Do You Think the U.S. will someday occupy Canada???

[neone]

I always find it funny when people say that Canada and Canadians are slowly being assimilated into that overbearing "American" culture...... <snip>

I disagree. We have lots of similarities with the US as we do with Australians, Britians .. lots of other nations. But we also have differences. Our socialistic views, our desire to remain neutral in middle east conflicts so that we can help in negotiations, our wish to be peacekeepers not warriors, our desire to maintain a true multicultural society - although we've hit a bump with the Muslims on that one, our stance on guns, hate laws, free speech...

I realize that these are things that Americans, and some Canadian Conservatives view as oppressive, but I don't and I believe that the majority of Canadians wouldn't want it any other way.

 

[neone]

Furthermore..

To this day, it is really just the refusal to take it up the ass, that separates the men from the boys, if you will. Americans moved out of their parents home, and Canadians stayed in the basement.

What a terrible analogy.

I agree. But I do think this one is more apt...

I was once told by someone that America is like the star football player and Canada is the waterboy. We sit on the sidelines waiting for America to come by and notice us, give us a smile, a pat on the head or something. And when it happens, we talk about that moment for days.

I was really pissed when he said that and then I just laughed and laughed as I realized that everytime the Simpsons or South Park mentions Canada, I perk up and think ... Neato! That's us! :lol:

 

[Semperfi_dani]

RE: Do You Think the U.S.

Don't underestimate the power of Canadians. As pacifist as we generally are, i think that if our country were to "come under attack" so to speak, we would probably form quite a resistance. Refer to my previous timbit analogy. LOL.

I seriously don't think it would ever happen. There would be no benefit to the US to "physically" take over Canada, when our are economies are already linked so tightly.

If anything was more likely it would probably be a region or province seperating and wanting to join the USA for various reasons (think BC/Alberta as the most likely candidates..or even the maritime region). But even than, i doubt that would fly, becuase i would think that the people of such region would rather go it alone than become an American. This is all hypothetical mind you.

 

[s_lone]

The real difference that I see between Canada and the United States, is that Canada refuses to surrender its ties to the British monarchy. In just about every other way, shape or form, Canada has always been a carbon copy of the United States. I don't attribute this to a dominant American culture, I believe it more to be a factor of our common British roots.

Don't want to be annoying here but you seem to largely forget about the French Canadian factor. Think 1980 and 1995...

 

[Simpleton]

I always find it funny when people say that Canada and Canadians are slowly being assimilated into that overbearing "American" culture...... <snip>

I disagree. We have lots of similarities with the US as we do with Australians, Britians .. lots of other nations. But we also have differences. Our socialistic views, our desire to remain neutral in middle east conflicts so that we can help in negotiations, our wish to be peacekeepers not warriors, our desire to maintain a true multicultural society - although we've hit a bump with the Muslims on that one, our stance on guns, hate laws, free speech...

I realize that these are things that Americans, and some Canadian Conservatives view as oppressive, but I don't and I believe that the majority of Canadians wouldn't want it any other way.

We're not being assimilated. And all of the things you mention, are born of our country's desire to differentiate ourselves from the Americans. I always find it odd that Canadians have so much in common with Americans, yet we choose to identify ourselves more closely with the British. To me, it's more a product of sibling rivalry, in a sense.

I tend to think of Canada as America's younger brother. We want to be just like our bigger stronger brother, but we don't want to sever our umbilical cord with our mother, the British. Canada is like a rebellious little squirt that seeks the approval of its older brother, and acts out of character in order to get the older brother's attention.

Personally, I think it's really all just a lot of jealousy. The Americans had the balls to stand up to the British and say, "We're not kids anymore. We're adults now." And Canada chose to remain the mama's boy. Many of the differences that you highlight can either be directly attributed to America's fight for independence, or to Canada's cowardice and refusal to take chances on being truly free.

Take the issue of guns, for example. The Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, while Canadians have to fight for the right to even have knowledge of guns. We're like the sheltered child that no one wants to release into the wild. The Americans garnered their right to arms through their rejection of British imperial rule. And if you're following my example here, you will realize that there is really nothing about Canada that is truly and uniquely Canadian.

As for your last comment on how Canadians would not want our society to be any other way, I must have missed the small part of Canada that feels as you do. The majority of Canadians are in favour of free speech. I don't know which segment of the population you are referring to in your comments, but I've yet to meet a person outside of Blackburn Radio Incorporated that does not support free speech. I don't know too many Canadians that believe it should be criminal to own a firearm. We're adults here. It's time for Canada to grow up as a society and get a clue.

