Canada should renounce democracy

[bush_cheney2004]

46 minutes ago, paxrom said:

More or less true and I might add it ties our economies and dependency on one another, strengthening that bond and need for a collective defense.

 

OK, but Canada (and Mexico) get far more out of the relationship while contributing far less.

Canada gets access to the largest market/economy in the world...but is less than California's in return.

Canada can continue being not just a NATO deadbeat, but also a research and development deadbeat, worker productivity deadbeat, IP theft deadbeat, etc.

Democracy in Canada seems to mean continuing the same old love-hate relationship....LOVE the American economy and innovation...HATE American foreign/domestic policies.

[paxamericana]

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

WTF.... 

 

He's adopted the isolationist/stick your head in the sand policy.

[Army Guy]

Why is it Canadians get all prissy and upset when Americans confront them on there faults, Faults I might add they proudly wear on their chests for some reason...., they share these faults at the supper table, at the bar or get togethers with friends, online in front of thousands....

 

[paxamericana]

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK, but Canada (and Mexico) get far more out of the relationship while contributing far less.

Canada gets access to the largest market/economy in the world...but is less than California's in return.

Canada can continue being not just a NATO deadbeat, but also a research and development deadbeat, worker productivity deadbeat, IP theft deadbeat, etc.

Democracy in Canada seems to mean continuing the same old love-hate relationship....LOVE the American economy and innovation...HATE American foreign/domestic policies.

Yup a complete rip off to us. Needs to be free trade across the board.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, paxrom said:

Yup a complete rip off to us. Needs to be free trade across the board.

 

I don't blame Canada/Canadians for trying to continue the status quo, but it is quite silly to pretend that "friends" should just accept it.

[turningrite]

6 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Actually, if Canada were to be invaded, it would be by the US. Highly unlikely. But, hypothetically, as a member of NATO, (who had a major role in the liberation of Europe) Canada has the right to call on NATO, including the nuclear forces of the UK and France, to come to our aid. (Again, unlikely)

If the US invaded Canada, the President would be impeached because our most faithful ally would be the wonderful people of the United States and they would never stand for it. 

Inspite of the fact we are not able to meet the unrealistic standards requested by President Trump, it is important that we do as much as we can. The problem is, the US government has greatly over-estimated it's own requirements. They do not need such an enormous force that is draining its own treasure.

The U.S. could invade Canada in about half an hour if it really wanted to do so and there would be nothing we could do about it no matter the extent of our alliances or the size of our military budget. Nobody would come to our aid. Only international condemnation might rein in the Americans. Your last paragraph is particularly apt. This week, I listened to an American analyst point out that a large proportion of the U.S. military budget isn't used to support alliances but instead is discretionary and is used to meet specific American strategic objectives. U.S. support of NATO is a minor component of its military budget, but Trump apparently hopes his base won't figure that out. Better to bellow and look like he's being strong.

The troubling part is that one has to believe Trump has his own military adventures in mind. News reports today indicate that he repeatedly raised with his advisors and others the possibility of initiating military action against Venezuela. This is truly scary and illustrates the hypocrisy in much of his rhetoric. Maybe America's allies are doing both Americans and the world a huge favor if they refuse to permit Trump sufficient budgetary flexibility to behave as an uncontrollable tyrant. 

 

[turningrite]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

WTF.... 

 

Do you have a more constructive and/or intelligent idea to offer?

[bush_cheney2004]

Canadian democracy has already chosen to be "invaded" by the United States in so many ways it is difficult to count.  

 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

...The troubling part is that one has to believe Trump has his own military adventures in mind. News reports today indicate that he repeatedly raised with his advisors and others the possibility of initiating military action against Venezuela. This is truly scary and illustrates the hypocrisy in much of his rhetoric. Maybe America's allies are doing both Americans and the world a huge favor if they refuse to permit Trump sufficient budgetary flexibility to behave as an uncontrollable tyrant. 

 

 

If Trump be a "tyrant" for such things, then so are many previous presidents  and prime ministers.

[paxamericana]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

The U.S. could invade Canada in about half an hour if it really wanted to do so and there would be nothing we could do about it no matter the extent of our alliances or the size of our military budget. Nobody would come to our aid. Only international condemnation might rein in the Americans. Your last paragraph is particularly apt. This week, I listened to an American analyst point out that a large proportion of the U.S. military budget isn't used to support alliances but instead is discretionary and is used to meet specific American strategic objectives. U.S. support of NATO is a minor component of its military budget, but Trump apparently hopes his base won't figure that out. Better to bellow and look like he's being strong.

