Should Canada suspend relations with China?

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada really only has one significant alliance, under the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement and associated Five Eyes

Canada cannot have any significant allies beyond Five Eyes, because the Americans determine who has access to Five Eyes operations, thus Five Eyes is the only alliance which binds you, but it binds you with an iron fist none the less.

Five eyes is a common surveillance infrastructure.  To claim somehow that this is our only alliance is ridiculous.  Heard of the Commonwealth?  How about CETA?  Oh yeah and NATO, USMCA, Francophonie, our free trade agreement with Chile, etc.  

[Zeitgeist]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada really only has one significant alliance, under the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement and associated Five Eyes

Canada cannot have any significant allies beyond Five Eyes, because the Americans determine who has access to Five Eyes operations, thus Five Eyes is the only alliance which binds you, but it binds you with an iron fist none the less.

An iron fist?  You’ve been listening to too much Pompeo. We have our own military and I don’t see American military up here. 

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You clearly don’t understand Canadian history.  That’s like saying the UK isn’t a Canadian ally. 

The Queen you claim to support speaks perfect French and the coat of arms of Britain has French in it, like Canada’s.  Integrated since 1066. 

The origin of the British Westminster Parliamentary Democracy and associated Parliamentary Supremacy, otherwise known as the first modern liberal state, does not date from Hastings, but rather the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and HM King William of Orange

While France is not a sifnificant Canadian ally and not an ally at all beyond NATO Article V,  the United Kingdom is a significant ally, as a member of Five Eyes under UKUSA

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

The origin of the British Westminster Parliamentary Democracy and associated Parliamentary Supremacy, otherwise known as the first modern liberal state, does not date from Hastings, but rather the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and HM King William of Orange

While France is not a sifnificant Canadian ally and not an ally at all beyond NATO Article V,  the United Kingdom is a significant ally, as a member of Five Eyes under UKUSA

The UK is a significant ally with or without Five Eyes. 

[Dougie93]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

The UK is a significant ally with or without Five Eyes. 

Only under NATO Article V, the British are actually no longer under any further obligation to defend Canada.

The only other significant alliance to Canada above Five Eyes, is the bilateral Continental Defense and Security Agreement to include NORAD, with the Americans.

[turningrite]

34 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada really only has one significant alliance, under the United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement and associated Five Eyes

Canada cannot have any significant allies beyond Five Eyes, because the Americans determine who has access to Five Eyes operations, thus Five Eyes is the only alliance which binds you, but it binds you with an iron fist none the less.

Do you want to read a story about the kind of "iron fist" China is now exerting on its economic underlings? If you do, you might want to research Ecuador's recent experience in dealing with China. It's a fascinating story that should serve as a cautionary tale to people who think China's global ambitions and practices are more enlightened than are or have been America's.

Edited January 13, 2019 by turningrite

[Zeitgeist]

24 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Only under NATO Article V, the British are actually no longer under any further obligation to defend Canada.

The only other significant alliance to Canada above Five Eyes, is the bilateral Continental Defense and Security Agreement to include NORAD, with the Americans.

Buddy, the world doesn’t only care about military.  There’s such a thing as foreign relations, cultural connections, trade deals,  UN resolutions, charters, etc.  It always comes back to relationships.  Many people in Canada have family in Britain and the rest of Europe, Asia, the US, South America. I actually see far more Spanish speaking immigration these days.  Apart from the cultural mosaic of Canada, we all live in a Global Village and the electric environment.  We can be in many far off places instantly.  This is 50 years ago shit. The world has changed vastly.  Nation states are important mostly for the rights, security, prosperity, health, and overall quality of life they provide, and this varies within states by region or city region, which can be international, like Cascadia.

Edited January 13, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, turningrite said:

Do you want to read a story about the kind of "iron fist" China is now exerting on its economic underlings? If you do, you might want to research Ecuador's recent experience in dealing with China. It's a fascinating story that should serve as a cautionary tale to people who think China's global ambitions and practices are more enlightened than are or have been America's.

