North American Union and spp.gov

[US Citizen]

I keep reading here about a merger between the US and Canada and not one word about MEXICO. Don't you all get it...They ARE included in the so called "benefits" you all are touting...Don't forget about MEXICO. Believe me, we CAN'T!!! I sure hope you guys are equating them in the mix!!! If we merge, if they don't move to Canada, the people in the border states surely will!!!

[g_bambino]

I keep reading here about a merger between the US and Canada and not one word about MEXICO. Don't you all get it...They ARE included in the so called "benefits" you all are touting...Don't forget about MEXICO. Believe me, we CAN'T!!! I sure hope you guys are equating them in the mix!!! If we merge, if they don't move to Canada, the people in the border states surely will!!!

I'm just taking a stab at this (as I've never given it a great amount of thought) but my first inclination is that a united North America (does that include Belize, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica?) would simply be too large a country. Giant nations and/or empires always eventually fracture as people living in smaller geographic areas within the larger state develop, and then fight to maintain what they consider a distinct culture and/or political ideology. Witness in recent history the British Empire, the USSR, and even the fragility of the Canadian union. Perhaps one could even argue that the US itself will split one day, as it's economic and global influence decreases, so-called "Red States" and "Blue States" feel more distanced from each other, and more and more Mexican and Central American immigrants and aliens make their home in the US south-west; there's already been one US civil war, there's nothing to say there won't be another.

In the mean time, however, Canada's federation may be precarious - and always has been - but I doubt any Canadian (other than perhaps a bunch of Albertans) seriously ever considers that his culture has a better chance by merging into the melting pot of the United States. Just the ingrained ideologies of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and "peace, order, and good government" alone clash so strongly!

So, frankly, if there’s to be any change at all, I see more small nations evolving in North America over the next couple of centuries, rather than any unification into some massive bloc.

[US Citizen]

here is more proof...be sure to check out ALL the related links...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=52467

http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/events.html

By organizing the Triumvirate, NAFI aims to:

Unite young leaders of Canada, the United States and Mexico to develop their knowledge of North American issues and political dynamics;

Foster a better knowledge of the workings of democratic institutions and of the partner countries of NAFTA;

Expose participants to an international negotiation experience in which everyone has to develop and adopt proposals that are likely to consolidate the North American region;

http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/triumvirat06/...nu=triumvirat06

[ft.niagara]

Canada has had the short end of the stick in this relationship from the begining since we are in literal fact only a tiny fraction in size and economy. So yes we get pushed around alot, but having said that no other nation on this earth enjoys the benefits from mutual association that we in Canada do. There is even far more that could be gained from expanding this relationship.

Hillary Clinton came out recently with a list of negatives the US has enjoyed with its relationship with Canada. Eighty percent of Ontario wine is sold in the US, but NY wine producers are shut out of Canada. Many other examples were listed. IMO Canada and Mexico have been avenues of rape of the American economy, not only directly, but indirectly by acting as transit spots by China and Japan.

But never fear, the Democrats will get into power, and because of ties to labor will start plugging some of the holes, hopefully. Bush and the Republicans has been very helpful to the Canadian economy.

[jbg]

But never fear, the Democrats will get into power, and because of ties to labor will start plugging some of the holes, hopefully. Bush and the Republicans has been very helpful to the Canadian economy.

I'm a Yank from the opposite side of NYS. I strongly doubt the Dems will get into power. At most, they'll get the House. They cannot get out of their own way. By the way, I am a Democrat.

[Black Dog]

Canada can't even decide what it's culture is, let alone call itself a unified nation.

In a sense, isn't that our culture?

We have a considerable sepertist movement in Quebec and in the West we have a very disconnected population. We're a very divided nation, I speak for alot of Albertans when I say we are likely a better fit with Northern state Americans than with 416 Ontarians.

Reason number 876 why Alberta drives me nuts.

There are as many differences between Western Canada and Ontario as there is Ontario and the US. Same with Quebec.

What about the U.S. itself? Or is all that "Red States/Blues State" stuff a bunch of hooey? Any country with the large geographic area of a Canada or the United States is going to produce some superficial cultural differences. Canada's are excrabated by the contrast of the physical size of the country with its small population (meaning small isolated pockets of people vast distances from one another) and an electoral system that promotes regionalism. Add to that the comparative age of our country-even compared to the U.S.- and it's little wonder we're still finding out who we are.

At the end of the day, though, I believe that identity is something deep-rooted and not easily defined. I reject nationalism, but I still feel Canadian.

[jbg]

Canada can't even decide what it's culture is, let alone call itself a unified nation.

In a sense, isn't that our culture?

We have a considerable sepertist movement in Quebec and in the West we have a very disconnected population. We're a very divided nation, I speak for alot of Albertans when I say we are likely a better fit with Northern state Americans than with 416 Ontarians.

Reason number 876 why Alberta drives me nuts.

There are as many differences between Western Canada and Ontario as there is Ontario and the US. Same with Quebec.

What about the U.S. itself? Or is all that "Red States/Blues State" stuff a bunch of hooey? Any country with the large geographic area of a Canada or the United States is going to produce some superficial cultural differences. Canada's are excrabated by the contrast of the physical size of the country with its small population (meaning small isolated pockets of people vast distances from one another) and an electoral system that promotes regionalism. Add to that the comparative age of our country-even compared to the U.S.- and it's little wonder we're still finding out who we are.