The government and Canadian media have been playing this "Anti-America" game of Russian roulette for far too long. I have yet to meet a "real" person in my entire life, that is as anti-American as our media and government leads us to believe. Possibly this is just because I live in a border town, but it might just be because I don't live under a rock.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Do You Think the U.S.

actually, if your going to use that euthanism about the US, I'm gonna suggest to you that while, ok, Canada may indeed be like the younger child not wishing to leave the nest, the US on the other hand is like the older brother who see's their parents involved in a lifelong feud who decide not only to break away from their parents, but break away and side with their fueding rivals....shameful

nothing wrong with history dude, nothing wrong, but change is good.

 

[neone]

We're not being assimilated. And all of the things you mention, are born of our country's desire to differentiate ourselves from the Americans. I always find it odd that Canadians have so much in common with Americans, yet we choose to identify ourselves more closely with the British. To me, it's more a product of sibling rivalry, in a sense.

I agree that we have a lot in common with Americans, we also have differences, and those are the ones I'd like to keep.

I tend to think of Canada as America's younger brother. We want to be just like our bigger stronger brother, but we don't want to sever our umbilical cord with our mother, the British. Canada is like a rebellious little squirt that seeks the approval of its older brother, and acts out of character in order to get the older brother's attention.

Personally, I think it's really all just a lot of jealousy. The Americans had the balls to stand up to the British and say, "We're not kids anymore. We're adults now." And Canada chose to remain the mama's boy. Many of the differences that you highlight can either be directly attributed to America's fight for independence, or to Canada's cowardice and refusal to take chances on being truly free.

Pffft ... that's all I have to say to that.

Take the issue of guns, for example. The Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, while Canadians have to fight for the right to even have knowledge of guns. We're like the sheltered child that no one wants to release into the wild. The Americans garnered their right to arms through their rejection of British imperial rule. And if you're following my example here, you will realize that there is really nothing about Canada that is truly and uniquely Canadian.

Why do you need a gun or do you just want one because or southern neighbours get to. Do you realize that as more Canadians start arming themselves against fictious boogeymen, the more our society on the whole will start to take on the paranoid attitude that most Americans seem to have. Did you know that some of them have a loaded gun in almost every room in their house, just in case? They've taught their kids how to shoot if someone enters their house, just in case? Did you know it's legal in Texas to shoot and kill someone who's stealing from you and that a hellava lot of Americans think that the loss of a human life is equal to the loss of their car? Is that the kind of Canada you want us to become?

The government and Canadian media have been playing this "Anti-America" game of Russian roulette for far too long. I have yet to meet a "real" person in my entire life, that is as anti-American as our media and government leads us to believe. Possibly this is just because I live in a border town, but it might just be because I don't live under a rock.

Could be you've never met my mother.

Actually, I find quite a few people around me talk about Americans with a lot of distain, most of it out of ignorance or naivety to what's going on in the middle east. And I have met a lot of Americans over the internet on other boards who I would definitely consider to be friends, but it's from talking to them on a daily basis that I realize our differences are still there.

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: Do You Think the U.S.

actually, if your going to use that euthanism about the US, I'm gonna suggest to you that while, ok, Canada may indeed be like the younger child not wishing to leave the nest, the US on the other hand is like the older brother who see's their parents involved in a lifelong feud who decide not only to break away from their parents, but break away and side with their fueding rivals....shameful

nothing wrong with history dude, nothing wrong, but change is good.

The U.S. sided with the feuding rivals? Are you referring to the Spanish? I can certainly think of no America/France association in the past. Perhaps I'm just not comprehending your message.

As you may recall, the U.S. drove the Spanish out of the south and reclaimed land that they had previously surrendered. If anything, it was Canada that sided with the rivals: the French. And I know that the U.S. has a small french population as well, but they don't give their French population official status.

 

[Simpleton]

Why do you need a gun or do you just want one because or southern neighbours get to. Do you realize that as more Canadians start arming themselves against fictious boogeymen, the more our society on the whole will start to take on the paranoid attitude that most Americans seem to have. Did you know that some of them have a loaded gun in almost every room in their house, just in case? They've taught their kids how to shoot if someone enters their house, just in case? Did you know it's legal in Texas to shoot and kill someone who's stealing from you and that a hellava lot of Americans think that the loss of a human life is equal to the loss of their car? Is that the kind of Canada you want us to become?

It's not a matter of whether you need a gun, it's entirely a matter of whether you should be allowed to have a gun. This is the difference between Canada and the United States. In the United States, Americans aren't required to own firearms, they just made it a certainty that Americans can own firearms if they want them.

