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

[Slim MacSquinty]

Heres the article:

Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Enacted in 1778.

I will admit that I am unsure if subsequent ammendments may have nullified this article.

[bush_cheney2004]

I would recomend watching trailer park boys or keny vs spenny

Nope...never heard of those either. However, I do like a very cheesy production called "How It's Made" via our Discovery Channel / Science Channel cable group. We can always tell when a production comes out of Canada because the credits are plastered with the Mapleleaf and homage to government funding.

Edited December 1, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[LesterDC]

Heres the article:

Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Enacted in 1778.

I will admit that I am unsure if subsequent ammendments may have nullified this article.

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Correct...there is no such provision in the US Constitution.

New States

Articles: Admitted upon agreement of nine states (special exemption provided for Canada)

Constitution: Admitted upon agreement of Congress

http://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html

Edited December 1, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[LesterDC]

Correct...there is no such provision in the US Constitution.

New States

Articles: Admitted upon agreement of nine states (special exemption provided for Canada)

Constitution: Admitted upon agreement of Congress

http://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html

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

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Fine by me....but some of your fellow citizens keep stomping their separatist feet to get attention.

[Vancouverite]

The Constitution replaced the Articles, so Canada gets no special privileges. I wonder if Congress would admit Canada - would either the Republicans or Democrats oppose it?

[bush_cheney2004]

The Constitution replaced the Articles, so Canada gets no special privileges. I wonder if Congress would admit Canada - would either the Republicans or Democrats oppose it?

Yes....they would both oppose it....since they are Americans.

[Vancouverite]

Why would being American be tantamount to opposing Canada joining the US?

[LesterDC]

Fine by me....but some of your fellow citizens keep stomping their separatist feet to get attention.

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"..

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would being American be tantamount to opposing Canada joining the US?

It's a long story...going back to the late 1700's. Burning down Washington in 1814 didn't help either. The "loyalists" (who still hold the monachy near and dear), should just stay in Canada. Besides, Mexico has much better weather.

But for more practical reasons, let's start a fun list:

1) Treaties would have to be reconciled, as the US never ratified some of the crazy ass things that Canada has.

2) The Quebec thing would be problematic...no special treatment or official language foolishness down here.

3) US Federal code (laws) would not be acceptable to many Canadians....e.g. lots of jail time for dope!

4) Canada does not meet many US standards and vice-versa....more headaches / cost. We never went metric!

5) The Queen wouldn't like it.

[bush_cheney2004]

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"..

True...but what is this notion by even a small number of Canadians that nourishes such thinking? What gives them pause to even think that another sovereign would automatically accept such a proposal, let alone being entitled to it?

We've got people on this board who think they are almost "American" because their Uncle Frank lives in Toledo, Ohio.

[White Doors]

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 .

haha

WRONG. It was formed to be the bulwark against the Warsaw pact (heard of that?). It had nothing to do with the UN.

[LesterDC]

True...but what is this notion by even a small number of Canadians that nourishes such thinking? What gives them pause to even think that another sovereign would automatically accept such a proposal, let alone being entitled to it?

We've got people on this board who think they are almost "American" because their Uncle Frank lives in Toledo, Ohio.

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..

[LesterDC]

haha

WRONG. It was formed to be the bulwark against the Warsaw pact (heard of that?). It had nothing to do with the UN.

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

[LesterDC]

It's a long story...going back to the late 1700's. Burning down Washington in 1814 didn't help either. The "loyalists" (who still hold the monachy near and dear), should just stay in Canada. Besides, Mexico has much better weather.

But for more practical reasons, let's start a fun list:

1) Treaties would have to be reconciled, as the US never ratified some of the crazy ass things that Canada has.

2) The Quebec thing would be problematic...no special treatment or official language foolishness down here.

3) US Federal code (laws) would not be acceptable to many Canadians....e.g. lots of jail time for dope!

4) Canada does not meet many US standards and vice-versa....more headaches / cost. We never went metric!

5) The Queen wouldn't like it.

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

[White Doors]

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

uhh.. Yes, yes you are wrong. (and stubborn)

NATO was founded in order to provide a security structure against the threat of the Soviet Union for its 12 founding members; Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, and the United States. In addition, NATO’s European members wanted to ensure that the United States remained involved in European security. Over the past 53 years, NATO has enlarged four times. Greece and Turkey joined in 1952; the Federal Republic of Germany joined in 1955; Spain joined in 1982; and Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined in 1999. Seven nations were invited to join NATO at the Prague Summit in November, 2002, and their formal accession is pending ratification by the 19 current NATO members.

Note: Not one mention of the 'UN'

source: http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/17623.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

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

America is already getting that (with American capital investment, I might add)...no need to marry the cow when you're already getting the milk.

[LesterDC]

uhh.. Yes, yes you are wrong. (and stubborn)

Note: Not one mention of the 'UN'

source: http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/17623.htm

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.

[White Doors]

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.

cite?

[LesterDC]

cite?

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

[M.Dancer]

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..

NATO came into existence in 1949 and has everything to do with the Soviets, the blockade of Berlin and little to do with the fledgling UN.

[White Doors]

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

Surely you can provide a link?

I have.

[M.Dancer]

haha

WRONG. It was formed to be the bulwark against the Warsaw pact (heard of that?). It had nothing to do with the UN.

Ummm....wrong. Nato predate the Warsaw pact by 6 years....although NATO was in response to fears stoked by the Berlin Blockade, the crushing of Polish, Czeck, Hungarian democracy by the soviets.

[White Doors]

Ummm....wrong. Nato predate the Warsaw pact by 6 years....although NATO was in response to fears stoked by the Berlin Blockade, the crushing of Polish, Czeck, Hungarian democracy by the soviets.

Against the players that later became the Warsaw pact?