WestViking

Only an imbecile would try to claim a history as 'his'. History is a record of events. I am a Canadian and proud enough of my nation to study its beginnings and developments. In a democratic nation of equals, no person or group can announce that they have some separate history that they "own" and thus are unique and superior to others. Yours is the philosophy of easily bruised egos, of replacing positive construction of a society with indignation, with taking offence rather than seeking solutions, of blaming other because history did not work out as you would have liked, and disparaging countrymen who fought and died for your freedoms and rights because they will not dig out the kneepads when you grace us with your presence. The rotten corpse you carry so proudly is remarkable only for its stench.

Simple - it never happened. Lafayette never tried to regain Canada with or without the Americans. Canada had never agreed to a formula to amend the constitution. It seems some idiots preferred to argue ratherthan accept responsibility for themselves. That was resolved in 1982. Bullshit. If you don't know the history of the Canadian or American constitutions, you are wasting our time. 1775 - American General Montgomery captures Montreal and lays sieige to Quebec City. 1776 - Quebec under Sit Guy Carlton withstands the American Siege until a British Fleet appears in May. Montgomery withdraws. If it was not for the British, you would be speaking English only and saluting the American flag today. In addition, the French population in Canada could not have survived after 1759 without support from the British. They had no source of immigration to draw on, no source of supplies, and no means of self-defence. Without the British garrison's presence in 1778 the French would have been overwhelmed by Montgomery. It is not my claim, it is historical fact. Your refusal to study or accept your own history does not change facts. All 5 commonwealth nations have retained the Queen as Head of state. All of us are constitutional monarchies. Yes there is. We are, by international standards, recognized as a sovereign nation and Britain cannot change that unilaterally. Interesting. Since Quebec does not have a sustainable birth rate, you are in a bit of a box. Your position on Quebec is neither rational not reasonable. You can waste your life pining over a French nation in North America that never materialized or celebrate the accomplishments of the French Province of Quebec. Your choice. I will not join your pity pot.

Envy will get you nowhere, but hate can consume you.

At the core of separatism is a spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Separatism is a philosophy of snivelling brats.

1629 - David Kirk captures Quebec for the British. 1632 - Treaty of Saint-Germaine-en-Laye - Quebec is returned to France 1637 - Kirk is named Governor of Newfoundland 1686 - De Troyes and D'Iberville capture the English ports of Moose Factory, Rupert House & Fort Albany 1689 - Iroquois working with the English kill many French settlers at Lachine 1690 - Sir William Phipps captures Port Royal 1697 - Treaty of Ryswick - all captured territories are returned 1710 - Francis Nickolson captures Port Royal for the English 1713 - Treaty of Ulricht confirms British possession of Hudson's Bay, Newfoundland and Acadia (except Cape Breton Island) 1745 - Massachusettes Governor William Shirley takes the French fortress of Louisbourg 1748 - Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle returns Loisbourg to France 1753 - George Washington's militry expedition to Monogahela is defeated by the French 1758 - Generals Amherst and Wolfe take Louisbourg 1758 - General Wolfe takes Quebec. 1763 - Treaty of Paris - France ceded North American possessions to Britain 1775 - American under Montgomery capture Montreal and lay siege to Quebec City 1776 - British fleet appears and Montgomery withdraws 1812 - American General William Hull invades Canada - Battle of Queenston Heights - Canadian victory 1813 - Americans burn Your (now Toronto) 1813 - Battle of Stony Creek - Canadian victory 1813 - Battle of Beaver Dams - Canadian victory 1813 - Battle of Put-in-Bay - American victory 1813 - Battle of Moraviantown - American victory 1813 - Battle of Chateauguay - Canadian victory 1813 - Battle of Chrysler's Farm - Canadian victory 1814 - Battle of Chippewa - American victory 1814 - British force takes and burns Washington 1814 - Battle of Lake Champlain - American victory 1814 - Treaty of Ghent - war ends.

Lafayettte most certainly was working for the US. George Washington was not fighting for the French. For the most part, 1867, completely on December 11, 1931. Obviously you are unaware of the 1864 Quebec Conference where Quebec was represented by George-Étienne Cartier, Jean-Charles Chapais, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, Alexander Tilloch Galt, Hector-Louis Langevin and Étienne-Paschal Taché.

