U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-15-2017, 12:06 AM
 
Location: Alexandria, Commonwealth of Virginia
1,609 posts, read 1,111,850 times
Reputation: 1908

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
Actually many kids from wealthy Asian families attend UBC or U of T., granted the American Ivy League heavies are the top choices obviously.
There were wealthy Asian kids in my State School in the Midwest. Obviously, their parents wanted Harvard. But in most cases, they weren't studious enough to get in. I'm sure U of Toronto and UBC are nice safety schools for Ivy League rejects.

Quote:
Actually I'm not so sure.....invading the major urban areas across the border would be a walk in the park...the defending forces may retreat up north and then starting to launch attacks on the invading forces. ..yes eventually the Canadian would "officially" succumb and let clandestine resistance groups carry the torch.
You can't retreat up north. The supply chains are very easy to break because, in many cases, there is only one road leading to many cities. Fort MacMurray to Edmonton is all Route 63. How will these forces get back to Southern Canada to fight back? On Route 63 again? By then, the surveillance will be in place and drones would quickly bomb any movement on the route.

So they can flee to the North. And then what? How will they receive munitions and food? Unlike Europe or Japan, there are no extensive rail networks. And unlike Europe or Japan, you don't have much food grown up in the North. How will survive in the North without supply chains from the South?

And, as the article mentioned, the bases are easy pickings in any invasion. It would be invasion malpractice to invade a country and not bomb the bases holding 90% of the troops.

 
Old 01-15-2017, 12:09 AM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,076,051 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa View Post
Where would it be had it not muscled its way into getting Oregon and Washington from the UK?
Playing the alternate history route, it's interesting that what is now the most valuable piece of RE in Canada contained within the Lower Mainland of BC, the "triangle" of land between the US border in the south, the Salish sea west and the mountains running south east up up to Abbotsford in the north could have been very easily lost during the Oregon Territory dispute.....it would only have took moving the border north by 30 km or so.....
 
Old 01-15-2017, 12:23 AM
 
Location: Toronto
12,581 posts, read 11,156,879 times
Reputation: 3738
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa View Post
The best way for a country to defend itself is through force. What you call aggression, I call national interest. Sometimes it's in a country's national interest to be peaceful. Sometimes it's in a country's national interest to be aggressive.

Where would the U.S. be today, in 2017, had it not strong-armed France in the Louisiana Purchase? Where would it be had it not muscled its way into getting Oregon and Washington from the UK? Where would it be had it not won half the West from Mexico in 1848? How about the Spanish-American War and "Seward's Folly." America has a history of expansionism because it was a necessity. Had the U.S. not taken that land by force, other powers would have gladly champed at the bit.

Your beloved Canada is no different, stealing lands from Natives and forcing them into Residential Schools that deprived them of their homelands, their cultures and their families. Yet you want to call people "sick and sad." Sick and sad is what happened to the Natives, who were unable to defend themselves from Canadian settlers, and faced Civilizational Collapse.

I think history is clear: Survival depends on being able to project power and defend one's interest wherever they may lie. And the U.S. did not get to being the world's sole superpower by twiddling its thumbs while rival powers did what they pleased.

The U.S. acted in ways that advanced is national power, because that is what countries must often do to survive. Had the U.S. sang Kumbaya in 1776, we would have lost our independence centuries ago. But in 1776, our Founding Fathers realized that we live in an anarchic system and that though never-ending peace is commendable, it is not the reality we live in.

I'm sure you've read Thucydides (when I received my Master's Degree in IR, it was a staple of the degree program). As he once stated, "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

So you can bask in your "moral superiority" but Canada's "peacefulness" is not a virtue. It's the byproduct of being a weak nation. Canada failed to become a superpower and has nothing to fall back on but "international law" and "norms." And that's quite a shaky proposition. Because it means you live in a country that must rely on others to defend itself. That's the only thing I find "sick and sad" to be honest.
So you're going to throw history in my face? Every nation on earth has a history to be shamed of. I for one am not responsible for such recklessness. Besides, I'm talking about life in 2017 not 100 B.C, 1096, 1571, 1776 or even the early 1900's. The fact is the U.S nor any other nation has to invade other countries and cause death and destruction to innocent lives to progress or advance its interests. That is nonsense in this day and age. It was actually nonsense throughout our history but that is another story - it takes time I suppose for our species to reach a certain state. The justification that this is how it always has been so that is why it always must be is an extraordinarily weak argument. I'd like to think at this point in history we've moved beyond that nonsense. Its high time we did! Its absolutely essential that we do actually. We need to break from the bondage of these devolved and primitive urges and fears.

