Army Guy Posted September 20, 2012 Report Posted September 20, 2012 well you'll have to cede the others as well...the USSR was dissolved in a democratic vote by the Congress of People's Deputies in december of 1991, any violence(very little) afterward was due to disputes within the new republics between groups vying for power, Russia did nothing violent to prevent the breakup... this is how it is done when adults do it logically...why would I care to explain those breakups that didn't end peacefully? your point was they never do and clearly they do, at least 16 times... Your right , why would you care to explain anything, and in your mind it did end in just a vote with no deaths or military action. But history records a very different version and it did not start with and end with a vote. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted September 20, 2012 Report Posted September 20, 2012 I was under the impression secessionist leaders never believed Canada would use it's military force (against one that doesn't exist save the off chance of a quebec militaries defection???). Well During the last ref , the Bloc party had recieved a positive response from a small percentage of French speaking Canadian forces pers saying they would except a position in Quebecs new military, That and Quebecs reserve forces which far out number the Reg force and would likly adapt to also forming part of Quebecs forces. The numbers were enough to cause some concern in the federal government. Also there are police forces, other para military forces that Quebec could draw numbers from. If Chrétien took some planes and other military assets out of Québec, it wasn't out of fear of them using them to counterstrike, it was out of fear of them being using as leverage for asset transfer during negociations, as in "we think we should get 25% of all federal assets, we'll keep the planes until we come up with a deal". Taking the equipment out of Quebec, along with their crews was to ensure A) as you stated they could not be used as leverage, but also to deny them use to Quebec B)and any of it's crew jumping ship and joining the other side....IE getting a F-18 pilot is not much good unless he has a plane to fly....Having them down in the states detered all that, Crietien also mentioned in his book that had Quebec separated the states would quarintine the A/C, and crew... Quebec has plenty of assets that could be used as leverage without using the military .But coming up with people who want to fight has never been a issue always plenty of them , normally people who have not been trained or seen combat. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Wild Bill Posted September 20, 2012 Report Posted September 20, 2012 I could imagine Quebec as something similar... perhaps in lieu of actual separation... "Sovereignty association" they called it in the previous referendum. Sounds like the deal that Quebec has been steadily achieving already - independence without calling it that! What would TROC get out of such an arrangement? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
wyly Posted September 20, 2012 Report Posted September 20, 2012 Your right , why would you care to explain anything, and in your mind it did end in just a vote with no deaths or military action. But history records a very different version and it did not start with and end with a vote. why? because I addressed a claim by you that there have been no peaceful separations...Army Guy, on 18 September 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:maybe you can find the an example of separation that has gone good in the last years, and why Canada / Quebec is going to be the first.... then you wanted to move the goalposts to a different issue...This is what happens when men can't solve things like adults...and while you have listed one example that has ended without violence , care to take a stab at all those that did end in conflict.... sorry no, you were wrong live with it... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
The_Squid Posted September 20, 2012 Report Posted September 20, 2012 Sounds like the deal that Quebec has been steadily achieving already - independence without calling it that! What would TROC get out of such an arrangement? Regardless of what powers the Province has within Canada, they still are not a sovereign state, which is what separatists strive for. Why does TROC need to "get something"? I favour BC's interests without concern for how Ontario or PEI would benefit.... Quote
Wild Bill Posted September 20, 2012 Report Posted September 20, 2012 Why does TROC need to "get something"? I favour BC's interests without concern for how Ontario or PEI would benefit.... In any group, there has to be some sense of fairness. If too many members feel their job is to pay dues for the beer while other members get to drink it then the group will eventually breakup due to internal resentments. The issue in this thread is that many in TROC feel Quebec takes more than it gives. Even more, it also perpetually bitches about it! Even if this perception is wrong, it is very real. It will not go away by scolding people about it. The kind of arrangements for Quebec's wants you imply would only look to many in TROC as even more "Neville Chamberlain" arrangements, eventually allowing Quebec a high level of autonomy not shared by the other provinces and a fiscal imbalance accomplished with the taxes imposed on TROC citizens. Do you really think this would have widespread acceptance? When's the last time PEI removed the flag of Canada from their provincial legislature? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Benz Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 ...of separation that has gone good in the last years, and why Canada / Quebec is going to be the first.... Just to add at Wyly's list.. Canada, Australia, NZ got their independence from UK. I guess UK became humble after its defeat against the americans. The main reason why Canada will not take any military actions against Québec, it's because it has too much to lose and nothing to win. Plain and simple. If we can't get along, then for the sake of both of us, we are better off independents. If you think we could have an advantage to stick together, than stop trying to scare us with your pityful military that does not afraid us and let's build this thing together. Otherwise, keep your boogeyman stories for the kids. This what matters the most. What kind of union do we want and how to solve our differences? We are just two and yet we don't, the Europeans are above 20 and they manage to make it works despite the difficulties are much higher for so many reaons. Quote
Benz Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 I could imagine Quebec as something similar... perhaps in lieu of actual separation... "Sovereignty association" they called it in the previous referendum. Puerto Rico is not sovereign. It doesn't have the option to separate from the US without oblivion. When's the last time PEI removed the flag of Canada from their provincial legislature? Newfoundland did. Quote
Rocky Road Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 ... the Europeans are above 20 and they manage to make it works despite the difficulties are much higher for so many reaons. Do you think the failing project called the Euro is a model for Canada? Its a house of cards. Quote
Army Guy Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 why? because I addressed a claim by you that there have been no peaceful separations... Yes you were right once out of the 17 examples you provided , i think i already manned up and said so. you found the one example. but the list that did not end so well is 10 times. then you wanted to move the goalposts to a different issue... I was not trying to move the goal post , just refruting the other 16 examples you provided. but i guess you can't do that. sorry no, you were wrong live with it... your right i'm wrong, there was more than one that has ended without violence, But i already gave that to you serveral posts ago, my piont that i was trying to make here was they more often than not DO END in Violence. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jbg Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States is not like sovereignty association some Quebec sovereigntists desired. PR is completly subject to US sovereignty; its powers are delegated and controlled by Congress. For that relationship it takes two to tango. It was and is good for the U.S. because of PR's strategic location. Also, unless its admission to the Union is "paired" with a territory with contrary politics it would distort the balance of power in the Senate. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 Just to add at Wyly's list.. Canada, Australia, NZ got their independence from UK. I guess UK became humble after its defeat against the americans. Quite true. Britain found a way to preserve its influence over the former colonies, something it totally lost with the American Revolution. The dominions did not even gain foreign affairs powers until either 1931 or 1944, not sure. The main reason why Canada will not take any military actions against Québec, it's because it has too much to lose and nothing to win. Plain and simple. If we can't get along, then for the sake of both of us, we are better off independents. Three glaring omissions from that happy nonsense: The rights of English-speakers; The rights of immigrant "allophones"; and The rights of First Nations. I would expect all of those to prefer rights of Canadians to some amorphous set of rights that Assemblie National may wish to grant them. There are many people alive at the start of the French Revolution who didn't do so well after. If you think we could have an advantage to stick together, than stop trying to scare us with your pityful military that does not afraid us and let's build this thing together. Otherwise, keep your boogeyman stories for the kids.This what matters the most. What kind of union do we want and how to solve our differences? We are just two and yet we don't, the Europeans are above 20 and they manage to make it works despite the difficulties are much higher for so many reaons. Not sure I follow. And not sure the EU is working out so well. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