LOL - Off we go into the wild blue yonder . . . . . .

It does not occur to you that the British North America Act, which is the basis of the Canadian confederation was written with a copy of the American constitution at hand. The American constitution is not without flaws, amongst which are that federal powers are given by the states and the American system has no independent Head of State with residual powers to take control in a crisis. Many people are confused over the differences between the American republic system and Canada's Westminster Parliament. Canada is heir to one of the oldest democratic systems in existence dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215. If you wish to debate the Canadian Constitution or the Westminster system of Parliament, I am up for it, but be warned to come prepared. There is a rather large body of written and unwritten law that applies in addition to the Constitution Act.

Lafayette served in the American continental army under Washington. Some officers working without Washington's knowledge proposed an invasion of Canada. Preparations for this 'mission' were undertaken by General Gates who wanted Lafayette to head the mission. Lafayette declined and pleaded with Washington who overrode him and asked that he undertake the mission, but advised that the mission would not succeed. Lafayette took charge of the mission in 1778 but found that preparations were entirely inadequate. In a letter to Washington under date of February 23, 1778, Lafayette stated he found each day conditions were very serious with no prospects of improvement. He found debt, dissatisfaction, and deceit everywhere. He wrote: "I am sent, with a great noise, at the head of the army to do great things. The whole continent, France, and what is the worst, the British army will be in expectation." Finally, Congress realized the seriousness of the situation and sent dispatches to Lafayette to delay the expedition which meant the wild adventure was ended and it came to such an untimely end as Washington had said it would. Washington knew that the Congress did not have the money to spend on such futile expeditions and there was lacking sufficient man power to invade Canada at this time. Finally, in March 1778, Congress passed the following resolution on behalf of Lafayette's service: "That Congress entertain a high sense of his prudence, activity, and zeal and that they are fully persuaded nothing has or would have been wanting on his part, or on the part of the officers who accompanied him, to give the expedition the utmost possible effect." Lafayette returned to Valley Forge early in April 1778 and was warmly welcomed by Washington. Washington found he could place the utmost responsibility upon Lafayette. Lafayette found that the conspiracy to displace Washington was virtually ended and with defeat for the conspirators. He was involved in action at Barren Hill on May 20th. Lafayette remained at Valley Forge improving his knowledge of military tactics until Washington marched out of Valley Forge to meet the enemy in New Jersey. http://www.ushistory.org/Valleyforge/served/lafayette.html Lafayette never spearheaded any mission to 'rescue' New France. The misguided mission by some continental army officers was to add Canada to its territory and failed miserably due to lack of funds and manpower. Lafayette was exonerated from culpability for the failure. Of course Canada was ceded to England. Canada was a colony of France, not an independent nation, and became a colony of England. The Americans invaded in the War of 1812-14. That invasion was the result of trade disputes between Britain and America in the West Indies. Canada became a nation in 1867 when Quebec joined in confederation to protect herself from another American invasion. The Quebecois knew that they would never get the concessions they enjoyed under the Quebec Act if they were annexed to America, and it was in their interests to build a strong Canada capable of repelling another American invasion. Your knowledge of history, in particular the history of New France from 1759 onward is abysmal. A proud people have created a unique monument to French culture over a period of two and a half centuries without aid from France or anywhere else except for the other provinces of Canada. You should take pride in the existence of a modern French speaking province unlike any other place outside of France. Other former colonies of France pale in comparison. You are so busy studying your navel that you fail to see the accomplishments of the Quebecois within confederation. I regret that you are intent on rewriting history as some fantastic fantasy. By so doing, you are failing the Quebecois and inviting scorn from those who should be admiring their achievements. Without British support following the Seven Year's War and the Treaty of Paris, the Quebecois whose ancestors had not starved to death would be speaking English and singing the American anthem today. It is time you grew up and learned to dance with the lady who brought you to the ball.