Well yes, it’s concerning. China is also making massive inroads in Africa.  

[Dougie93]

Just now, turningrite said:

Do you want to read a story about the kind of "iron fist" China is now exerting on its economic underlings? If you do, you might want about Ecuador's experience with China. It's a fascinating story that should serve as a cautionary tale to people who think China's global ambitions and practices are more enlightened than are or have been America's.

Oh I'm aware of the corrosive nature of interaction with communist dictatorships, but Canada is simply a no man's land between them and the American Hegemon, and as such Canada does not have the initiative in the face of Global Hegemons and is simply relying on Five Eyes to protect it.

[turningrite]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Oh I'm aware of the corrosive nature of interaction with communist dictatorships, but Canada is simply a no man's land between them and the American Hegemon, and as such Canada does not have the initiative in the face of Global Hegemons and is simply relying on Five Eyes to protect it.

If you have to pick between the global 'hegemons', which would you choose? Realistically, does Canada even have a choice? For better or worse, we're geographically, culturally and economically intertwined with our American neighbors. Better the devil you know...

Edited January 13, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Buddy, the world doesn’t only care about military.  There’s such a thing as foreign relations, cultural connections, trade deals,  UN resolutions, charters, etc.  It always comes back to relationships.  Many people in Canada have family in Britain and the rest of Europe, Asia, the US, South America. I actually see far more Spanish speaking immigration these days.  Apart from the cultural mosaic of Canada, we all live in a Global Village and the electric environment.  We can be in many far off places instantly.  This is 50 years ago shit. The world has changed vastly.  Nation states are important mostly for the rights, security, prosperity, health, and overall quality of life they provide, and this varies within states by region or city region, which cans be international, like Cascadia.

An alliance is de jure, if you invoke an alliance you must underpin the assertion by providing the document signed binding said alliance. 

Otherwise you're being speciously fallacious, as per usual. /shrugs

[Dougie93]

Just now, turningrite said:

If you have to pick between the global hegemons, which would you choose. Realistically, does Canada even have a choice? For better or worse, we're geographically, culturally and economically intertwined with our American neighbors. Better the devil you know...

Particularly when its not the devil but rather the freest most prosperous nation in the history of the world who defends us and props us up.

[Zeitgeist]

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

An alliance is de jure, if you invoke an alliance you must underpin the assertion by providing the document signed binding said alliance. 

Otherwise you're being speciously fallacious, as per usual. /shrugs

So you’re saying that the de facto cultural connections between Canada and the US are worthless, which is nonsense.  Just watch an NHL game or a Raptors game.  These relationships predate NAFTA or other rules that were set up to recognize the connections that exist.  My father immigrated from Britain to Canada simply because he wanted to.  There was no immigration filter.  As a result I can live and work in Britain though I was born in Canada. Ties run deep and outlast any politician’s/party’s meddling.  

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

So you’re saying that the de facto cultural connections between Canada and the US are worthless, which is nonsense.  Just watch an NHL game or a Raptors game.  These relationships predate NAFTA or other rules that were set up to recognize the connections that exist.  My father immigrated from Britain to Canada simply because he wanted to.  There was no immigration filter.  As a result I can live and work in Britain though I was born in Canada. Ties run deep and outlast any politician’s/party’s meddling.  

An alliance is by definition an union or association, in order to have that, there must be a founding document, any alliance without terms is no alliance at all, again, by definition.

[Zeitgeist]

18 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Particularly when its not the devil but rather the freest most prosperous nation in the history of the world who defends us and props us up.

Most Canadians prefer the way we run things up here.  The US is great but it has more socio-political-economic issues.   I’m sure many of your fellow American countrymen see the US as superior.  That’s fine.  Self determination.  You do you.  

