American invasion of Canada POLL!

Do you want your nation to send troops to defend Canada???

  • Yes, and I’m European

    Votes: 27 24.3%
  • No, and I’m European

    Votes: 14 12.6%
  • I would resist from the inside as an American

    Votes: 23 20.7%
  • I wouldn't resist from the inside as an American

    Votes: 18 16.2%
  • Yes, and I’m NOT from Europe

    Votes: 16 14.4%
  • No, and I’m NOT from Europe

    Votes: 13 11.7%

  • Total voters
    111
Well, the problem with the question at the beginning of this thread is that there would be no need to send troops to help the Canadians, 'cause our pathetic military would be overtaken before anybody noticed. Seriously. We have, lets see, about 60,000ish troops, a bunch of crappy helicopters (hmm, they could go Kamikazi . . . ), some Leaky Submarines (More Kamikazi?), some old 1960's ex-German Leopard Tanks against top-of-the-line brand new M1A2's. No, the US has a far, far superior Military.

The main problem is time. With 90% of the population of Canada located next to the US border, the US could invade us, in, lets see, the amount of time that it would take to drive from the US border to probably Edmonton. Themn they would probably land troops via plane up north, and take those little cities we have up there. No, the US would have us invaded before the rest of the world would know, and they might think its some kinda massive training excersize!!!

The final problem i have with this, is would the world be able to send a force big enough to stop the US? Even if all other nations send troops, would that be enough? Could Canada ever be "liberated" from the US troops? I think not, well, maybe if China and other such militaries sent a lot of troops, but the US would have superiority in the Land, Sea, and Air, so, no, if we were invaded, we could never be liberated. Also, I wonder how much Canadians would rebel against the thought of the US taking over? There is a certrain percentage of Canadians taht actually would not mind the US taking over, myself to a small extent, so I really doubt that we would provide all that much resistance, especially if the US treated us properly, and did not screw things up too badly.

Obviously it would depend on the politics at the time of course. If we ever got the Conservatives in charge, Harper might do something stupid, get Nukes or whatever, or severely piss off the US, and provide cause for invasion.

[/rant-like ramble]
 
That's what they get for having a Queen. They need a national CEO, like what we have in America(except we call ours the President). Actually, I voted I would resist from the inside as an American.
 
After the war, I'd be living in the White House ;)
 
Marla_Singer said:
Considering China as communist is even less fair :
  1. It's partially a Democracy (Hong Kong, Macau).
  2. Today's Chinese government is more a one-party capitalistic country than anything else. After all, there's only one less party compared to other countries. :rolleyes:
There are two specific options made for Americans. :)

i want some of what you're smoking.

partially a democracy? ha! hong kong is saying goodbye to any democratic freedom they've had, and how about the invasion of tibet? i don't remember them asking the communists to oppress them. comparing communist china where you're ran over with tanks if you protest to america is a very frail and impotent argument. One party... :lol: :lol:
 
China is not Communist. They are Fascist. If Stalin decided to give Yatusk an elected city council then the USSR wouldn't be considered Democratic. I think we should hold the Chinese to the same standard.
 
Sims2789 said:
China is not Communist. They are Fascist. If Stalin decided to give Yatusk an elected city council then the USSR wouldn't be considered Democratic. I think we should hold the Chinese to the same standard.


Communism
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.


Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

i'd say it's a mix as china is embracing capitalism, but china doesnt have just one dictator like hitler or benito they have their party ruling. not much of a difference between the two, either way you're screwed.

Definitions provided by dictionary.com
 
You misrepresent Fascism. It is pro-capitalism, pro-nationalism, pro-isolationism.

Mussolini in a speech delivered on October 28, 1925 delivered the following maxim which encapsulates the fascist philosophy: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State")

There is nothing in the philosophy which says there must be fierce oppression, just as there's nothing in the communist ideals that says there must be gulags - these are just examples of evil tyrants, as opposed to gentle tyrants.
 
I'm striking a deal. You (Canadians) lose in hockey all the time, and we won't invade. :p
 
Zarn said:
I'm striking a deal. You (Canadians) lose in hockey all the time, and we won't invade. :p
Classic American concept of business... where is the honour? ;)
 
Its funny...this is one of the most evenly distributed polls I have seen on this forum in a long time...
 
Zarn said:
I'm striking a deal. You (Canadians) lose in hockey all the time, and we won't invade. :p

:hmm: after a short deliberation I have decided I would rather fight than have us lose to Chris Chelios and Keith Tkachuk every year.
 
If this actaully happened, it would be the last straw. I'd either A, go to Mexico or B, try to overthrow the góvenmèñt. If you're wondering why I used the wierd symbols, it is because I do not want the CIA to do a search of certian keywords on my computer, as the wierd symbols will screw up their search.
 
What if Canada actually started winning the war and burned down DC again? Would you support the Queendom of Canada;) annexing part of the USA.
 
At this point, if Britain doesn't support Canada, the monarchy would have been immediately disbanded in Canada, and there would be no Queendom.
 
Sims2789 said:
What if Canada actually started winning the war and burned down DC again? Would you support the Queendom of Canada;) annexing part of the USA.
I would not. Following repairs, it would lead only to a second war of Americans trying to retake it.

Dispanding of the Federal Government, with international treaty, and thrusting of power on the individual states would be a better end result.
 
Back
Top Bottom