|
Yes! What are they going to do anyway throw maple syrup at us and then pull our shirts over out
heads? They will probably be too drunk to notice anyway. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
YES YES YES they have no good military weapons at all we can totally bomb Toronto, then use the air
force and the NAVY the take care of the rest. Lol |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
At first sight, this sounds like a ridiculous debate topic. But after giving it more careful
consideration, I think it makes a lot of sense.
The 21st century is likely to be a grim one for the human race. We have almost used up the earth's
accessible stockpiles of mineral energy. Other resource constraints will be felt soon too, or are
being already, such as water and food. Canada has vast resources. In territorial extent, it is
roughly as large as the US, yet it only has a fraction of the population. It's clear that the
Canadians have not made full and effective use of their resources. An American takeover would lead
to those resources being exploited more effectively. The challenges of the 21st century will force
many states to discard some of the sentimentality that has characterised at least the public face of
international relations for much of the 20th century, and, instead, pursue their own self-interests
ruthlessly once again.
It's clear that the Canadians derive many benefits from proximity to their larger neighbour. For
example, they are substantially protected by the American military. Yet they don't pay their fair
share of the taxes required to sustain this military. So, in a way, they are free-loading on
American benevolence. Taking over the country would help rectify this situation. It would also allow
more effective border control across the north American land space, helping limit the threat from
terrorism even more.
Politically, Canada is fairly enlightened compared to many states within the US. It could be
expected to vote reliably Democratic in presidential elections. This could be a useful leavening
influence in American politics. The Canadian vote could tip the scales in many close presidential
elections, leading America in a more enlightened direction.
Perhaps the takeover of Canada could be accomplished peacefully, through threats or plebiscites. If
not, however, it is likely that the military conquest of the country would be more difficult than
expected. America tends to prefer fighting against little third-world countries with no technology.
The experience of defeating them easily has shaped the American perception of war, and led to an
excess of enthusiasm for it. The heavy losses likely to be incurred in a takeover of Canada would
perhaps instil in Americans a greater appreciation of the horrors of war. It is also likely that
subtle and unconscious racial perceptions lead, in part, to the American public's acceptance of
their government's global belligerence. Mangled brown people just don't move the American conscience
in the way that mangled white people are likely to. The war on Canada should deliver enough mangled
white people to break through these barriers of racial perception. Hopefully, as a result, America
would be less inclined to pursue belligerent policies around the world.
All things considered, I think there is a great deal to be gained from an American takeover of
Canada. The price of the lives of the soldiers killed in the fighting may be one that is worth
paying for the benefits acquired, and, if it leads to an America which pursues more peaceful
policies around the world, may even result in a net gain in human lives through an avoidance of
future American wars. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think we should attack them and then leave them with a tiny island to call their own. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
That would be a big waste of military supplies. There's nothing in Canada. We might as well attack
Wyoming. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Like the stereotype, you Americans are freakin' gun crazy. Canada is a great country, and we
Canadians did more stuff then US did at WWII!!!! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The US have made enough military errors with Vietnam, Irak, etc. Stop it !
An attack on a friendly neighbor would be immediately condemned by all the other nations on earth |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
And what exactly would be the reason for attacking them? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Why the hell would you do that?
You didn't even give a reason!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
For me, everybody who has posted on this side of the debate has said it all.
I feel you need a hatchet wound on your face; I don't know why. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Canada is our number one trading partner, and our first source for oil. Canada and the US have the
largest unprotected border in the world. We are their number one trading partner and vice verse
(actually not sure if this has changed since last i looked).
There are some wacky things that go on in Canada with their tensions between Anglo and Franco
populations, but that's their deal.
Canada also offers a good neutral buffer between the US and other countries that are not so happy
with us. Diplomatically this is valuable, if played properly by both sides.
Canada is a good resource for us and we are a good resource for them. There would be absolutely no
benefit in attacking, on the contrary we should improve our partnership with Canada and the rest of
this hemisphere. We should combine our strengths, and work harder at resolving our differences (of
which there really aren't that many in the scope of the world). The world is getting smaller
everyday, and having a strong hemisphere will only improve everyone's situation. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No because that would not help our position in the earth because we have already got a war going of
we don't need another one it wouldn't help at all |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Just try it, and your army will soon find out that it might be easy to invade, but much harder to
conquer Canada. We could also flood your market with cheap lumber and destroy your entire lumber
industry very rapidly, as well as shut off your power in parts of the eastern United States, thanks
to our control of Hydro-Québec. Although most of our cities are in close proximity to the US
border, we could use much the same strategy as the Russians did against both nineteenth and
twentieth century invaders; namely, we could keep retreating further north, or to the west, if your
invasion came from the east. Although the US army is sizeable, it would not be large enough to mount
an invasion across the full length of the US-Canadian border at once.
There is also quite a lot of goodwill towards Canada in the world, so I doubt that other nations
would simply stand by and allow a US invasion to occur, without any response. In some cases, the
response may have more to do with their own self-interest, like with Russia, which has interests in
the north and continues to have a land dispute with Canada over the Arctic. I suspect that the
United Kingdom would probably act as well, if the US initiated an offensive attack against Canada,
considering that the country is still part of the Commonwealth.
A better idea would be to simply maintain good relations with Canada. The US is fortunate to have
such a peaceful neighbour to the north, even if many of our prime ministers have had tense relations
with your presidents. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is a terrible idea. We'd waste a ton of lives and resources taking them over but then
afterwards we'd corrupt their politics and ruin their economy too. We'd have nowhere to go when our
subsidized commercialise society caves into the most massive depression the US has ever seen. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Canada is a great partner, and we shouldn't alienate them at all. Plus, they have much oil, which
we could all use. However, if we did attack Canada, we could easily crush them. (No offense
Canadians) |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
23 May 2008 04:15
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