Edited January 13, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

To wit; "ties run deep" is a specious and totally unsupported assertion with no logical underpinning and thus a glaring fallacy on the face of it.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Most Canadians prefer the way we run things up here.  The US is great but it has more socio-political-economic issues.   I’m sure you many of your fellow American countrymen see the US as superior.  That’s fine.  Self determination.  You do you.  

"Most Canadians" is a specious and totally unsupported assertion with no logical underpinning and thus a glaring fallacy on the face of it.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

To wit; "ties run deep" is a specious and totally unsupported assertion with no logical underpinning and thus a glaring fallacy on the face of it.

Uh, no it isn’t.  The ties do run deep between countries’ allies.  They involve family relations, cultural and business connections, etc.  Study logic as I have. 

[Dougie93]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Uh, no it isn’t.  The ties do run deep between countries’ allies.  They involve family relations, cultural and business connections, etc.  Study logic as I have. 

Again, specious fallacy, see; "specious", see; "fallacy", also see; "spurious" and see; "argument in bad faith". /shrugs

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Again, specious fallacy, see; "specious", see; "fallacy", also see; "spurious" and see; "argument in bad faith". /shrugs

You sound like a child.  I’ve published articles and stories.  I trust my capacity.  I suggest taking up a different cause because there’s more important work to be done solving real problems.  I’ll try to take my own advice as well.  

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You sound like a child.  I’ve published articles and stories.  I trust my capacity.  I suggest taking up a different cause because there’s more important work to be done solving real problems.  I’ll try to take my own advice as well.  

Internet forums are by their very nature debating clubs.   In a debate there must be argument.  In order to argue, assertions must be logically supported.  Fallacies are unproven by default.

When someone argues in bad faith by specious fallacy, there is nothing there to actually argue with, so all you can do is point out the fallacy and move on. /shrugs

Edited January 13, 2019 by Dougie93

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

The origin of the British Westminster Parliamentary Democracy and associated Parliamentary Supremacy, otherwise known as the first modern liberal state, does not date from Hastings, but rather the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and HM King William of Orange

All done to protect English Protestantism. The irony of which is that most of the Church of England leaders don't even believe in God any more.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

All done to protect English Protestantism. The irony of which is that most of the Church of England leaders don't even believe in God any more.

The Protestants had already won, it wasn't to protect them, it was to bring a peace about between them and the Roman Catholics, because the Protestants being the vanguard of Scottish Enlightenment led classically liberal conservatism, wanted to do business, so they could get rich,  and to do so, needed to have a peaceful transfer of power to end the cycle of violence.

The extremists were thrown out of Britain and sent to colonies in British North America, where they eventually became the Americans, after rising to the level of a super rich planting aristocracy, classically liberal and conservative, but only for white male property owners, otherwise known as a landed gentry.

[Dougie93]

This of course was the founding of the modern liberal state, which immediately began to outpace and dominate the despotic regimes all around it, to include inciting the downfall of its arch nemesis the House of Bourbon, to include the Treaty of Paris 1763 founding its Empire, said Empire growing exponentially until it charged into Belgian Neutrality in 1914 and then impaled itself on the Somme, inciting its rapid collapse thereafter.

Prologue; classical liberal conservatism was then bailed out by the American Empire of Liberty which has carried on as the Anglo-American Enlightenment standard bearer to this day, as of 0000 hrs Zulu Time.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Dougie93

[Argus]

40 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The Protestants had already won, it wasn't to protect them,

Sorry? The 'glorious revolution' was to dethrone Catholic King James to make sure he didn't establish a Catholic dynasty after he had a son.

Quote

it was to bring a peace about between them and the Roman Catholics, because the Protestants being the vanguard of Scottish Enlightenment led classically liberal conservatism, wanted to do business, so they could get rich,  and to do so, needed to have a peaceful transfer of power to end the cycle of violence.

Well it did a piss poor job of it then. Their peaceful transfer of power required an invasion, and was hardly peaceful. And it ushered in centuries of brutal persecution of Catholics.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Argus