g_bambino Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) For that relationship it takes two to tango. It was and is good for the U.S. because of PR's strategic location. Also, unless its admission to the Union is "paired" with a territory with contrary politics it would distort the balance of power in the Senate. All perhaps true. But, I think Puerto Rico was raised in the context of a discussion about how Quebec could have a different place within Canadian federation as an example of a jurisdiction within a federation that isn't akin to a Canadian province. It's not a good example, though, since PR is more like a Canadian terrtory, which would be a near total loss of sovereignty for Quebec. [ed.: c/e] Edited September 21, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
g_bambino Posted September 21, 2012 Report Posted September 21, 2012 The dominions did not even gain foreign affairs powers until either 1931 or 1944, not sure. It was different for each Dominion. Canada had already set up an envoy to the United States by 1927. Quote
Benz Posted September 22, 2012 Report Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) Three glaring omissions from that happy nonsense: The rights of English-speakers; The rights of immigrant "allophones"; and The rights of First Nations. The rights of englishs-speakers are totally respected and the english-canada should look at itself regarding the rights of the minorities. We will always take care and respect our anglos better than you do with your francos. Regarding the first nations, one phrase. Paix des braves. We are the first one in north america to recognize them, nation-to-nation since the last nation fell under the control of a federal government. Immigrants are just fine. Otherwise they would continue to move anywhere else in north american. I would expect all of those to prefer rights of Canadians to some amorphous set of rights that Assemblie National may wish to grant them. There are many people alive at the start of the French Revolution who didn't do so well after.It's because you don't allow us to have a say on the canadian rights that we are forced to rely only on the national assembly. Share the ownership of the constitution and the word seperation will not be heard outside of marital disputes.Not sure I follow. And not sure the EU is working out so well. EU is having several difficulties. So many different nations with different cultures. It's definitly not an easy one. Neverthenless, they all have the will to make it work and respect each other's voice to the constitution. Politically, they progress, we decline. The only threat lies in the economical distress of some members. It's a big one, but besides that, I dare you to convince the Europeans they are not doing the right thing by supporting the union. If we compare our context to their's, we have absolutly no justification to be that divided.Only residual stubborness of the former british empire refrains you to look at the truth. The nations of Canada don't want to be melted into an english canadian model. We want a plural model. I want to be a canadian in the same perspective that a french, or a british, or a german is a european. Edited September 22, 2012 by Benz Quote
wyly Posted September 22, 2012 Report Posted September 22, 2012 (edited) Just to add at Wyly's list.. Canada, Australia, NZ got their independence from UK. I guess UK became humble after its defeat against the americans. DOH! how did I miss those sometimes the answer can be right in front of you and you still miss it...I'm not going to bother checking but i imagine there still many other commonwealth countries that did the same... Edited September 22, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
BlackShades Posted September 22, 2012 Report Posted September 22, 2012 I suppose those of you who defend Quebec's right to secede also believe in the right of the "League of the South" to secede? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South Or is it only ok to be racist if you are the majority, or you have a different language, or you're socially "progressive"? No one has right to land but reasonable society will provide space for people to peacefully coexist. The conditions of that coexistence in a free democratic society entail freedom of choice in the laws that one is ruled by, otherwise freedom fails to exist. The conditions imposed by territorial nationstates ought be clear, we share the planet earth our rule is our own, and society is common agreement not suppression of liberty. Quote
jbg Posted September 23, 2012 Report Posted September 23, 2012 The rights of englishs-speakers are totally respected and the english-canada should look at itself regarding the rights of the minorities. We will always take care and respect our anglos better than you do with your francos.So well that the highway signs used to be bilingual in such areas as Montreal and are now French-only. Self-defeating as well as discriminatory and stupid. In most of the rest of Canada, the French pockets, such as Boniface in Winnipeg, I hear have either signs in both languages or in French.Regarding the first nations, one phrase. Paix des braves. We are the first one in north america to recognize them, nation-to-nation since the last nation fell under the control of a federal government.I understand they don't want to deal with an independent Quebec.Immigrants are just fine. Otherwise they would continue to move anywhere else in north american."Continue to" is the operative phrase.It's because you don't allow us to have a say on the canadian rights that we are forced to rely only on the national assembly. Share the ownership of the constitution and the word seperation