Should Canada Become a Neutral Country?

[Northboy]

With our resources and our know how, wouldn't Canada be better off being a neutral country dedicated to healing the World, trading freely and strategically for the betterment of all man?

Cleaning water

Promoting bilateral fair trade

lifting the fortunes of those less fortunate

You know, we could do it....

 

[Pangloss]

Neutral means we never point at a genocide and say "That is wrong - and we will help to stop it."

Nope - Canada should never give up her voice. Silence equals agreement.

I have no small measure of contempt for Switzerland and her policy of never taking sides.

Pangloss

 

[karrie]

Canada is already renowned for its peacekeeping.

Canada already provides tons of aid.

Canadian charities provide health care, clean drinking water, schools, many funded at least in part by Canadian government.

I can't really imagine what more can be expected from one country, or how being 'neutral' would help us acheive that goal.

I tend to be a bit overly idealistic, but, it seems to me that simple aid isn't always enough. Sometimes force IS needed. And declaring oneself a neutral country ties your hands in just how helpful you can be. Do we want to be the country that stops short of truly needed assistance?

While staying out of conflict until absolutely, glaringly obviously, 100% necessary, is the plan I'd like to see in place, I'd hate to see people dying when we could have helped.

 

[DurkaDurka]

I don't have much of a problem with Canada having a neutral stance to wars etc but I wouldn't want to see Canada declare it's self neutral so it can be the worlds healer though, focus on Canada, that's what I am concerned about.

 

[mabudon]

Ahh, good point Pangloss, somehow that side of it escaped me- tho the response could be a lot different- sanctions, maybe devaluing currency, but open warfare shopuld pretty much be taken off the table- we should keep a military force of some kind but it really should be tailored to extractions and engineering abroad and overall continental defence, NOT invasion or occupation.

So maybe "Neutral" isn't quite the proper term, but perhaps a form of isolationism is more what's being proposed

A real bad "sticking point" you'd run across right at the outset would be cries of "communism" tho- to truly fix up what we have going on in our country, a lot of big changes would have to occur- f'rinstance, our government should do some form of "repatriation" of our assets (I know there's a better term but it is escaping me in this heat) Other countries should in NO way be allowed to own parts of ours for ANY reason. This would immediately bring images of Chavez in Venezuela..

Sadly, I do believe that making each citizen more of a "shareholder" in our country (with "shares" of course being much different than the wall-street type) would be a great idea. As it is, most citizens are getting ripped off by the current system, not benefitting from it, which is why for so many the ridiculous mantra of "spreading freedom" across the globe rings so false- no justice at home means you got no justice to export, after all

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Neutral means we never point at a genocide and say "That is wrong - and we will help to stop it."

Nope - Canada should never give up her voice. Silence equals agreement.

I have no small measure of contempt for Switzerland and her policy of never taking sides.

Pangloss

It also means being able to defend yourself from everybody and anybody. Switzerland for example has mandatory military service to help accomplish this. Right now we take a huge break on this by being a part of NATO, etc.

 

[Toro]

What a terrible idea.

Canada is a Western nation - culturally, historically, politically and economically. Canada has benefited enormously by being apart of the western alliance. To suggest we should become a "neutral" nation is merely a leftist flight of fancy.

And lets not forget that "neutral" nations during WWII continued to do business with the Nazis right until the end.

Besides "fair trade" is a code word for protectionism, a bad thing for a country so reliant on trade.

 

[Pangloss]

Toro:

Historically, isolationism is neither left nor right; or more accurately, both the left and the right have from time to time advocated isolationism.

Neutrality is the nice word for it.

Or is "left" just your code word for anything you disagree with?

Pangloss

 

[Toro]

That is true, particularly in America, with the nationalist right, embodied by the likes of Pat Buchanan.

 

[Toro]

Or is "left" just your code word for anything you disagree with?

Pangloss

No, that word is called "wrong."

;-)

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

I was talking about this here in another thread the other day.
The thoughts on the practical and not so practical aspect of it mentioned here are good for me to think about.....I SHALL BE BACK

 

[Unforgiven]

With our resources and our know how, wouldn't Canada be better off being a neutral country dedicated to healing the World, trading freely and strategically for the betterment of all man?

Cleaning water

Promoting bilateral fair trade

lifting the fortunes of those less fortunate

You know, we could do it....

Interesting, how would you address the US annexation of Canadian resources?
Countries that will target us for resources?
Trade barriers set up with past partners to prevent us doing business with the enemies of that state?
The crash of the Canadian economy?
The problem of getting things we now import?
The problem of warring nations using Canadian land, water and air space to wage war?

While neutral sounds like it might be nice, it would most likely be the total downfall of Canada as a country and draw down upon us, absolute annexation by the US.

 

[Northboy]

Interesting, how would you address the US annexation of Canadian resources?
Countries that will target us for resources?
Trade barriers set up with past partners to prevent us doing business with the enemies of that state?
The crash of the Canadian economy?
The problem of getting things we now import?
The problem of warring nations using Canadian land, water and air space to wage war?

While neutral sounds like it might be nice, it would most likely be the total downfall of Canada as a country and draw down upon us, absolute annexation by the US.

First leverage their annexation and use revenues to control their utilities..A fair trade....

We are only targets because we choose to be...I didn't say anything about not defending our territory, which is the People's right...

What crash of economy? We'll have one anyway if we keep up with this current paradigm of unsustainability..

Layer a well constructed boutique manufacturing economy over what we have now. As the current economy becomes redundant, a new one will emerge...

Leverage the true potential of the Commonwealth of countries and we can realign supply of anything that we need within a generation.

what would you call the path of the Amero other than annexation by the US...

