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)
View Poll Results: Should Canada Annex The Turks & Caicos Islands?
Yes, Canada Should Annex The Turks & Caicos Islands 6 37.50%
No, Canada Should Not Annex The Turks & Caicos Islands 10 62.50%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-24-2019, 12:32 PM
 
Location: British Columbia ☀️ ♥ 🍁 ♥ ☀️
7,543 posts, read 6,745,312 times
Reputation: 14856

Advertisements

Annexation:

Annexation is the administrative action and concept in international law relating to the forcible acquisition of one state's territory by another state and is generally held to be an illegal act, an act of war.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon View Post

Turks and Caicos could be an overseas territory, like how Guam is to the US , Saint Martin is to France, Aruba is to the Netherlands, and Bermuda is to the UK.

It already is an overseas territory.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Turks and Caicos is an overseas territory of the UK, which is a Commonwealth sister nation to Canada.

Which is why T&C is never going to be annexed by Canada. Annexation is illegal, it's an act of war. Canada is one of the 16 British Commonwealth countries around the world that won't attempt to annex each other or each other's territories.

For Canada to attempt to do so would be an act of war against a sister nation in addition to which it would mean that Canada would be enacting war against Canada's own monarch.

Really, really stupid, right? All for the sake of some useless, worthless, salt soaked, dessicating, wind and wave flattened rocks that will soon be getting swept clean and completely submerged by the water that surrounds them. And then England will have to come rescue and take any resident survivors away back home to England.

Maybe the fact that annexation is an act of war is why the OP suggested that Canada annex it, because it would be an act of war against a British sister nation. The OP has a big grudge against anything British and would likely love to see Canada stirring up trouble and sticking it to Britain by going to war against Britain. Except that Canada would come out the biggest loser of all in too many ways to count, and so would the OP and the OP's province.

.

Last edited by Zoisite; 08-24-2019 at 12:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2019, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Toronto
12,835 posts, read 11,293,635 times
Reputation: 3854
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
I've posted here before that the overall result would be a "what you make of it" issue. Some would undoubtedly bemoan the sudden influx of a more "identifiable" demographic; most, recognizing Canada's major strength and respected image abroad resides squarely on the shoulders of our immigration, would not. Some would clutch their pearls over the further "diluting" of our respective French and Anglo Saxon heritage; most wouldn't even notice. Some would occasion the opportunity to lord it, over our new found adopted street urchin with the attitude we're "sacrificing" for their betterment while most would simply love the opportunity to bask in the warmth during winter months and be nothing but grateful for that.

Some would not be happy until they've dug a moat around their little fiefdom; most want to interact with all, if for no other reason our best ideas come from the least expected quarter.

The currency and passport issues would be the least of my concerns. It is my opinion an opportunity to absorb some new cultural experience while interacting with a new society would trump all perceived, imagined negatives.
To clarify, i am not against an influx of more identifiable groups either. Nor I am not against groups that are different. I largely think our immigration policy, even under Trudeau is manageable. On the other hand, how our Politicians are managing the needs of growth is a whole other story ie poor investment in infrastructure and affordable housing. So I think we are saying the same thing. If I understand you correctly as well, I get it that you will never have a national consensus. That is true in any country, but I think there comes a time where we have to proceed with a strategy. Our strategy in Canada is about International immigration to fuel growth - so let's go with it. Yelling at taxi drivers with your legacy privilege, or stripping away someone's ability to wear a religious symbol to work, is not a solution - it's window dressing.

