Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Hmmm | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 22:18:34 12/01/04 Wed Another Bushism.... From CBC News: HALIFAX - U.S. President George W. Bush suggested Canada should take a more active role in his "war on terrorism" in a speech he gave in Halifax on Wednesday. Three years after the worst-ever attacks against civilians on American soil, Bush said Canada had a duty to do more to ward off potential threats to North America. He raised the example of a former prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, who did not wait for Hitler's Nazis to attack Canada before sending troops to fight in the Second World War. Hmm - Indeed :-) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: If... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:25:47 12/01/04 Wed If more British people could remember the fact that, whereas the US only joined the 2nd World War when it was attacked, Canada joined up on the simple principle that Britain was threated and that the Canadians, as Britons too, had to join in, then there would be no need for the FCS. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Canada was a whole week late ;0) | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:29:04 12/02/04 Thu But what's a week late between friends, especially when Canada did so much for us in that war. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: One week late because of Quebec | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:21:37 12/02/04 Thu We were one week late entering the Second World War because of the debate on the resolution to go to war in our Parliament, and that was because of Quebec. English Canada was ready and willing to go to war on September 3 and the resolution declaring war was ready that day right after Britain's declaration. It would have passed that day if hadn't been for anti-war Quebeckers. Quebec nationalists held it up in debate for a whole week until it passed on September 10. Their argument was that it was Britain's war and not Canada's. English Canada's view was that we were part of the British Empire and that an attack on Britain would be an attack on us all - they also felt a sense of duty to the mother country and that all British Subjects were in this together. Australia and New Zealand, and even the Union Of South Africa, declared was on September 3. Only Eire remained neutral - out of the war - only to leave the Commonwealth completely soon after it. Quebec had never stopped being a thorn in our side ever since. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Britain got Ireland, Canada got Quebec | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:40:32 12/02/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Quebec | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:12:29 12/02/04 Thu Yes, they didn't even consider that France was at war too. What are the policies of the Bloc Québécois? Do they aim to separate Q from Canada or do they aim to promote Q within Canada at the expense of English Canada? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Bloc Quebecois | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:18:18 12/02/04 Thu First of all, there are two Quebec separatist parties at different levels. The Bloc Quebecois are the Quebec nationalists in the Canadian federal parliament and the Parti Quebecois is their counterpart in the Quebec provincial legislature (they call the National Assembly). Both are in opposition at the moment. The stated aim is 'sovereignty-association' which means independence for Quebec outside Canada with economic association with what would remain of Canada. There have been two referenda so far. The one in 1980 which was defeated by a 60/40 margin and the one in 1995 which was defeated by a 51/49 margin. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Quebec | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:30:53 12/02/04 Thu I recall reading somewhere that if Quebec voted overall to separate the whole province would not leave Canada, just a small, largely urban region where the will to do so was more than 50%. Is this true? I also recall hearing that Princess Patricia's light infantry is a "French" regiment and very loyal to the Crown. Are there many (or any!) Quebecois that are loyal to the Crown? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Quebec Monarchism | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:12:22 12/02/04 Thu In once read an article saying how surprised people were to discover the level of fondness and affection the people of Quebec had for theree Britih monarch. I believ it was written about ten years ago though, lefties have made considerable progresss since then. More recently though I did hear that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was impartial on the idea of monarchy, though whether the article was reffering to the current leader or not I am unsure I forget when the article was written. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Quebec separatism | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:57:34 12/03/04 Fri Yes, it's true that all of the north of Quebec is native Crown land and that the separatists could not actually take that. They could only get the area along the St. Lawrence River in the south. However, the separatists claim the whole province and Labrador. A recent poll puts the support for the Crown in Quebec at 30% - the lowest in Canada. In neighbouring Ontario, it is at 65%. With only 10% English speaking, that means that 20% of French Quebecers (one fifth) support the Crown - and I have met a few. Don't forget, they have been under the British flag for over 200 years. The separatists are currently out of power in the Province. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: If only a few Americans would pause to remember that instead of 'We saved your ass' | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:53:37 12/01/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: But we do | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:31:46 12/02/04 Thu Well, most of us seem to remember both. We remember how Canada threw themselves in to the war to help out their "mother" country, and that we followed in suit when we didn't have much of an option left. I think U.S. president Bush showed this in his speech, clearly showing how Canada was and is strong and does stand up for what it believes in. He really pushed the friendship that Canada and the U.S. has, and most likely always will have. Using the good example of the Canadians taking in about 33,000 stranded passengers while our airspace was closed. I think this is a good first step to mending the ties between the two countries. Bush made a clever joke at the press conference. "I'd like to thank everyone that came out to show their support, with all five fingers".Okay, not so funny right now, but if you hear him, it was pretty good. And on a side note. I didn't know Anti-American Carolyn Parrish was kicked out of parliament for stomping on a Bush doll. Looks like she didn't know how to bite her tongue. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I agree | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:04:01 12/02/04 Thu My criticism was of the shortness of British memories, not American ones. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Clearly, I've been talking to the wrong Americans... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:01:10 12/02/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Carolyn Parrish is still in Parliament, but she sits as an Independent now, instead of a Liberal | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:20:17 12/02/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: American history teaching are to blame | |
