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.
The invasion would be over in 3-5 days. Most would return to their normal work schedule by the end of the week. Canada would find itself in a situation similar to that of Quebec, and would react in the same fashion through peaceful politics.
Malala Yousafzai didnt deserve to be shot in the face either.
People and communities that shoot little girls for going to school, deserve drone strikes. Much of liberal Pakistan supports strikes in their NW provinces cause they cannot govern it themselves anymore.
You have to be kidding ....... that makes no sense.
Little green grinning face = a certain amount of kidding
However, it's on par with most of this thread.
List the reasons though, as to why the US gets involved in convicts compared to the actual reasons they get involved in conflicts, and you have your answer.
Malala Yousafzai didnt deserve to be shot in the face either.
People and communities that shoot little girls for going to school, deserve drone strikes. Much of liberal Pakistan supports strikes in their NW provinces cause they cannot govern it themselves anymore.
That's cold. When innocents are dying because a foreign country is trying to attack certain targets, obviously a foreign presence isn't doing much good. What does Pakistan want?
A wedding party! that's it? lmfao! i love how people freak out over the most minor conflicts in today's age, i think its a sign we live in a very peaceful era.
Today we complain about some drone strikes accidentally killing innocents, in other generations they dropped nukes on cities and killed hundreds and thousands of people and threw millions of people into ovens.
Little green grinning face = a certain amount of kidding
However, it's on par with most of this thread.
List the reasons though, as to why the US gets involved in convicts compared to the actual reasons they get involved in conflicts, and you have your answer.
I am with you. This thread is getting fairly ridiculous.
I can list reasons, but it might get a little tiresome and boring. The way I see, for every bad decision that the US takes, they make ten good decisions. Iraq was a mistake. We get it.
But.... do you want US to pull troops out of South Korea?
Did you not support the US involvement in Libya?
What about US involvement in the Af-Pak region?
What about the US role in WW2?
That's cold. When innocents are dying because a foreign country is trying to attack certain targets, obviously a foreign presence isn't doing much good. What does Pakistan want?
Which Pakistan?
The Pakistan that harbors terrorists and slaughters innocent victims at home and around the world including peaceful countries like India.
Or,
The Pakistan that acknowledges that their country is near FAILED STATE status and needs outside help to recover NW regions.
So much depends on the future viablity of the modern nation state. Will the political entities and imagined communities that constitute Canada and the United States even exist in the next few centuries?
As evidenced by the posts on this thread, the highly-speculative question of the U.S. annexing Canada doesn't have much to do with any viable evidence that America is planning such a move.The O.P. was probably wondering if the situation between Russia and the Ukraine was in anyway comparable to North America and posed a silly question.
As this thread evolved, however, the issue of the U.S. annexing Canada became an imagined scenario that served as a political metaphor to discuss and critique present-day American Imperialism and the bellicose world view of the Neocons, who are always conflated with "all" Americans.
Like its many antecedents, this thread privileges the views of the right-wing as somehow more represenative of the nation as a whole. Left out: anti-war sentiment, demonstrations, and even legislation that accompanied every 20 th c war and conflict (including WWI and WWII: why do you think the US entered these wars so late in the game?); the voluminous amount of pop and academic critiques of US wars, especially the Vietnam War and the Iraq War;and the strong critique of Military Keynesianism (aka Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex") elucidated these days most prominently by liberals and libertarians.
I am also confused by the assertion that America has been at war for 400 years. This strikes me as supremely ahistorical. Prior to 1776, we're talking about the colonial military competition waged by England, France, and Spain on the soil of the "New" World. I wouldn't dismiss U.S. 19th century wars -- most notably the Civil War and the military subjugation of the Natives -- but as a measure of some kind of essentialist definition of national character, I have to wonder how does Europe, the Middle east, and Asia get so easily off the hook? Actually, what era in all of recorded human history do we not see war? This line of reductive reasoning isn't all that different than the supposition that all Muslims are terrorists or that all Roma are criminals.
I understand the frustration with the exasperatingly uninformed and intellectually lazy questions that come up on the Canada forum (hardly limited to this particular forum, actually). I just don't think that countering broad generalization with broad generalization accomplishes anything productive, except maybe confirming pre-formed stereotypes.
Its not, we don't go around invading countries anymore. what we do is more peaceful and less hostile.
What i'm talking about is cultural. open up some McDonalds, KFC and Starbucks in other countries, give them wifi and put Hollywood films all over their TVs and watch them turn (culturally) American
Lol WWII was on a whole different level.
Afghanistan and Iraq was way more organized and less violent than WWII.
From your post iNviNciBL3 I get the impression the American culture has become so inured to the killing machine mentality that 130,000 dead Iraq citizens is viewed as a meaningless non violent event, those iraqis should be grateful that America is opening up fast food joints in their country.
That's right. US was reluctant to join WW2 and was pretty much forced to build an army overnight and join the war.
Directly or indirectly, the world expects the US to be a watchful protector that isn't afraid to go to war. Plenty of countries in Asia, Europe and NA expect the US to come to their aid incase of armed conflict.
I mean, what would be the general expectation in Canada if Russia were to encroach upon Northern Canada?
You weren't forced to go to war in Europe, you were "finagled". You were forced to go to war in the Pacific because you were attacked. Had neither the "finagling" or the attack happened, you'd still be sitting it out.
Now, as to Canada's expectations regarding your behaviour......gotta say it, I'd be more concerned about the U.S. intentions any day of the week before worrying about Russia. Russia has the world to be wary of while the U.S. has more than graphically shown it isn't the least bit concerned about world opinion.
The only reasons you'd throw your hat into the ring IF Canada were ever attacked, would be those of self interest.
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.
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.