Back to Turks - I think Zoisite summed it up well as to the sticky details about it being absorbed into Canada via any means. That all said, we shouldn't simply be opposed to the end of time, that our current borders won't change and expand, they could also contract. So, we should potentially be open about things, as our founding Fathers were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 04:09 PM
 
18,488 posts, read 10,530,288 times
Reputation: 13538
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
To clarify, i am not against an influx of more identifiable groups either. Nor I am not against groups that are different. I largely think our immigration policy, even under Trudeau is manageable. On the other hand, how our Politicians are managing the needs of growth is a whole other story ie poor investment in infrastructure and affordable housing. So I think we are saying the same thing. If I understand you correctly as well, I get it that you will never have a national consensus. That is true in any country, but I think there comes a time where we have to proceed with a strategy. Our strategy in Canada is about International immigration to fuel growth - so let's go with it. Yelling at taxi drivers with your legacy privilege, or stripping away someone's ability to wear a religious symbol to work, is not a solution - it's window dressing.

Back to Turks - I think Zoisite summed it up well as to the sticky details about it being absorbed into Canada via any means. That all said, we shouldn't simply be opposed to the end of time, that our current borders won't change and expand, they could also contract. So, we should potentially be open about things, as our founding Fathers were.
fusion; Zoisite and yourself are managing to touch on all the imperatives without being blinded by the bling of simply grabbing an island for the grabbing's sake alone.

It's not in our immediate future in any case, what with all the discussions we seem to be repetitively embroiled with about "shedding" of territory. Trying to keep what we've got cobbled together against the allure of greener pastures existing with a perceived separation agreement resulting in some court jesters deciding who gets to keep the kids being probably more imminent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2019, 04:42 PM
Status: "El Paso in our thoughts and prayers" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Canada
4,971 posts, read 4,528,989 times
Reputation: 3336
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
That all said, we shouldn't simply be opposed to the end of time, that our current borders won't change and expand, they could also contract. So, we should potentially be open about things, as our founding Fathers were.
Good point fusion. It seems rather narrow minded to be against attaining territory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:47 AM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,682 posts, read 11,197,801 times
Reputation: 10406
Denmark is going to give us Greenland, just to **** off the orange clown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Toronto
12,835 posts, read 11,293,635 times
Reputation: 3854
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
Denmark is going to give us Greenland, just to **** off the orange clown.
LMAO... That is funny and would be an epic move on Denmark's part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:49 AM
 
Location: British Columbia ☀️ ♥ 🍁 ♥ ☀️
7,543 posts, read 6,745,312 times
Reputation: 14856
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanLuis View Post
Good point fusion. It seems rather narrow minded to be against attaining territory.

Nobody in this discussion said anything about being against gaining more territory. There's nothing wrong with attaining territory if it's done equitably, cooperatively, is a good and honest trade between countries.

There is something insidiously wrong with narrow minded bullies who blithely think the only way to attain territory is by annexing it, which means warring and forcibly stealing or coercing territory from other countries. The aggressive "I want that so I'm taking it away from you" attitude is not a good image and there's already been too much of that in the past.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:34 PM
 
Location: YVR - YYJ - YOW
278 posts, read 228,277 times
Reputation: 286
I think annexation is being misunderstood here. No reasonable Canadian should feel like we should be taking this by force, and there are a number of barriers preventing T&C from being a net benefit to Canada. That said, it isn't that wacky of an idea as many G7 nations have functioning overseas territories very far away from the main homeland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:59 PM
Status: "El Paso in our thoughts and prayers" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Canada
4,971 posts, read 4,528,989 times
Reputation: 3336
Quote:
Originally Posted by svelten View Post
I think annexation is being misunderstood here. No reasonable Canadian should feel like we should be taking this by force, and there are a number of barriers preventing T&C from being a net benefit to Canada. That said, it isn't that wacky of an idea as many G7 nations have functioning overseas territories very far away from the main homeland.
Exactly. Some people on here are just very uptight and neurotic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 05:46 AM
 
Location: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
10,943 posts, read 23,314,383 times
Reputation: 5320
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2 View Post
LMAO... That is funny and would be an epic move on Denmark's part.
We would share it with the U.S since Thule AFB is there and we are both part of NORAD it would be a great early warning site and secure Canadian and American interest in the untapped resource rich arctic circle.


If we do it we should jointly do it with a best friend/ally who happens to be big brother where we have each others back Against both Russian and Chinese making their own arctic claims up there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


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