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: North American Integration | |
Author: Michael J. Smith (Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 21:28:05 11/24/04 Wed http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html The fretting away of Canadian sovereignty continues apace. At least Britain will get a referendum on this; it seems the people of Canada no longer get a say on the really important issues facing our country. We are all becoming "Mister Non-Canuck[s]" [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Absolutely digusting. Perhaps we should convince the Queen not to allow this treaty to ratified ;-) | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:43:10 11/24/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Scary. I wouldn't be suprised if something like that happens to the UK or Australia soon. | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:45:13 11/24/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Under Blair? It probably has. Hopefully both the US and EU armies will get stuck in the door. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:48:08 11/24/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: This won't happen - most Canadians do not want to become Americans | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:12:48 11/24/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Hah! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:34:03 11/24/04 Wed "No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being 'in the national interest'. It 'will create jobs for Canadians' and 'will make Canada more secure'." Does that, by any remote chance, sound familiar to the Brits here? How many times have we heard some ghastly piece of seditious and probably treasonous Euro-legislation 'justified' as "creating more jobs for British people"? Even more stupid in Britain's case, where the unemployment figures are rapidly approaching zero, but there you go. And the Euro-Army - "it will make Britain more secure", they say, without actually explaining how. I was reasonably pro-American until I read that article, but now I'm coming to equate it with the EU - a sinister superstate plotting to consume significant parts of the British World. Mind you, if the new Secretary of State gets her way, we'll join NAFTA and get to federate with Canada via Washington, which is at least something... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Bias | |
|
Author: Kevin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:04:25 11/25/04 Thu well, this article isn't biased in any way. Some of it is quite distrubing in the way that, I can't believe that Canada has actually agreed to this, but if they are going to do this all the way, atleast they have a say in what happens militarily. Even though I completely disagree with having our army on foreign soil whenever we please. I hope this doesn't happen because in most ways we don't need this. Of coarse we need help with terror and all that and thats great, but if we need top security, then we could easily lock down the borders, which is easier than locking a whole American region. Anyway, I agree with Jim, I don't think this will swing in parliament. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: bias | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:17:24 11/25/04 Thu Kevin: I think you have probably summarized it well. The only reason our military and bureaucratic honchos are looking at it is in the knowledge that the US is going to do things with or without us. Having a seat at the table is so important to them, as well as appeasing the more red-blooded neo-cons at the Project for a New American Century. In all honesty, we've been in this situation since 1940 and the Kingston Dispensation between FDR and Mackenzie King. The US would defend Canada from invasion so long as we guaranteed that Canada would not be a launch point for an invasion of the US. That meant that without Pearl Harbor, the US would have entered WWII the minute Japan or Germany fired one shot on Canadian soil. Everything has evolved from this...In fact, one of my profs., who is a former Ass't Deputy Minister of Defence, said that the US has informally agreed to recognize Canadian sovereignty in the Northwest passage area. There will be a day when American hegemony wanes, whether it be the decline of the US, or the rise of others. People like Charles Krauthammer argue that what's important is not the exertion of American supremacy, per se, but building a world structure that maintains stability beyond the day when the US ceases to be number one. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Krauthammer would have been a good name for a WWII British general | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:25:52 11/25/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: The Americans are not to blame, Canada is | |
|
Author: Michael J. Smith (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:29:11 11/25/04 Thu Brent has it about right. The author of that piece has overstretched and overblown his argument with his rhetoric. The re-organization of American military might is justified by what happened to America on 9/11, but Canada must proceed cautiously and be very mindful of its own sovereignty and its own interests whenever contemplating ever closer arrangements. It's too easy to take this kind of logic too far, since obviously a defense arrangement is only meaningful if there is a country to defend. The recognition of "Canadian sovereignty" in the Northwest passage is easier when you believe said sovereignty has been hollowed out with these kind of encroaching agreements. What really dissapoints me is the fact that we don't take our own defense seriously. I have nothing against cooperation, but a soveriegn nation must take responsibility for its own defense. The territorial and coastline defense of Canada should only be our responsibility, not jointly shared. The air defense of North America is an entirely different thing, however, given the potential threat of intercontinental missiles to both our homelands. Our participation in NORAD is therefore perfectly justified. But this nonsense about Northern Command is a completely different beast. As a Canadian, I find it gaulling that a foreign country would see it their duty to act in the name of Canada's interests. And there our weak-kneed politicians sit, perched up on a mountain of wealth, reticent about any kind of military spending, talking about having a "seat at the table". Well, I don't give a flying fig about that seat; I want our own table. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |