LesterDC

Well I knew the books off the top of my head, I am sure if you ran some google links you could get something like that.. Like I said, Pearson used Lester B. Pearson and the department files as first hand sources.. A lot of the stuff on google are only broad accounts..

They still believed in the U.N. so they wished to have the organization run parallely with the U.N.. However, they are separate entities. So when the U.N. fails to protect western ideals, NATO will

Seize the Day: Crisis Diplomacy by Geoffery A.H. Pearson chapter 3 or 4: NATO: Community or regional pact? off the top of my head, the chapter was called something like that.. if you really want to know, I'll go get the book

So bottom line, there were three reasons that NATO was created: 1) Communist threat 2) Failure of the U.N. , or they would have kept agreements within the U.N. instead of creating their own pact 3) They needed a force that could stand up against the Soviet Union EDIT: There could be more but this pretty much summarizes it

Yes, the fledgling and ineffective - therefore they created NATO, something that would prove to be more effective. They hoped that they would find collective security throught the U.N., but they realized that they would need to make an exclusively democratic pact in order to protect those ideals.

Yes, I said it was because of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union and its aggressive policies (Berlin Blockade - 1948 and The Czechoslovakia Coup - 1948, NATO being formed on April 1949) and how the U.N. seemed to be ineffecient when dealing with the Soviets. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Seize-the...e/9780886292171 http://www.amazon.com/Mike-memoirs-Honoura...n/dp/0802002544

History of NATO.... Read Crisis in diplomacy by Geoffery Pearson, Lester B. Pearson memoirs and External Affairs department files on NATO talks

You have to look at in context.. NATO possibly would never have come to existence if they were able to settle disputes through the U.N.. With the advent of the Soviet aggression (Berlin Blockade, Czechoslovakia communist coup), the U.N. proved to be ineffective when dealing with this issue. Therefore, the western democratic states had to seek greater security through a regional pact, creating NATO. So yes, the primary motive was to defend nations against communism (at first) and "Stalinism" (as realized later on); however, it was the failure of the U.N. that pushed the states to create their own separate regional pact.

I am quite sure they would settle for something in return for our oil and resources.. Manifest Destiny part 2!

Uhh.. No, I am not wrong; we are both right. It was created to be a the bulwark against the Warsaw pact; the Soviet Union was acting aggressively and security could not be found within the U.N.. Therefore, they created NATO

I am sure there are some Americans south of the border who share the same sentiment.. Some people want the NAU, some people want the NWO, some people are Alqaeda sympathizers..

Yeah well. I am quite positive that most Canadians are more than fine with staying sovereign. I don't care what some people on this forum thinks... and you know what? I don't think any political party is even considering the US merger "option"..

I agree lol "dollar" sounds good. It would be funny if we started saying : "dudee how much were those shoes?" "50 ameros..."

Yep. But like I said before, I could care less. Canada is a great nation and it should MUST stay sovereign

Those were the Articles of Confederation, I believe that the actual "US Constitution" overruled many of those motions

There is no doubt that they would take Canada.. Manifest Destiny all over again. Besides, we have lots of oil and lots of water - why not?

To me, I took peace as an internal thing. However, as someone said before, they are codependent

The Quebecois are Canadians, no doubt at all.. But the point is concerning the fact that they want to break up Canada

We might as well let a party run who wants to join the United States

I agree, Canadian citizenship isn't taken seriously enough by some people

No foooking way. This is CITIZEN right. If you want to vote, get off your lazy asses and become citizens.. Why not? Oh because you don't care about Canada enough? Then don't vote.. I cannot see my opinion changing, this is just absurd..

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..

A monetary union would be more desirable..

No "grandiose" wars as you put it.. But I do believe that we are entitled through WW1 and the like, if those wars are not grandiose enough for you then I don't know what to say.. We gained our sovereignty through evolution, I don't see how that is less valid than a "grand war". You say that Canada has no innovation and is populated by dim witted dullard? I hope that was just a joke.. Anyhow, the rest of your post I agree with however.. I doubt that a seceding province would be considered favourable by the international community. As the US did not want the Yugoslavian states to secede, the same applies to Canada. It is a lot more convenient to deal with a large single entity rather than various smaller ones. Also, yes, Canadian land belongs to Canada. If you want to secede, go somewhere else.

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