I'll put you down for a "no."

 

[Colpy]

Neutrality, or isolationism, is an interesting idea......and a possible alternative.

I have to point out one interesting aspect in this debate......everyone seems to acknowledge that Canada could easily claim Neutral status.....it strikes me as exceptionally funny that the same folks that cry constantly that the USA is a monster, criminal, imperialist state bent on total world domination seem to never consider the reaction of the world's super-power when we abandon NATO, and NORAD, and sit once again under the umbrella of their protection of North America..........we would bear no arms, just an insufferable attitude of moral superiority.

Try that with any OTHER super-power in the history of the world.

Could it be our neighbours to the south are not as vicious as some claim?

Could it be (and this is truely amazing) that even the radical anti-Americans here realize the USA is actually quite benevolent where we are concerned?

Or is it just that some of us don't understand the concept of consistency?

 

[Northboy]

Neutrality, or isolationism, is an interesting idea......and a possible alternative.

I have to point out one interesting aspect in this debate......everyone seems to acknowledge that Canada could easily claim Neutral status.....it strikes me as exceptionally funny that the same folks that cry constantly that the USA is a monster, criminal, imperialist state bent on total world domination seem to never consider the reaction of the world's super-power when we abandon NATO, and NORAD, and sit once again under the umbrella of their protection of North America..........we would bear no arms, just an insufferable attitude of moral superiority.

Try that with any OTHER super-power in the history of the world.

Could it be our neighbours to the south are not as vicious as some claim?

Could it be (and this is truely amazing) that even the radical anti-Americans here realize the USA is actually quite benevolent where we are concerned?

Or is it just that some of us don't understand the concept of consistency?

Legitimate comments.

We could still support NATO in logistical, engineering and reconstruction roles.

I didn't start this thread to be anti American but rather pro-Canadian.

The concept of who we are defending ourselves against is subjective and there will always be someone out there to rail against, if the World continues on as it is.

The question is what is the best way forward for our children; what kind of country do we want to leave behind??

Our results so far are an insult to our forefathers.....

 

[Toro]

Interesting, how would you address the US annexation of Canadian resources?
Countries that will target us for resources?
Trade barriers set up with past partners to prevent us doing business with the enemies of that state?
The crash of the Canadian economy?
The problem of getting things we now import?
The problem of warring nations using Canadian land, water and air space to wage war?

While neutral sounds like it might be nice, it would most likely be the total downfall of Canada as a country and draw down upon us, absolute annexation by the US.

Well, you're certainly a Gloomy Gus, aren't you?

 

[Blackleaf]

If Canada became a neutral country then how would she be able to help her mother, Britain, if she was ever in danger? Canadians fought alongside us in two World Wars.

 

[Blackleaf]

Interesting, how would you address the US annexation of Canadian resources?
Countries that will target us for resources?
Trade barriers set up with past partners to prevent us doing business with the enemies of that state?
The crash of the Canadian economy?
The problem of getting things we now import?
The problem of warring nations using Canadian land, water and air space to wage war?

While neutral sounds like it might be nice, it would most likely be the total downfall of Canada as a country and draw down upon us, absolute annexation by the US.

Canada would never get annexed by the US. Why? Because the British, and other Commonwealth countries such as Australia, would declare war against them.

The US couldn't touch Canada without risking British nukes hitting Washington DC (we all know that some of Britain's nuclear weapons are pointing right at the American capital city right now).

It'd also give us the opportunity to burn the White House again. It was too easy to do last time. We want a challenge the next time it happens. It'd be good to fight wars against the Americans when they are using proper weapons rather than pitchforks.

And considering that the British are renowned for beating numerically superior foes (the French at Agincourt, the French and Spanish at Trafalgar and the Germans at the Battle of Britain) you shouldn't bet against the British in a war against the US if they decide to invade Canada.

 

[Northboy]

Canada would never get annexed by the US. Why? Because the British, and other Commonwealth countries such as Australia, would declare war against them.

The US couldn't touch Canada without risking British nukes hitting Washington DC (we all know that some of Britain's nuclear weapons are pointing right at the American capital city right now).

It'd also give us the opportunity to burn the White House again. It was too easy to do last time. We want a challenge the next time it happens. It'd be good to fight wars against the Americans when they are using proper weapons rather than pitchforks.

And considering that the British are renowned for beating numerically superior foes (the French at Agincourt, the French and Spanish at Trafalgar and the Germans at the Battle of Britain) you shouldn't bet against the British in a war against the US if they decide to invade Canada.

A good historical observation.....and one not lost on me.

But before you get out the big guns, just let the Bankers do their job...

We'd be better off if Mother Britain would quit fooling around and get back to her inheritance of developing the commonwealth instead of following the misadventures of prodigal sons.

 

[Unforgiven]

First leverage their annexation and use revenues to control their utilities..A fair trade....

We are only targets because we choose to be...I didn't say anything about not defending our territory, which is the People's right...

What crash of economy? We'll have one anyway if we keep up with this current paradigm of unsustainability..

Layer a well constructed boutique manufacturing economy over what we have now. As the current economy becomes redundant, a new one will emerge...

Leverage the true potential of the Commonwealth of countries and we can realign supply of anything that we need within a generation.

what would you call the path of the Amero other than annexation by the US...

I'll put you down for a "no."

Simply put, look at Cuba.

We dance to the tune the American comsumer plays due to the trade imbalance.

While I understand the whole suffer in the short term for long term gain, take a look around you and consider who would be willing to loose their home, go on welfare, if thats even still available and give up the current standard of living they now enjoy. That there is what you call one short line pal.