The troubling part is that one has to believe Trump has his own military adventures in mind. News reports today indicate that he repeatedly raised with his advisors and others the possibility of initiating military action against Venezuela. This is truly scary and illustrates the hypocrisy in much of his rhetoric. Maybe America's allies are doing both Americans and the world a huge favor if they refuse to permit Trump sufficient budgetary flexibility to behave as an uncontrollable tyrant. 

 

America's security umbrella ties into NATO which deal mainly with Europe. But the strategic threat is not just in Europe its the entire world because the world's economy is connected. From Africa to Nova Scotia.... To say that we only spend on NATO is a misnomer, our entire budget takes care of the Indo pacific, the middle east, Africa, south america and the arctic circle. All of which 90 percent of commerce flow through.

What I'm saying is this, America's strategic interest is NATO's strategic interest. Sure we disagree on some specific items but by enlarge we all benefit from this security umbrella. One that your government has recognize and decided to commit to, so to give you credit, it has enhance defense spending. But the issue is that the spending level are no where near where they should be or promised. Not even in the next 10 years will you reach the target of 2 percent. This clearly show the lack of political will in defending your self. If all NATO state actually hit their target spending level then America can scale back on it's defense of Europe and redeploy to other areas that are needed like the Indo-pacific and in the future the Arctic circle with climate change opening up new resources and trade routes. This is how NATO is suppose to be. But it's not, currently America has to share the largest burden in every conflict theater. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by paxrom

[Altai]

Canada is not already a democracy. Its a dictatorship that invading native people's lands.

[Scott Mayers]

13 hours ago, paxrom said:

Freedom for Americans is cheaper if we don't have to defend you all.

"Freedom" for America is NOT "freedom" for those outside of America. You only need to 'defend' because you 'offend' outsiders when you treat the world as ONLY what is American. 

If you treated the rest of the world's members in the same way as you interpret yourself, you have better affect to improve circumstances at home. Note that America supported Canada's expense in military during the cold war ONLY to preserve American interests, not Canadian. The incidental nature of that to help Canadians is due to the TRADE-OFF you make to protect yourself. 

And note that your own particular view is only about a segregationist relative to the rest of the world. If you accept doing this, you have to expect that the rest of the world will demand you NOT have any fortunes outside of the borders of the U.S.. That is, you can't expect to exploit the rest of the world for you benefit but dump the losses on the other countries. 

Recent example: Setting up your "Target" stores up here in Canada by founding a 'Canadian' office, send up ONLY the inventory you want to dump but basing the impression of this 'legitimate' business as though identical in quality, then go bankrupt in OUR tax payers debt. This was used to 'save' your own country's company, "Target", by dumping its losses on us. 

This KIND of behavior is what you do and encourage (particularly by your political favor). And yet you act as though WE can't see the con? I have a heart for the United States. But only if and where the constitution there is extended in kind to all others reflectively. You can't expect to 'sell' the dream ONLY for your own and then complain that others demand doing whatever they can to GET THERE when your own arrogance is to forcefully use Military might to KEEP the outsiders failing in order for you to exploit its benefits. 

 

If you WANT to sincerely help others respect you, you have to TREAT them as you expect to be treated. And this IS why others are behaving this way. This logic is true of all other countries as well. But the only way we can get in sync is by breaking down borders, ...by HELPING other countries as though they were your own, not simply locking out those you also contribute to enhancing their own problems elsewhere to make yourself by contrast wealthier and more powerful.

[Queenmandy85]

In answer to the OP, I have to ask how our Constitutional Monarchy within a Parliamentry system is threatened? Whether the US wishes to defend us or not has no bearing on the fact that the only country that could take us over is the US. The US has no interest in taking over Canada. 

Canada used to be a nuclear armed state...at the insistance of the US. We opted out of that role. However, we could re-arm with nuclear weapons fairly quickly and inexpensively, should the need arise. We were an integral participant in the Manhatten Project. We would not have to go through the developement process. We already have the infrastructure to become a nuclear power. It doesn't take hundreds of nuclear weapons to destroy an enemy. A half dozen detonations could even cripple the US. A dozen would effectively destroy the US as a functioning country. Of course, any nation actually taking that course would also be destroyed. MAD.

So we don't need the US to protect us.

[Queenmandy85]

 

8 hours ago, paxrom said:

To say that we only spend on NATO is a misnomer, our entire budget takes care of the Indo pacific, the middle east, Africa, south america and the arctic circle.

Why is the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific etc., a US, British, or French  problem?  The United States has been put in a position where they believe they have to fix all the world's problems. It is a noble cause but often people resent outsiders coming in and telling them how to live, much like people in Texas might resent a team of liberals from New York coming into the state to tell them how to live. It is a difficult question because there are many situations where people suffer without aid. The complicating factors are the Russians and Chinese do not enter into these actions with a noble cause in mind.