If you want to call that moral superiority than fine call it that. Believe it or not, i'm a human being first before i'm a Canadian. Perhaps you should focus on being a human being first before being an American! I think your views are a historical throwback and are dangerous and destructive. Not just for the victims of such campaigns of destruction, but to the heart and soul of your very nation or any nation that needs to invade/destroy/expand etc. It perpetuates a never ending and destructive cycle of unnecessary violence. I hope for the good of our species and our world that those with your views become a thing of the past because it is those views that will be the end of us not mine! These fiercely nationalist endeavours are a hindrance to our progress and to our potential. I actually think survival for our species is not based on historical lessons of national expansion but future necessity for peace and cooperation and thinking internationally instead of nationally.

So what is your justification for invading Caribbean countries? How is that in the American interest or is it just your own personal desire to expand your nation state - like you do in your video games. Have you been in a war? Have you seen the impact of your ideas translated into reality where human beings are killed and harmed, supressed and controlled? Do you think the experience would move or change you or would it excite you and inspire you to wage further wars of aggression and expansion? These are fundamental questions that any person in any nation time in perpetuity needs to ask themselves of any rank or class. The answer gets to the core of who you are. Who are you?

Thucydides btw has had criticism levelled against him that he was a cynic devoid of moral sensibility. Well if the shoe fits....

Last edited by fusion2; 01-15-2017 at 01:16 AM..
 
Old 01-15-2017, 02:13 AM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,076,051 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa View Post
You can't retreat up north. The supply chains are very easy to break because, in many cases, there is only one road leading to many cities. Fort MacMurray to Edmonton is all Route 63. How will these forces get back to Southern Canada to fight back? On Route 63 again? By then, the surveillance will be in place and drones would quickly bomb any movement on the route.

So they can flee to the North. And then what? How will they receive munitions and food? Unlike Europe or Japan, there are no extensive rail networks. And unlike Europe or Japan, you don't have much food grown up in the North. How will survive in the North without supply chains from the South?

And, as the article mentioned, the bases are easy pickings in any invasion. It would be invasion malpractice to invade a country and not bomb the bases holding 90% of the troops.

Retreating up north you can gain precious time to set up a good guerrilla strategy....Canadian armed forces may have significant cache of weapons up north already just in case.

I'm not an expert of Canadian military capabilities but I suspect an adequate level of training for staying away from major routes. Canada does not turn into tundra only few hundred kilometers north...a lot of places to hide, waterways to use, firewood, game to be hunted for food, etc...

Let's hope and pray we will never find out if it would really be a walk in the park.....but again, I suspect it would not be like swatting a fly for US forces.
 
Old 01-15-2017, 05:19 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,281,099 times
Reputation: 7586
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa View Post
Horny? Pretty sure I stated I was opposed to an invasion of Canada (which has a GDP per capita similar to Mississippi so it would be a huge drag on our finances).

That article was a fascinating thought experiment, however.
your small world with the GDP per capita ideology.

Not sure of your background: economists develop the idea of GDP only as one of the ways to assess wealth and standard of living, and that was many years when most countries were poor. No economists could say GDP accurately reflect how wealth a country is, or the standard of living, because it depends on many other factors besides just economy, and even in terms economy, there is issues surrounding how the wealth is used and distributed.

Since you love GDP per capital, fine, let me ask you:

Luxembourg has twice the GDP as the US, does that mean Americans are so much poorer? Qatar has a GDP per capital almost 80% higher than Germany, where would you like to live?

Additionally, even within the US itself, Alaska and North Dakota have the countries' highest GDP per capita, are they the richest and most attractive states for Americans? No wonder everyone is rushing to those states.

Your constant comparison of Mississippi with Canada in such an ridiculous way just to denigrate Canada shows nothing except your utter ignorance about economic issues.

Do you even know what GDP means? If there is a big factory producing a lot of plastic chairs or toilet seats or whatever in a small area, that automatically gives this region a high GDP, because this is how it is defined. However, that doesn't not necessarily makes the region wealthy or more advanced. There are much criticism about using GDP as a measure for wealth, not to mention GDP per capita for standard of living. DO I need to show you some sources? Knowing what GDP stands for is knowledge, blindly believing its almighty power is stupidity.

And I didn't even comment on the mistake that you are comparing nominal USD based on exchange rate, when the USD is value at a decade high. For you, it doesn't matter, as long as it supports your half-a$$ conclusion.
 
Old 01-15-2017, 05:34 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,281,099 times
Reputation: 7586
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa View Post
There were wealthy Asian kids in my State School in the Midwest. Obviously, their parents wanted Harvard. But in most cases, they weren't studious enough to get in. I'm sure U of Toronto and UBC are nice safety schools for Ivy League rejects.



You can't retreat up north. The supply chains are very easy to break because, in many cases, there is only one road leading to many cities. Fort MacMurray to Edmonton is all Route 63. How will these forces get back to Southern Canada to fight back? On Route 63 again? By then, the surveillance will be in place and drones would quickly bomb any movement on the route.