I will disagree with that assessment. The residents of New France resisted 'Anglicization' mandated by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and onward. The Treaty of Paris cut them loose from France, but they remained true to their heritage and with the aid of Governor James Murray, and later by his replacement Sir Guy Carlton, the British Parliament passed the Quebec Act in 1774. Residents of what had been New France, or Canada were given the right to maintain their language, religion, culture and system of civil law. This resistance did not come from a 'humiliated' people. While the Battle of the Plains of Abraham marked a significant change in the course of Canada’s history, it also marked the start of a unique history of our French speaking people. Western Canada is speckled with towns and cities founded by Quebec clerics and initially populated by Quebecois. The unique character and culture of Quebec and in particular Quebec City has survived for two and a half centuries and shows no sign of diminishing. Quebecers have thrived in every field of endeavour. While the French loss of the Seven Years War may have humbled an empire and a king, the Battle of the Plains of Abraham did not humble the people of New France. Cast adrift from France by the Treaty of Paris, the original French Canadians have built a unique monument to their heritage. With so much to celebrate, and a vibrant, modern French speaking capital to showcase to the world, cancellation of the Plains of Abraham re-enactment is as sad and misguided as the threats that were made by a small group intent on wallowing in unwarranted self-pity.

Perhaps then, you would explain the Treaty of Paris, 1763, in particular Article IV, wherein the King of France ceded Canada and her territories to the King of England. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/paris763.asp

The gulf war was never over. There was a cease-fire which ended the shooting, but Saddam Hussein never complied with its terms. The United Nations sanctioned a blockade of Iraq which the US and allies, including Canada was enforcing. The blockade was in place because the UN was not satisfied that Iraq had disposed of its WMDs. In past, when the US has taken military action against an enemy, she has stayed on keeping the peace and assisting in reconstruction. There is no need for this to continue. If it should become necessary to attack the nuclear capability in Iran, the US can employ bombers and cruise missiles to neutralize the threat and never land a soldier in Iran - or assist in any way following the attack.

That is inane. We all have a 'homeland'; some of us are fortunate enough to enjoy a historical homeland as well as a land of birth. Patriotism is no longer politically correct, but it is the glue that creates great nations.

The attempt to twist won't work. Hamas is dedicated to destroy Israel - and is supported by a majority of Palestinians in Gaza. During an allegedly election? Ever see any similar armed crowds in the middle east outside of Gaza and the West Bank? Please provide some links. LOL - when did al Jasera go out of business? The game was over power and control, not over disarmament. You are more than a little confuled. Hamas was delared a terrorist organization in Canada in November 2002. The Hamas - Fettah conflict did not occur until five years later. Next time actually read the results of the Google search. Surprise!! My explanation was adequate. You are denying the results of the election are you? Hamas has been attacking for years. They are now paying the price. Hamas is not engaged in any form of freedom fight. Hamas is controlled by Iran., so why are they fighting Israel? The IDF are not terrorists, depite your allegations.They feel that they are under attack and they are trying to rouse up support to defend Palestine. In the same way that Jews around the world support the killing of children by Israel, Arabs around the world support the killing of Israelis by Arabs. I'm not going to address much of that paragraph, because you were relatively coherent up until that point. Opposing the death of innocent children is not treason and give it up with the anti-semitism already. LOL - You are a sad. pathetic clown.