So often, we tend to back the wrong side. Syria is a prime example. Before the Arab Spring, President Assad enjoyed significant popularity. Why did we back the opposition? Rather than over throw Saddam, we could have bought him for a tiny percentage of the cost of the invasion, to say nothing of the casualties.

In the past, with regard to the Middle East, I've heard officials say we need to protect 'our' oil. Well, it isn't 'our ' oil. It belongs to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq etc. We can try to buy it but we don't have the right to insist.

These are difficult questions and I doubt any of us in this Forum have the answers. Besides, this is a Canadian forum and it is beyond presumptious for me, as as a Canadian, to tell the US how to conduct their lives. As Bush-Cheney correctly pointed out, just because we are 'polite' doesn't mean we are not hypocritical.

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[GostHacked]

14 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Why is it Canadians get all prissy and upset when Americans confront them on there faults, Faults I might add they proudly wear on their chests for some reason...., they share these faults at the supper table, at the bar or get togethers with friends, online in front of thousands....

 

For a couple members here they simply 'Canada' as a default trolling tactic.

[GostHacked]

5 hours ago, Altai said:

Canada is not already a democracy. Its a dictatorship that invading native people's lands.

Technically it is a constitutional monarchy.  Trudeau is no dictator, he's a weak boy.

[Queenmandy85]

6 hours ago, Altai said:

Canada is not already a democracy. Its a dictatorship that invading native people's lands.

Sadly, everybody invades other people's lands. The beaker people invaded Britain. The Blackfeet mercilessly hammered the Ktunaxa in what is now south-western Alberta for four centuries, finally driving them out into south-eastern BC. The Shushwap and the Siniext invaded each other's territories for centuries. Turkey conquered a vast empire. Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, India, China Japan, Zimbabwie, Egypt, all had empires.None of us can claim to be without blame.

Trudeau is not a dictator. Like all members of the Ministry, he was appointed by the Crown based on his having the confidence of Parliament and the Crown.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[turningrite]

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

If Trump be a "tyrant" for such things, then so are many previous presidents  and prime ministers.

There certainly have been presidents who've engaged in foreign military adventurism. But Canadian Prime Ministers? Hmmm, I'll have to think hard to come up with an example.

[turningrite]

9 hours ago, paxrom said:

What I'm saying is this, America's strategic interest is NATO's strategic interest. Sure we disagree on some specific items but by enlarge we all benefit from this security umbrella. One that your government has recognize and decided to commit to, so to give you credit, it has enhance defense spending. But the issue is that the spending level are no where near where they should be or promised. Not even in the next 10 years will you reach the target of 2 percent. This clearly show the lack of political will in defending your self. If all NATO state actually hit their target spending level then America can scale back on it's defense of Europe and redeploy to other areas that are needed like the Indo-pacific and in the future the Arctic circle with climate change opening up new resources and trade routes. This is how NATO is suppose to be. But it's not, currently America has to share the largest burden in every conflict theater. 

As I've argued in other posts, as the U.S. is our only natural enemy and one we couldn't stop in any case Canada has no strategic need of a military at all, other perhaps than for civil defense and patrolling our coastlines. The U.S. has engaged in military initiatives that have undermined Western security. Many see the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda as responses to U.S. foreign and military policy. Interestingly, the U.S. backed and armed the Taliban during the years when the Soviet Union was attempting to thwart Islamic insurgencies in the region. How did that work out? And Bush II's invasion of Iraq, intended to achieve regime change, was a total disaster, ultimately contributing to the creation of ISIS/ISIL and further destabilization of the entire region. Continental Europe, in particular, is now paying a heavy price for this in its migrant crisis. You can't fault Europeans if they wonder whether the American alliance has done them more harm than good. The post WWII NATO system was set up to discourage Soviet expansionism and aggression. Since 1989, however, its usefulness has been questionable. The former Soviet-bloc countries that are now NATO members no doubt want to maintain the American security umbrella. If this is important to the U.S., these countries should negotiate their own arrangements with Washington either individually or collectively.

[Altai]

59 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Technically it is a constitutional monarchy.  Trudeau is no dictator, he's a weak boy.

Technically its a dictatorship claiming of being a democracy. Invading native lands, systematically reducing native population and playing "democracy game". 

[GostHacked]

46 minutes ago, Altai said:

Technically its a dictatorship claiming of being a democracy. Invading native lands, systematically reducing native population and playing "democracy game". 

Dictators rule for decades, (s)elected leaders have term limits.  Erdogan is more of a dictator at this point considering all he has done to kill opposition in Turkey.  Canada did not invade these lands. The Brits did, as did France, Spain, and many other European nations.