So they can flee to the North. And then what? How will they receive munitions and food? Unlike Europe or Japan, there are no extensive rail networks. And unlike Europe or Japan, you don't have much food grown up in the North. How will survive in the North without supply chains from the South?

And, as the article mentioned, the bases are easy pickings in any invasion. It would be invasion malpractice to invade a country and not bomb the bases holding 90% of the troops.
I agree the US can take Canada within a matter of hours. It is like Nazi Germany taking Belgium.

But the fact is there is little to gain and everything to lose, especially in this century. Yes, the US will become stronger in the short term, but it will immediately lose the legitimacy as the global leader, and all the soft power it possess today will evaporate instantly.

The fact that US didn't annex Canada today is not because of morality (the US in terms of foreign policy lost that a long time ago), but because the cost is too high and it is bad business overall.
 
Old 01-15-2017, 06:53 AM
 
1,147 posts, read 472,444 times
Reputation: 750
"USA, USA. USA the best. America, awesome, yeah! Yeah. America America, I like my big car on my South Carolina highway. My strip malls and my Walmart jeans. All other countries are communist because they don't sell Walmart freedom market jeans."
 
Old 01-15-2017, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Alexandria, Commonwealth of Virginia
1,609 posts, read 1,111,850 times
Reputation: 1908
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
I agree the US can take Canada within a matter of hours. It is like Nazi Germany taking Belgium.

But the fact is there is little to gain and everything to lose, especially in this century. Yes, the US will become stronger in the short term, but it will immediately lose the legitimacy as the global leader, and all the soft power it possess today will evaporate instantly.

The fact that US didn't annex Canada today is not because of morality (the US in terms of foreign policy lost that a long time ago), but because the cost is too high and it is bad business overall.
Yes, exactly. As I said, the US does not (and should not) annex Canada because it's not in the interest of the nation. I don't think I ever expressed support for annexing Canada (that's fusion having conniptions and accusing me of being the next Hitler).

And yes, the U.S. has no morality in foreign policy. Morality has never applied to superpowers. And 'morality' is also a virtue for weak countries because it's all they have. They can run around and brag about how "peaceful" they are. But we all know that if Canada had 200 million people, it would be a lot more assertive and aggressive on the world stage. Peace is what weak powers need to survive. It never has, and never will, bind the superpowers. "Peaceful" Canada would have been taken over decades ago by Soviets were it not for "Evil and Aggressive" America defending it.
 
Old 01-15-2017, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Alexandria, Commonwealth of Virginia
1,609 posts, read 1,111,850 times
Reputation: 1908
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
Oh god I didn't think of that lol... Could you imagine. Well the sad thing is that in this case you can. I think his inauguration speech will be the shortest in American history because it'll interrupt his tweet time! I wouldn't be surprised if Pence gives the address on his behalf
His inauguration will be upstaged by the Women's (+LGBTQIA, Racial Justice Groups, Enviromental Protection, Labor) March in Washington on the 21st, which I will be attending.

The good thing is that Trump has a horrible 37% approval rating, so he starts off as popular as Bush in 2006 (when the Republicans lost the Congress). He could very well be the American Francois Hollande, who ushers in the Progressive Revolution. Were Steve Bullock or Roy Cooper to run in 2020, I can see the GOP collapsing. Unfortunately, they might have the Supreme Court by then.
 
Old 01-15-2017, 11:33 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,281,099 times
Reputation: 7586
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa View Post
Yes, exactly. As I said, the US does not (and should not) annex Canada because it's not in the interest of the nation. I don't think I ever expressed support for annexing Canada (that's fusion having conniptions and accusing me of being the next Hitler).

And yes, the U.S. has no morality in foreign policy. Morality has never applied to superpowers. And 'morality' is also a virtue for weak countries because it's all they have. They can run around and brag about how "peaceful" they are. But we all know that if Canada had 200 million people, it would be a lot more assertive and aggressive on the world stage. Peace is what weak powers need to survive. It never has, and never will, bind the superpowers. "Peaceful" Canada would have been taken over decades ago by Soviets were it not for "Evil and Aggressive" America defending it.
what you said is all true about morality, except one thing: the US when being aggressive never says "it is because I am powerful", but instead always use morality as the justification, doesn't it?

At least Canada is consistent (not exactly when it was under Harper whose ego far surpassed Canada's ability), while the US has been hypocritical all along pretending to be care about justice and well-being of the people (but when Russia or China do something, it is all about "flexing muscles").

And that's the problem. If you want to be the bad guy, be the bad guy. Just don't pretend to be a saint at the same time. Let me say it here: until the day the US stops supporting Saudi Arabia, it has zero credibility when it talks about caring about freedom, human rights in the rest of the world.

Last edited by botticelli; 01-15-2017 at 11:43 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top