Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
wulf42

Should Canada and the U.S. become one nation?

Recommended Posts

NATO was made in the mid/late 40's because of the inefficiency of the U.N. system.

"..........seek greater safety in an association of democratic and peace-loving states" - St. Laurent's speech written by Pearson on NATO

NATO tries to run in concert with the UN but it is not a necessity .

We're way off topic, but there is sufficient doubt about the legality of NATO actions in 1999.....a precursor for decisions made about Iraq. One can't have it both ways. Chretien was running open loop.....

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
....However, the war is now past that kind of sentiment.. Not a lot of people think that the Afghanistan war is being very effective; the focus needs to be on the implementation of order and governance..

So what....you said that Canada is a NATO member and the PM can do as he pleases in such cases.

Screw the "focus" if he doesn't agree, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're way off topic, but there is sufficient doubt about the legality of NATO actions in 1999.....a precursor for decisions made about Iraq. One can't have it both ways. Chretien was running open loop.....

at least the NATO bombings in 1999 was a collective agreement by NATO. Iraq was just a one man show

Don't get me wrong, I am not debating the moral validity of either war.. I am saying that the Chretien/NATO 1999 bombing was not more misguided than the Iraq attack.

C'mon, with all the partisan behaviour in the States... Did Bush really have anything to fear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what....you said that Canada is a NATO member and the PM can do as he pleases in such cases.

Screw the "focus" if he doesn't agree, right?

Well it was a NATO obligation to get in there and attack the offender.. However, this war has been going on for quite a while now.. Is anything really happening? Perhaps we should take another course. We have taken the action we were obligated to do by pact (which was attack the country) and now we have to move on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
at least the NATO bombings in 1999 was a collective agreement by NATO. Iraq was just a one man show

PMs Blair and Howard might disagree with your analysis.

Don't get me wrong, I am not debating the moral validity of either war.. I am saying that the Chretien/NATO 1999 bombing was not more misguided than the Iraq attack.

Not misguided at all....just unauthorized by an elected Parliament.

C'mon, with all the partisan behaviour in the States... Did Bush really have anything to fear?

Of course he did, just as Clinton and Bush Sr. did. They didn't run open loop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PMs Blair and Howard might disagree with your analysis.

Yeah.. The "Coalition of the Willing"... I don't think there is much international validity in that alliance, they don't have a charter or anything

or at least not anymore than just a bunch of countries teaming up against someone

Edited by LesterDC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah.. The "Coalition of the Willing"... I don't think there is much validity in that alliance, they don't have a charter or anything

Still, it was not Bush acting alone. Just because Canada didn't participate doesn't make it invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still, it was not Bush acting alone. Just because Canada didn't participate doesn't make it invalid.

It isn't about the involvement of Canada, it is the involvement of NATO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still, it was not Bush acting alone. Just because Canada didn't participate doesn't make it invalid.

If other countries wish to play dumb with Bush.. then I suppose they could

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears that others feel differently. Or are you running the country?

No, I'm not running the country, but I'm positive we don't need saving. The Governor General and the constitution will work this out if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I'm not running the country, but I'm positive we don't need saving. The Governor General and the constitution will work this out if necessary.

One would hope so, but some others are not convinced. In general, I find the sentiment to be quite interesting....this notion of just "joining America", like a rebelling teenager. It is slightly different from the garden variety separatists, because it adds the twist of sleeping with Americans, as if that's the biggest insult of all. We'll show them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One would hope so, but some others are not convinced.

Some others often think a great many things. I don't put much stock in those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some others often think a great many things. I don't put much stock in those things.

Of course, you are satisfied with the status quo, while the storms come and go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, you are satisfied with the status quo, while the storms come and go.

I am satisfied with the status quo...unless changing it will bring a definitive improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like a change in government for example...or maybe another election that results in a coalition afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like a change in government for example...or maybe another election that results in a coalition afterwards.

...or not.....surely you will be satisfied with the choice to change nothing as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...or not.....surely you will be satisfied with the choice to change nothing as well.

Yeah, I will be. I'm a Canadian version of you...with different ideologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A monetary union would be more desirable..

Possibly, but not yet. There would be a great deal of work to do on that first, and I don't think now is the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in my opinion if Canada is going to survive...then our politicians need to run the country and work together rather than satisfying their own corrupt agendas (Liberals,NDP) and stop this petty trying to bring the Government down nonsense,Harper was elected by the people so the Liberals should leave it alone! This business of Majority and minority leadership does not work.......if a party wins the most votes they should be in power fully and completely! none of this shared power crap!

Edited by wulf42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well in my opinion if Canada is going to survive...then our politicians need to run the country and work together rather than satisfying their own corrupt agendas (Liberals,NDP) and stop this petty trying to bring the Government down nonsense,Harper was elected by the people so the Liberals should leave it alone! This business of Majority and minority leadership does not work.......if a party wins the most votes they should be in power fully and completely! none of this shared power crap!

There are two things I could say to that..

1) Harper only won Canada with 37% percent of the population...

2) George W. Bush was elected democratically.. doesn't have to mean it is a good thing

Bottom line is.. In my opinion, to me, it does not matter who won the vote. Hopefully, whoever wins the vote will do the best for the country.

However, if I don't believe that you are not doing a very good job running the country, I wouldn't want you on top - I don't care if you were elected..

The party was elected anyhow, not the P.M..

Edited by LesterDC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well in my opinion if Canada is going to survive...then our politicians need to run the country and work together rather than satisfying their own corrupt agendas (Liberals,NDP) and stop this petty trying to bring the Government down nonsense,Harper was elected by the people so the Liberals should leave it alone! This business of Majority and minority leadership does not work.......if a party wins the most votes they should be in power fully and completely! none of this shared power crap!

Harper is going to brought down because he pushed his own agenda ahead of what was best for this country. Harper didn't win power fully or completely under any system of government (37% of the vote, no majority of seats). He doesn't have a majority and he can't govern like he has one! If he can't compromise he needs to go. Guess he is just getting sick of hiding his true colours (Reform/Republican). Those Canadians who thought he was something other than right wing ideologue have their eyes openned. Most people in Ontario know it and know that the most right wing ideologues from the Harris days (Flaherty, Baird et al.) are in cabinet because they are they true believers in the Reform/Republican agenda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...