. what would america do with it? fill it with gang violence take its natural beuty. ravish the lands youd destroy yourselves just like any counry with too much power. you see theres many problems with america. but theres problems in every country. america just has the most ttention ging on these days. and all the countrys are just thinking what a crap hole. i mean canada has fat people. canada has pullution. canada has gangs, robbers, killers,rapists and drug dealers. its just that america has way too much of all of that it rubbed off on canada. but canada has way less of all those things. [ considering the population differance. ameica-300,000 canada- 35,000]. all im tying to say is that would never happen.sometimes i get pissed. because some americans are ignorent. meaning they dont now and just go off of what they hear. like if they watched south park. they would say canadas gay. or theres 5 people. if canada swithced with the u.s canad would have a bigger population. anyway its getting pretty hard trying to explain this, i just hope some of you read this and respond to it.


joeaverage
Posted 02 March 2008 at 06:28 pm

Point in fact. The U.S. does not need to invade Canada. It has done so already with the signing of the NAFTA. It allows more ready access to a sovereign nation's resources than any where else in the world. It was signed by our beloved prime minister Brian "Wall Street" Mulroney. And why should the U.S. invade when it can extract resources... without paying any of the social costs which would follow an occupation?


atonyt
Posted 05 March 2008 at 10:14 am

I too am shocked at all the negative comments for invading Canada. I worked with a Canadian at a previous job and only viewed him as a nice guy with a really cool accent. It made me chuckle everytime he said "about" (aboot). Sometimes I would ask him questions to try and make him say it.

Besides, I for one would not want to invade. It has to be very cold up there 10 months out of the year. Heck, I hate going to my in laws, and they are only in PA. (I don't like going in the winter, otherwise my in laws are great)


Nike
Posted 05 May 2008 at 07:31 pm

Speaking of Russians, North America better get ready for a WW3, Russian Planes spotted flying EXTREMELY close to Canadian Military Bases. Suspicious...


Nike
Posted 05 May 2008 at 07:34 pm

Sorry for not including this in my previous post, here's the link to the article: http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Canada/2008/05/05/5472611-sun.html


chg9389
Posted 29 November 2008 at 03:49 pm

Until the days leading up to WWII, the US actually regarded the UK as our biggest enemy. The entire US Navy had been designed to defeat it, or at least stand up to it, of all things. That's pretty much lost to history, but consult any Navy history pre-WWII and it sure comes across. Also, the number of "crisis" with the UK involving Canada in the diplomatic books of the same era are amazing. Maine is one example.

Surprisingly, it doesn't seem that Germany or Japan really figured into the Naval picture as a threat until the very brink of the war. I picked up a great book once from the 30's on the US Navy, and it really opened my eyes as to what was thought of as important pre-WWII. It's as if that war wiped out all of the tensions before it as far as popular history goes.

The entire Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 was rushed into law months after the Trent Affair, where a British mail steamer (the Trent) was boarded in international waters to take two Confederate ambassadors into custody. This was an act of war against England, obviously. Why wasn't there a war then between Canada and the US?

It would have taken little to seize California. A few warships in the Golden Gate and the entire state would have been defenseless and at risk of starving. The Army could not have delivered enough troops or ammunition across the continent to defeat them. There could be no seaborne attack because the journey would have to be via Cape Horn, and would have been at the mercy of English bases along the way.

But Canada would have been taken easily, and there would probably not have been a way for England to land enough troops to seriously challenge that invasion. Fortunately, both sides figured that out in time and the crisis was diffused quickly and quietly. But the US congress realized finally just how vulnerable the Pacific states were, and just like the interstate highway system, the Pacific railroad was a military project in most respects.


maczimus
Posted 19 March 2009 at 10:56 pm

I have read through much of this and can't remember specifically who wrote what. I do remember Bluecity,...I think and he/she was most withdrawn and practical. The US will never even consider attacking Canada, it won't happen and for many reasons. Most importantly because Canada is in fact part of the Commonwealth / British Empire. Yes, the US would take over Canada,...not in days people. It would be weeks to months. Not years. I have worked with American soldiers and they're not that swift. Even junior commisioned members aren't very intelligent but I will say that they do train and do develop into very formidable adversaries. There is no question about that.
But give me a break, the US cannot extend THEMSELVES onto more then one front. They can't do it regardless of the misconception that they have propogated to the world.
They are not in Afghanistan alone nor are they in Iraq alone because they would not have survived. They requested assistance in both locations as they have in the past and as they will do in the future.
Someone tell me where the US has gone it alone and don't even consider Vietnam until you do your research. WW1, they entered at the end of the war and took the glory for saving the world.
WW2, they entered last and took the glory for saving the world.
Korea, they were not alone, that was a UN action.
Everything beyond, think about it, Panama, yah, Canada could have done that, show of force.
Us attack Canada, com'on, The US is going to take on the British Empire? I don't think so.
I actually love the US, don't like their arogance but do appreciate their history. The problem is they don't appreciate foriegn nor do they teach foriegn history or politics until college/ University when it's a major.


maczimus
Posted 19 March 2009 at 11:17 pm

Meant to add this to my previous post.
I'm a Canadian, maybe I'm a bit aggressive,..I don't know.
I'm a loyal realist and a patriot. The US to Canada is big brother as I see it.
If my older/big brother say's he's going to the pub/bar (US) to kick the shit out of Tyrone just because. I will try to reason with him and tell him to sleep it off. Inevitably he will go and I as his brother am obligated to support him and get dirty to assist if I have to. That is what brothers do.
The US asked Canada to support and assist in Afghanistan and we did and we have suffered many dead in return. We continue to support and suffer.
The US asked Canada to push into Iraq with them and we declined. At the time I thought we were letting big brother down and believed that it was a traditional obligation to not let them go it alone and actually they did not. Canada did not go to Iraq but the US was supported by the British Empire. It was a hard ticket for myself to swallow but it was also a mirror image of Vietnam. Dealing with Dodgers, etc....which I have no time for.
Regardless, if big bro goes to the bar, so do we. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter, we cover his flank and we watch his back.


Next page of comments →
Add Your Comment

Note: Your email address will not be published, shared, spammed, or otherwise mishandled. Anonymous comments are more likely to be held for moderation. You can optionally register or login.

You may use basic formatting HTML such as <i>, <b>, and <blockquote>.