You might want to do some fact checking if you want to continue this debate on firearms. Firstly, there is absolutely no correlation between firearms and crime. There is no statistical evidence to support the opinion that the availability of firearms leads to higher crime rates.

Personally, I don't want a gun. I have no use for a firearm. I'm not opposed to other Canadians owning firearms, and I have many friends that are firearm enthusiasts, whether they be hunters or sportsmen. I am, however, strongly opposed to our government telling us that guns are evil, and filling us with heaps upon heaps of misinformation and propaganda. I am staunchly opposed to a government that actively seeks to disarm its citizenry. Especially, when said government practices borderline fascist totalitarianism with our liberties and hides behind a very thin veil of corruption and deceit.

Wow! This post almost makes me sound like a dissident. I'm sure I'm probably playing right into someone's hands with this post.

As a matter of disclosure, I am one of many Canadians that has been handed a lifetime firearms ban by the Canadian justice system. This, despite the fact that I have no affiliation with any criminal or activist organization, no history of violence, and have never owned a firearm in my life. My crime: Criticizing a Canadian radio station.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Do You Think the U.S.

Aha, now there lays the "shameful" side of my arguement, you could indeed name a few of britains traditional enemies that they were fighting before America broke away, needless to say they all "bundled" on Britain when they heard one of their "own" was fighting with em as well!.

Simply put, as you know, the spanish blockaded the harbours, the french helped (however they could) and America Claimed the win...

My point was this:

The American Colonies...by your definition Britain's "eldest child", when treated how they considered "unfairly" not only fought against it's "parent" it enlisted the help of these other nations.

Dont get me wrong, the US won in the end, but, like world war 2 and 1, the battles they fought on their own were disasters, it was with the help of these nations they won.

And yes, the US did drive out the spanish nd the french, but that encoumpasess EXACTLY why the natives (niavely) sided with britain, land, it's also very much about the control of land, colonialism if you will....but the french did give them a lovely statue and allow them to fight the vienamese for them..I think they are equal there.

Let's also not forget it was Pres. Monroe who stopped Britain from colonising south america, so they did help the spanish in a way.

 

[neone]

As a matter of disclosure, I am one of many Canadians that has been handed a lifetime firearms ban by the Canadian justice system. This, despite the fact that I have no affiliation with any criminal or activist organization, no history of violence, and have never owned a firearm in my life. My crime: Criticizing a Canadian radio station.

Get out! Who was it - the CBC? Did Shelagh Rogers inane interviews of people who once played a fiddle back in Nova Scotia in 1962 drive you over the edge?



Just kidding - I wish you'd explain further but I understand if it's too personal (or against your restraining order)

And I just realized I seem to be only answering your posts - I'll search for others to talk to so you don't think I'm stalking you.

 

[Simpleton]

The enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine. I figured that much, but I don't comprehend the "shameful" portion of what you're saying. I don't see anything inherently shameful in aligning against a common enemy.

What was it that the Americans would have to be ashamed of, in their quest for independence? I would liken it to a teen aligning with his/her peers against the parents. Nothing wrong with that, if the parents are abusive. Britain most certainly was abusive during that time.

As a point of clarification, I didn't refer to the United States as the "eldest" child, just the biggest and strongest. Although Canada and the United States have differing official ages, they are both really about the same age. After all, it was North America that the settlers inhabited -- not the USA or Canada.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Do You Think the U.S.

your getting too fixated with that word....thats all it is, but remember, Britain wasnt simply just another enamy, if it were, fine.

The problem is simpleton.....your not looking at the bigger picture, Britain treated the US abusivley did they?...nope, read your books, William Pitt ensured that the American colonies were NOT taxed as badly as the rest, but there was war to be won, and wars cost money, in the end everyone pays.

What I, yes I, find irritating is that until 5 years before the american colonies were very pro-britain, and EXACTLY HOW was Britain ABUSIVE to America then?...I'm afraid that is bollox.

Infact, the very REASON for the taxes were for their protection, combine this with the FACT that most US historians recogneise that the French wished to created a pincer-like attack against the US/Colonies from the north and west.

really, it frustrates me when people say Britain treated it's colonies poorly, wanna go to Liverpool or the city of London at the time?...wanna see how they treated the people who could not afford to own land and slaves in the new world at that time?...did they have representation? no, and dont say "oh well we were over in another part of the world"....who cares it was the first truely global war, we were ALL british subjects then....THATS WHAT IS SHAMEFUL.

SIMPLE.

 

[Simpleton]

As a matter of disclosure, I am one of many Canadians that has been handed a lifetime firearms ban by the Canadian justice system. This, despite the fact that I have no affiliation with any criminal or activist organization, no history of violence, and have never owned a firearm in my life. My crime: Criticizing a Canadian radio station.