will not be heard outside of marital disputes.Quebec decided not to participate in the Charter negotiations. You snooze you lose.EU is having several difficulties. So many different nations with different cultures. It's definitly not an easy one. Neverthenless, they all have the will to make it work and respect each other's voice to the constitution. Politically, they progress, we decline. The only threat lies in the economical distress of some members. It's a big one, but besides that, I dare you to convince the Europeans they are not doing the right thing by supporting the union.Again the EU is a fiasco. No one wants to admit that and risk an economic depression. If we compare our context to their's, we have absolutly no justification to be that divided.Only residual stubborness of the former british empire refrains you to look at the truth. The nations of Canada don't want to be melted into an english canadian model. We want a plural model. I want to be a canadian in the same perspective that a french, or a british, or a german is a european. A bit of schizophrenic reasoning, eh? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
g_bambino Posted September 24, 2012 Report Posted September 24, 2012 The rights of englishs-speakers are totally respected... Is there another province in this country with a law that forces people to speak a certain language or businesses to have their signs in the same? Quote
g_bambino Posted September 24, 2012 Report Posted September 24, 2012 Quebec decided not to participate in the Charter negotiations. And yet separatist governments have gladly used its provisions when they suit. Quote
Wild Bill Posted September 24, 2012 Report Posted September 24, 2012 Is there another province in this country with a law that forces people to speak a certain language or businesses to have their signs in the same? "Mon dieu! Look at the name on that store sign! There's...an apostrophe!" Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
bleeding heart Posted September 24, 2012 Report Posted September 24, 2012 Is there another province in this country with a law that forces people to speak a certain language or businesses to have their signs in the same? Not to my knowledge. In fact, I live in the officially bilingual province; and government bilingual signs aside (which makes perfect sense here, anyway)...no, certainly not. The majority of businesses have English-only signs (and in the East and the North, some have French-only signs, though these are relatively rare). Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
kraychik Posted September 24, 2012 Report Posted September 24, 2012 Your right , why would you care to explain anything, and in your mind it did end in just a vote with no deaths or military action. But history records a very different version and it did not start with and end with a vote. Exactly, although with respect I think you could have articulated your point a little better. What wyly doesn't understand was that the former Soviet Union was built on the millions of slaves who were consumed in its prison network. He thinks we only need to count those killed/murdered after the 1991 "democratic vote". Like you said, the history of the Soviet Union's collapse didn't begin and end in 1991, as wyly would lead us to believe. Wyly's assertion that the Soviet Union collapsed "peacefully" is absurd. Quote
cybercoma Posted September 24, 2012 Report Posted September 24, 2012 Not to my knowledge. In fact, I live in the officially bilingual province; and government bilingual signs aside (which makes perfect sense here, anyway)...no, certainly not. The majority of businesses have English-only signs (and in the East and the North, some have French-only signs, though these are relatively rare). Dieppe was going to require signs to be in both English and French, equal size, at one point. What happened there? Quote
Army Guy Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 Kraykrik: Exactly, although with respect I think you could have articulated your point a little better. What wyly doesn't understand was that the former Soviet Union was built on the millions of slaves who were consumed in its prison network. He thinks we only need to count those killed/murdered after the 1991 "democratic vote". Like you said, the history of the Soviet Union's collapse didn't begin and end in 1991, as wyly would lead us to believe. Wyly's assertion that the Soviet Union collapsed "peacefully" is absurd. Your absolutly right , i could have done a much better job at trying to get my piont across. That being said i got tired of doing just that, as Wyle was not interested in any of the main issue asides from proving my intial statement false which he did quit well.... After that it was well like beating a dead horse to which i gave up.. And i do hope Canada can resolve all our issues peacefully, but history has shown us that is not the case in the majority of these separations, I personally believe that i won't be possiable unless Quebec can make it's demands reasonable and vice versa. And i know that the only current demands we have were ones that were being discussed during the last ref vote, and these had caused some interesting reactions amoungst the Crietien Government but how revelent they are today who knows. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.