I have no sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza. None. I recall the last ‘elections’ held in Gaza and the West Bank. Palestinians were choosing between the terrorist organization Fattah (successor to the Palestine Liberation Organization) and the terrorist organization Hamas. 60% of Palestinians chose Hamas. I recall watching television footage of election day activities. Bands of heavily armed Fattah and Hamas supporters roved through the crowds, waving automatic weapons and grenade launchers. This was the strangest form of election I have ever seen. It was not democratic in any sense of the term. How can one consider an election democratic when the opposing parties have armed supporters milling about? They were not keeping the peace; they were barely avoiding armed conflict. Days later, the United Nations, having had observers monitoring the ‘election’, declared that the results were valid! I asked myself why – because there had not been obvious bloodshed, or because the United Nations no longer cares about democracy? Less than two years ago, Fattah tried to overturn the Hamas majority in Gaza by force of arms. The two sides shot it out and Hamas expelled those Fattah members it did not kill or imprison from Gaza. No one said a word about the many ‘civilian casualties’ during that conflict. For the past five years, Hamas has been shooting rockets into Israel, hoping to kill Israeli civilians. No one said a word about the necessity for a cease fire or raised a cry about Hamas illegally making war on a sovereign nation. Hamas got a free pass from the United Nations and from the rest of the (civilized?) world. Why have we shrugged while this murderous aggression carried on for years? Now that Israel is putting a stop to indiscriminate attacks on her citizens, suddenly Palestinians become victims and a cease-fire is imperative. I think not! Hamas terrorists live, eat and sleep amongst the Palestinians. They use their houses, schools, mosques, hospitals and other public building to store arms, ammunition, supplies, and to launch rockets at Israel. Palestinians not only allow, but appear to encourage their terrorist activities. The United Nations has passed a resolution demanding a cease-fire in Gaza. Where were the resolutions condemning Hamas for its terrorist attacks? The UN lost its credibility as a peace keeping organization long ago, and is now proving to be virulently anti-Semitic. I have watched for decades as various peace proposals and peace plans for Israel and her neighbours have fallen apart. Arabs and their terrorist puppets always manage to find some event or incident as an excuse for fresh attacks on Israel. I recall, following 9/11 a lot of brave words about ferreting out terrorists and taking resolute actions against those nations who harboured and supported terrorist organizations such as Hamas. Those brave words were cheered by most of us. We do not want a repeat of 9/11. Not even a decade later, when Israel is determined to stop Hamas from further terrorist attacks, we cry piteously for Israel to stop the killing. Hardly a decade later, we are overflowing with sympathy for terrorists and those who harbour them. We should be ashamed of ourselves. Spokesmen for al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Fattah and other terrorist groups call for jihad, holy war, in support of Hamas, and most of the world cowardly responds by demanding a cease-fire in Gaza to allow Hamas terrorist to live to fight another day. Disgusting. We have dozens of Palestinian supporters demonstrating in our streets. I have some questions for them: “Why are you here? Why did you leave anarchy and terrorism to live in Canada? We are at war with terrorists and our soldiers are dying in a battle to preserve the peace and order you find so attractive. Do you not understand that supporting terrorists is treason? Do you understand that you cannot engage in anti-Semitism here, that to do so is against our laws? Are you here to build a better life or to try to drag us into your amoral, mindless strife and senseless murders?” I have no sympathy for Palestinians and their terrorist leadership. None. If Palestinians want to overthrow Hamas and negotiate for peace in good faith, I would reconsider. As long as they choose leaders with the sole purpose of destroying Israel, they may suffer the consequences. Terrorists make a bad government, but Palestinians will have to figure that out for themselves.

No, the ground attack is intended to eliminate Hamas. Dead radicals are not a threat.

Canada was founded as an extension of Britain and France. Israel was founded as a homeland for Jews. There is quite a difference between the two.

It is not the environment we need to fear - it is an increasingly barbaric society.

Americans, en mass, rejected the 'old guard', the back room strategists and party insiders. We can regard the results with trepidation, but the voter turnout does not allow us to second-guess the will of the people. No American president elect has ever faced as large a constituency that will hold him accountable four years hence. Obama's promise is starkly simple: "YES WE CAN". He has left little room for failure and no room for excuses for failure to perform. Obama will be a remarkable president or an unmitigated disaster. I believe in democracy and thus have to accept that my view may fall in a minority. If so, I have to respect the decision of my peers, and move on. If they turn out to be wrong, we can revisit the decision. That is the beauty of democracy. Those who refuse to accept an electoral decision and harangue the winners rather than building a better alternative for the next race are not democratic.

Please cite the laws that require Canada to rescue citizens engaged in serious crimes and in military actions against allies. I would be most interested in the support you can show for your arguments.

You could package that and go mushroom farming.

Your callous lack of compassion and disrespect for the people of other nations is duly noted.

Of course you mean Canada.

So much for rational and supportable argument. Next.

LOL - Nice try: "If I were prime minister, we would not be involved in Iraq. I would encourage the Americans and hope they're successful, but our government would not be there." Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, Dec. 13, 2005 at a press conference in Trenton, Ont. I don't care how some idiot at the CBC wants to spin what Harper might have said.