[Zeitgeist]

You don't hear Canadians with United Empire Loyalist heritage lamenting the loss of their lands in the United States during the American Revolution.  We understand that up until the peace following WW2, it was common practice for countries to invade other countries.  Wars were fought, land was lost, people died.  It wasn't good.  There were some just wars that took place to fend off invaders.  The reason we have the U.N. and NATO is to stabilize borders and prevent the kind of misuse of power that allowed tyrants to steal and dominate people.  We can't afford to let that system collapse, especially as there are new powers on the block who have demonstrated malevolence very recently.  Now it's up to countries and both local and international organizations to enhance human development.  It's fine for countries to prioritize the needs of their own peoples, but when leaders start using xenophobic language or talking about "winning" against other countries, we're returning to the language of empire and subjugation.  Empires have fallen in the past mostly because the home country couldn't manage its "possessions".  The British Empire saw the results in losing India, possessions in Africa, and of course the United States.  They eventually learned that it was in the Empire's interests to allow self-rule and to strengthen mutually beneficial partnerships with Commonwealth partners.  That's the arrangement with countries like Canada and Australia.  It's a kind of symbolic empire now.  Canada has the Queen as a figurehead leader whose position is simply to ensure that parliament reflects the will of the people.  In fact we have a Canadian Governor General who plays this role.  It's simply too draining to try to run other countries, risk mismanaging them, and deal with the public backlash.  It's in everyone's interests for countries to be governed democratically, by the people, for the people. 

I will say this: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects minority interests.  Minority groups such as French-Canadians and indigenous peoples have a much better chance of having their interests represented in a democratic Canada than they would ruled by an outside power such as the United States, the land of Manifest Destiny and Wounded Knee.  There was actually an attempt in the 19th Century by the British, Six Nations, and Tecumseh to create an Indian territory in the Ohio Valley, but the Americans shut that down.  If Americans are so oblivious to mainstream Canadian interests, what makes you think they would be any more empathetic to Indigenous interests?  Would they provide government services in French for Quebecers?  That's why after the Americans invaded Montreal during the Revolution, Quebecers said no thanks to being subsumed within the U.S..  They knew where they would stand.

I say all of this because some of the threads on here are tabling the idea of U.S. invasion/annexation of Canada.  The interesting thing is, there are merits to the idea of Canada joining the U.S. and in fact this option is written in the U.S. constitution as an option available to Canada.  I know that's a new thread.  There would be one definite advantage: the ability of members to live and work anywhere in the U.S. and Canada.  The disadvantages for Canada: free flow of weapons from a country with poor gun control, cultural dominance, and having to accept the "other side of the tracks" mentality that simply writes off a segment of society.  I like the safety of Canadian cities and not feeling like I have to live in a gated community.  We don't have the same economic disparity as the U.S..  We're not as polarized.  Americans might want to "take over" Canada at some point, but then they'd bear the burden of managing it.  Good luck with that, not that Americans or America's allies would accept a takeover.  Instead, it might be in the U.S.'s interests to strike a union with Canada.  The result would be the creation of a larger economic block with a ton of resources and more choices for the citizens of both countries, which could adopt each other's strengths. 

No matter what happens, as Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst political system, except for all the others."  Any system other than democracy requires disempowering the populace and accepting the unchecked whims of a leader or group of leaders.  It's extremely dangerous and hasn't worked historically.  The only reason China has thrived is because of its liberalizing reforms which are more democratic than what existed before.

[Jimwd]

On 7/4/2018 at 12:37 PM, paxrom said:

You're probably not well read on geo-politics but let me attempt to dissect the mis-information.

Trump's agenda is controversial not because of his purpose but because of how he tries to achieve said purpose, which by the way, is for the benefit of the free world. 

1) We need to clean up our trading system and adopt true free trade to make up for the higher increase military spending. 

2) NK and Venez is part of our maximum pressure campaign. Which if anything did bear fruit at getting the Koreans to the negotiating table, allowing our diplomat to negotiate from a position of strength (You have to be ready for war and win). What remains of the summit is yet to be determined. 

3) His criticism of NATO is not unfounded, previous administration including Obama has voiced their concerns, trump just isn't that diplomatic about it, a fair assessment.

The Koreans have been trying to get at the table for decades. Only trump fell for the con,

[Jimwd]

21 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I cannot argue with that. I have to admit you are absolutely right. 

Most trump Americans don’t even know where Canada is never mind whether they have an opinion, these aren’t exactly intellectuals.

[bush_cheney2004]

6 hours ago, turningrite said:

There certainly have been presidents who've engaged in foreign military adventurism. But Canadian Prime Ministers? Hmmm, I'll have to think hard to come up with an example.

 

No need to think very hard about it....

Example 1:  Chretien bombed a sovereign nation during the Kosovo War (1999) without "democracy" [no vote in Parliament].

Example 2:  Chretien/Martin conspired to overthrow the elected president of Haiti (2004) using military force [no vote in Parliament].