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

M.Dancer · December 1, 2008

Against the players that later became the Warsaw pact?

the Warsaw pact was One nation and it's slaves...

LesterDC · December 1, 2008

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.

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.

Surely you can provide a link?
I have.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Seize-the...e/9780886292171

http://www.amazon.com/Mike-memoirs-Honoura...n/dp/0802002544

LesterDC · December 1, 2008

the fledgling UN.

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.

LesterDC · December 1, 2008

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

Edited December 1, 2008 by LesterDC

M.Dancer · December 1, 2008

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

Ads for books aren't considered cites unless it's a question about whether a book exists or not

M.Dancer · December 1, 2008

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

There is no mutual defence pact in the UN. The UN was a part of the creation of NATO

LesterDC · December 1, 2008

Ads for books aren't considered cites unless it's a question about whether a book exists or not

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

M.Dancer · December 1, 2008

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

I would imagine if it is a common theory, you would be able to find more than a few site to back it up.

LesterDC · December 1, 2008

There is no mutual defence pact in the UN. The UN was a part of the creation of NATO

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

LesterDC · December 1, 2008

I would imagine if it is a common theory, you would be able to find more than a few site to back it up.

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..

White Doors · December 1, 2008

the Warsaw pact was One nation and it's slaves...

Irrelevant and off topic

M.Dancer · December 1, 2008

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..

Pearson wasn't central to NATO, if I recall correctly...

White Doors · December 1, 2008

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

On sale for $26.95, unfortunately that doesn't prove your assertion so I will have to assume that you give up.

LesterDC · December 1, 2008

Pearson wasn't central to NATO, if I recall correctly...

Oh but he was.. Canada, Britian and the USA were the "top players".. Arguably France as well..

Anyhow, the top Canadian diplomats involved in this were Pearson (naturally, since he was the Sec. of State at the time), Escott Reid, Hume Wrong.. and of course St. Laurent was quite vital as well, he being Prime Minister and allowing the diplomats to freely do their work

On the American side, you had people like Dean Acheson, Truman, Kennan, Marshall, Vandenberg

The Brits had Gladwyn Jebb, Ernst Bevin

and more..

LesterDC · December 1, 2008

On sale for $26.95, unfortunately that doesn't prove your assertion so I will have to assume that you give up.

I got the book, pages 28 to 47 explicitly talks about what we are talking about.. On top of that, references are all over the book.. Beats your paragraph of broad info

M.Dancer · December 1, 2008

I got the book, pages 28 to 47 explicitly talks about what we are talking about.. On top of that, references are all over the book.. Beats your paragraph of broad info

ummm.....no it doesn't.

LesterDC · December 3, 2008

Ah well... I dug something up that will shed some light on this matter..

http://www.nato.int/archives/1st5years/chapters/1.htm

well what do you know, from NATO.int itself.. This is a good and thorough history of NATO. This is the difference between a broad paragraph of history and a good couple of pages:

Key quotes:

On the security council: "The Charter was founded on two assumptions. First, that the five Powers holding permanent seats in the Security Council - China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union - would be able to reach lasting agreement on major matter " then, "were again faced by another peril, coming this time from Communist Russia. "

Failure through the U.N.: "The Western Powers, remembering the splendid fighting qualities of the Red Army and the sufferings of the Soviet people at the hands of the Nazi invaders, went to the very limit of conciliation in their efforts to reach an accommodation with the Soviet Government, and to make the United Nations an effective instrument for the preservation of world peace. They met with nothing but obstruction."

Already quoted before, but here it is again: Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in September, 1947, Mr. St. Laurent expressed the concern of the peace-loving nations at the inability of the Security Council to ensure their protection. 'If forced', he said, 'these nations may seek greater safety in an association of democratic and peace-loving states willing to accept more specific international obligations in return for a greater measure of national security".

So therefore, while NATO was based off of U.N. principles (collective security, order and what the NATO charter called the "framework"), it was created due to the disappointment and inability of the U.N. (security council, ineffectiveness). If the U.N. proved to be effective with western terms, then there would have been no reason to create NATO.

Topaz · December 3, 2008

We've all heard about the NAU and the only reason it hasn't exceeded as yet is the internet allowing both Canadians and Americans to know what their government are planning in the near future. I for one, would be against it. The US has too many social problems, too many guns and too many nut cases with guns! They have too much debt and I, as a Canadian rather stay Canadian even though the militaries of these two countries are coming together. The thought that Jed Bush is now thinking of running for senate and then perhap the White House, NO THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

M.Dancer · December 3, 2008

We've all heard about the NAU ...

from kooks and wingnuts

and the only reason it hasn't exceeded as yet is the internet allowing both Canadians and Americans to know what their government are planning in the near future.

But mainly because it doesn't exist and isn't planned.

I for one, would be against it.

Yet, you are one of its biggest promoters...who else talks about it, something that doesn't exist?

bush_cheney2004 · December 3, 2008

....The US has too many social problems, too many guns and too many nut cases with guns! They have too much debt and I, as a Canadian rather stay Canadian even though the militaries of these two countries are coming together....

I agree...you can enjoy plenty of social problems, guns, and debt just by staying in Canada.

Just no Stanley Cup! :lol:

Vancouverite · December 4, 2008

Bush Cheney,

I'm curious - why're you here? This is a forum for Canadians, and, even though I don't think anyone would begrudge you coming here, you're apparently an American. Why are you here?

moderateamericain · December 4, 2008

Bush Cheney,
I'm curious - why're you here? This is a forum for Canadians, and, even though I don't think anyone would begrudge you coming here, you're apparently an American. Why are you here?

Who says its a Forum for only Canadians?

bush_cheney2004 · December 4, 2008

Bush Cheney,
I'm curious - why're you here? This is a forum for Canadians, and, even though I don't think anyone would begrudge you coming here, you're apparently an American. Why are you here?

Lots of reasons....but mostly for my own entertainment.

I can be the Ugly American you love to hate (but need as a foil to define a Canadian "identity"), or I can be the unforgiving steel fist in a velvet glove that represents the raw arrogance of a hegemon, or I can be the pesky mirror that reflects your own domestic and international foibles even as venom is spit America's way, or I can be the ignorant American trying to become more informed about Canada, or I can be.....

I started out at the now defunct CBC forums (boy, that was fun, huh jbg?), then it was on to Politics Canada (hope the webmaster is OK), and finally landed here at MLW. This is a good board, moderated with fairness and a light hand, and inviting of all comers.

So why are you here...just because you're a Canadian? Does this mean you never use Google or Yahoo?

PS: If your question was prompted by my smarmy reply to Topaz, then all is well.

Edited December 4, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

M.Dancer · December 4, 2008

He is here because he amuses.....

...himself....

...and us (me)...

Vancouverite · December 5, 2008

Don't get me wrong - I have no say in who comes or leaves here. I'm just curious as to why an American would be so interested in Canadian affairs, that's all.