Get out! Who was it - the CBC? Did Shelagh Rogers inane interviews of people who once played a fiddle back in Nova Scotia in 1962 drive you over the edge?



Just kidding - I wish you'd explain further but I understand if it's too personal (or against your restraining order)

And I just realized I seem to be only answering your posts - I'll search for others to talk to so you don't think I'm stalking you.

I'm going to respond to your post in reverse order. I am going to respond to the last of your three paragraphs first, and the first of your three paragraphs last.

First, I hadn't noticed that you were responding to only my posts. You must be female. I very seldom notice what females do. You know, being gay, and all. :wink:

Second, I have no restraining order, and if you care to check my website, you'll see that I hardly find the matter to be of a personal nature.

Third, if you've been following my posts as religiously as you claim to have been, you will have no doubt noticed that I have mentioned Blackburn Radio Incorporated from time to time. If you don't know, and you're unwilling to check the ownership charts at the CRTC's website, Blackburn Radio Inc. is in no way owned, operated by, or affiliated with the CBC.

As a matter of fact, I'm really quite surprised that the CBC allows Blackburn to push them around. I note that the CBC had a radio frequency reserved for a french language station, and Blackburn somehow talked them into relinquishing that. But I digress.

Anyway, this is getting really off-topic, so I'd like to halt this discussion right now. If you're really curious, please create another thread, to which I will respond; send me a PM or email; or check my website periodically for information. :lol:

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: Do You Think the U.S.

your getting too fixated with that word....thats all it is, but remember, Britain wasnt simply just another enamy, if it were, fine.

The problem is simpleton.....your not looking at the bigger picture, Britain treated the US abusivley did they?...nope, read your books, William Pitt ensured that the American colonies were NOT taxed as badly as the rest, but there was war to be won, and wars cost money, in the end everyone pays.

What I, yes I, find irritating is that until 5 years before the american colonies were very pro-britain, and EXACTLY HOW was Britain ABUSIVE to America then?...I'm afraid that is bollox.

Infact, the very REASON for the taxes were for their protection, combine this with the FACT that most US historians recogneise that the French wished to created a pincer-like attack against the US/Colonies from the north and west.

really, it frustrates me when people say Britain treated it's colonies poorly, wanna go to Liverpool or the city of London at the time?...wanna see how they treated the people who could not afford to own land and slaves in the new world at that time?...did they have representation? no, and dont say "oh well we were over in another part of the world"....who cares it was the first truely global war, we were ALL british subjects then....THATS WHAT IS SHAMEFUL.

SIMPLE.

I must be a total idiot; I am just not understanding what it is that you're trying to say.

You say that we were all British subjects back then. I agree. That's what I meant when I said that both nations evolved from common British roots. I'm just not sure how your red herrings are supporting your argument, and I'm not entirely certain I understand what your argument is.

Are you making an argument? Or are you supporting what it was that I had originally posted?

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Do You Think the U.S.

sorry, right, you could possibly have hit a nerve when mentioning the treatment handed to colonials by britain then, because I know from family history the treatment of britain's poorer subjects in britain were MUCH worse than in the America's, so I see that arguement as null and void.

related "red herring" though, I wouldnt worry myself about a country who's leading war general in history lost more battles than he won, and have never won a war on their own anyways.

I didnt mean to rant about history, I really didn't.....but the "red hearings" are FACTS, But the crux of it was that I wouldnt worry, the USA have never managed to beat ANYONE on their own.

 

[Kreskin]

Occupy it for what? They already own 70% of the business in Canada

 

[Hank C]

Re: RE: Do You Think the U.S. will someday occupy Canada???

Wow.... I was just talking about this earlier when I went into a gas station with the employees.

I honestly don't think the U.S. would be able to, can't really attack a country when your bankrupt or almost bankrupt. They could try, but I think it'd be the end of U.S. if they attempted it.

1. ummmm....it doesn't matter they are running deficits, if they wanted to they could easily do it

2. there is no reason for the US to invade or occupy Canada, in fact if anything happend Canada would most likely be blessed by American protection.

 

[Simpleton]

Re: RE: Do You Think the U.S.

related "red herring" though, I wouldnt worry myself about a country who's leading war general in history lost more battles than he won, and have never won a war on their own anyways.

Here's a link to an interesting site that explains the red herring. You can learn all about it's origin as a term, how it is used, and some real examples of its use. It's quite interesting.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Do You Think the U.S.

very true, very true, a subplot, a sideline, a rouse if you will.....

but nevermind, I cant honestly see the US being after really anything much except oil, softwood, land, influence.....then again they might THINK about it