|
Author: Frank (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:20:54 12/02/04 Thu Well, I just joined your society, I'm intrigued as British history (mostly the Empire) is one of my hobbies. I would argue that whats to blame is the rather poor way schools here teach history. I mean they always seem to glorify our role...for example, I know that American aid in WW I was helpful, but not crucial to absolute victory. However, the way it is taught here is that it was American aid alone that prevented the collapse of Allied War Effort...and that was simply not true. And that led on to WW II as well, although there it was pretty apparent that w/o US aid, Britain would have hard pressed to win the war. So I personally wouldnt blame Americans so much as the way history is taught here as to the arrogance that alot of Americans have about the World Wars and how they all seem to say "We saved your ass"... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: You don't learn all of the truth about 1812 either | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:30:42 12/02/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: US members | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:31:52 12/02/04 Thu I still don't understand why we have American members, or rather why we have Americans who wish to join as I have no problem with it myself. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: American members | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:38:06 12/02/04 Thu I think input and interest from anyone is very helpful, regardless of what country they live in. The fact that Americans are taking an interest in something that is not proposed for them shows that it has merit with a wider audience. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: US members | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:52:43 12/02/04 Thu If the FCS were ever to expand beyond the realms of the crown, then the USA would be the logical direction for that expansion. Not necessarily ideal or popular with many people here, but more logical than expanding into, say, Vietnam, Cambodia, or Yemen. We must remember that the 'Anglosphere' is in vogue in the USA among intellectual conservatives - and while the Anglosphere and the FCS are not the same thing, it would be misguided in the exteme to deny that they are both manifestations of the same basic motives: co-operation between countries which for reasons of history share common values. Our relationship with the USA is no different in nature from our relationships between each other: it is different only in degree. Obviously, Britain has stronger ties to Australia and New Zealand than to the USA, but that does not mean that we have no ties with the USA. It follows logically that Americans have ties with us. Why should it seem so peculiar that Americans should be interested in the FCS? Indeed, I can imagine that some Americans would be more interested in the FCS than many in CANZUK: the USA is particularly susceptible to identity crises, with no real allies except for Britain, which they have been taught to revile as the Great Bogeyman from which America was lucky to escape. On the other hand, why should a Canadian be interested? They know who they are: firstly, they are the descendents of British colonists, and secondly they are not blasted Frenchmen. That is a sufficient self-definition for anyone, and needs no political ties to reinforce it. Compare with the Americans: who are they? Their ancestry is so mixed, and perhaps most importantly there is no large, close-knit foreign population like Quebec within the USA against which to contrast oneself. Look across the Atlantic, America: some of us still love you! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: "no real allies except for Britain" | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:26:33 12/03/04 Fri I'm not sure whether you are saying that Australia is not a real country or just not a real ally. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That was tactless of him | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:02:25 12/03/04 Fri This American is VERY appreciative of our Australian allies. Australia is the only country that fought with us in every major war we were involved in during the 20th Century and some of us have not forgotten. Cheers Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Australians were in Vietnam? | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:33:23 12/03/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Vietnam | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:57:53 12/03/04 Fri Country Participation at Height of Involvement Losses USA Over 540,000 troops Approximately 50,000 Australia 8,300 troops and advisors Approximately 500 dead New Zealand 534 soldiers One battalion under Australian (1st Brigade) command at any one time. 37 KIA A Brief History of the Australian Forces in Vietnam http://www.vietvet.org/aussie1.htm [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:22:26 12/03/04 Fri That is apparently why the naval Ensign was changed - because the Australians were flying the flag of a power that was not engaged in the theatre of war. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Canada was in Vietnam too...look it up... | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:57:06 12/05/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: here 'tis... | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 06:03:25 12/05/04 Sun INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR CONTROL AND SUPERVISION SOUTH VIETNAM. Authorized in January 1973 to monitor the cease fire in South Vietnam, supervise the exchange of prisoners and to ensure no build up of military equipment. Canada ceased operations in July 1973. |