At the end of the day, though, I believe that identity is something deep-rooted and not easily defined. I reject nationalism, but I still feel Canadian.

Great analysis. You leave out, of course, the language issue as a divider.

[ft.niagara]

I reject nationalism, but I still feel Canadian.

You reject nationalism, but you still feel Canadian? But then again Canada is not a nation, it is something else. You have to be Canadian to understand.

[ft.niagara]

I'm a Yank from the opposite side of NYS. I strongly doubt the Dems will get into power. At most, they'll get the House. They cannot get out of their own way. By the way, I am a Democrat.

The incumbent always has the advantage. I have mixed feelings about who would be better AT THIS POINT. Overall, I prefer the Republicans especially on judgeship appointments, but on free trade, Iraq, and possibly immigration, the Democrats might help the situation.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think that the Dems will kick some serious butt in this next election. My money says both Houses are lost to the Republicans. I think that the next President will be John McCain. I didn't always think that though, there was a couple of years that I thought Mrs Clinton would get the job.

[ft.niagara]

I think that the Dems will kick some serious butt in this next election. My money says both Houses are lost to the Republicans. I think that the next President will be John McCain. I didn't always think that though, there was a couple of years that I thought Mrs Clinton would get the job.

I think you are wrong on ALL counts.

[Riverwind]

I think you are wrong on ALL counts.

It will be intersting to see what happens on polling day. If the dems are not able to at least get control of the house I would expect the 'rigged voting machine conspiracy' will get a lot of airplay.

[ft.niagara]

If the dems are not able to at least get control of the house I would expect the 'rigged voting machine conspiracy' will get a lot of airplay.

I can not wait for the election. As far as rigged elections, the only successfully rigged Presidental election was won by Kennedy, a Democrat.

[Riverwind]

I can not wait for the election. As far as rigged elections, the only successfully rigged Presidental election was won by Kennedy, a Democrat.

Any country that relies on electronic voting machines with no paper backup is just asking for the credibility of the voting system to be questioned. All it will take is an election that produces suspicious results. At this point any outcome that does not give the Dems the house will be suspicious.

[ft.niagara]

At this point any outcome that does not give the Dems the house will be suspicious.

Why? It is a close issue. Because the Republicans are presently in control? Because the Republicans are inherently dishonest? Because the Democrats won't graciously loose?

[Riverwind]

At this point any outcome that does not give the Dems the house will be suspicious.

Why? It is a close issue. Because the Republicans are presently in control? Because the Republicans are inherently dishonest? Because the Democrats won't graciously loose?

Because all of the polls show that the Dems should get the house - a sudden change on voting day would be suspicious. In addition, it has been largely Democrats that have raised concerned about these machines and it has been largely Republicans that defend them. That means that any unexpected result that favours the Republicans will make them look suspicious. If Republicans don't like being unfairly accused then they should have pushed for a voting system with paper ballot backups that could be independently verified.

Please not that I am not accusing replublicans of any wrong doing. I am simply pointing out that they have created an environment where it may be no longer possible for them to win without have suspcions raised.

[Topaz]

I'm not for it because it wouldn't be good for ANY country to be in a partnership with the US of today. The US, today, is arrognant, power freak and it would take more than it is entitled to and who is going to stop them?? They don't keep their word, they want everything their way, so how can a country be a partner to such a country? Besides that, they are one of the biggest polluters in the world , outside of China.

[ft.niagara]

they are one of the biggest polluters in the world , outside of China.

I bet, pound for pound, Canada is as good a polluter as the US is.

[Remiel]

I think we're 4th, and the U.S. is 1st.

[ft.niagara]

I think we're 4th, and the U.S. is 1st.

Fourth percapata, or fourth total?

[Remiel]

Per Capita.

[Charles Anthony]

The US, today, is arrognant, power freak and it would take more than it is entitled to and who is going to stop them?? They don't keep their word, they want everything their way, so how can a country be a partner to such a country? Besides that, they are one of the biggest polluters in the world , outside of China.

Everything you say is unreasonable because the U.S.A. is a country.

Only people can be arrogant (or power freak or keep their word or whatever), not a whole country. Therefore, who exactly are you identifying as being arrogant (or power freak or keep their word or whatever) in your blame-game?

[GostHacked]

The US, today, is arrognant, power freak and it would take more than it is entitled to and who is going to stop them?? They don't keep their word, they want everything their way, so how can a country be a partner to such a country? Besides that, they are one of the biggest polluters in the world , outside of China.

Everything you say is unreasonable because the U.S.A. is a country.

Only people can be arrogant (or power freak or keep their word or whatever), not a whole country. Therefore, who exactly are you identifying as being arrogant (or power freak or keep their word or whatever) in your blame-game?

But it is those arrogant people who are elected to represent the whole country. So, yes blame the country and it's people.

[ft.niagara]

But it is those arrogant people who are elected to represent the whole country. So, yes blame the country and it's people.

Funny, the same can be said for the Canadians, especially some of your past leaders.

[Charles Anthony]

But it is those arrogant people who are elected to represent the whole country.

Attributing responsibility to the whole population for the actions of "elected" people who supposedly "represent" the population is ridiculous. You may as well blame me for killing a butterfly whose wings could have diverted a deadly hurricane on the other end of the globe.

So, yes blame the country and it's people.

That attitude is irresponsible.

Should YOU be responsible for AdScam?