LesterDC

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

I am aware of these arguments... I would at least want a more proportional senate

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

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

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?

double posted... sorry

I do see where they are coming from.. Assuming the fact that 9/11 was a sincere attack on American soil, the NATO countries DO have an obligation to attack. 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..

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 .

Canada being part of NATO is not dodging the issue.. NATO is a pact and Canada is part of it. Not saying that I particularly agree with the decision, but I can see where he is coming from

NATO doesn't need UN sanctions.. NATO was made so that it could move freely from UN influence

it was a NATO motion.. Canada is part of NATO so...

The President can attack a country without congress if he wanted to

Not the same thing.. As I said, the 1999 bombing was a motion set forth by NATO. The Iraq war was set forth by .... Bush.. and god knows why..

Well the 1999 bombing was a NATO motion.. Iraq was something else..

hear hear

That is the difference between our systems.. The U.S. president has ultimate power.. If a dumb ass president (Bush) ends up in office, he has the ultimate power

Exactly, NAU would be waving good bye to Canadian sovereignty. Besides, if it was such a good idea, why not hold a vote on it?

The best name would probably be Canerdica.. The United Confederation of Canerdica, pronounced CAN EIR DEE KA Anyhow.. Canada has been in and out of crap before, we will pull through..

Why are we even having this argument..? Breaking up Canada? What..? Anyhow.. At most I would like to see two things: 1) Senate reform 2) Quebec signing the constitution EDIT: Constitution Act of 1982 There is no reason to break up this great nation

Yep. Economically, we are in better shape than the US..

more Canada and less America please

Sure, things aren't looking very good right now.. But you know what? We are a sovereign nation. We will see good times and bad times; merging with the United States is not the answer.. We have been around since 1867 and we have had our share of tough times - this is no different.

we could call it Canadica or Canarica lol.. The United Confederation of Canarica Go U.C.C.!

Ideally, it would be a good idea.. However, in reality, if this were to happen, say good bye to Canada, Canadian sovereignty and the Parliamentary system.

It isn't like Dion set a very high standard