Canada to become 51st state in 2010

Wow, the 51st state eh? Shameful.
I think Canada would commit mass suicide if such a thing were to happen.
Anyway, you can go on the Natural Resources Canada website to access all topographical maps for free . And in case you're unaccustomed with the internet, there are a LOT of websites where you can get maps of all the cities you named.
What would they do with the maps anyway?

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Ah, Grady... I've already done a several page to-and-fro with a member here over the War of 1812.

The reasons cited in your post are the US reasons for going to War. Notice how you seem to think that "driving the British from the America's" is different to wanting Canada to be part of the US. Surely they are one and the same, as the end goal after Britain was driven was the incorporation of Canada into the US, hence, the invasion was the cause of the War.

The invasion of Canada was the reason we fought you guys back (hard to fight someone back if they didn't invade, huh?), ate the Presidents dinner that had been prepared for him before he ran like a woman, burnt down the White House and made you sign a Treaty at Ghent which completely failed to achieve any of the objectives set out by the US at the beggining of the War.

I suppose you'll claim, like the other erstwhile member I had the to-and-fro with, that the US won the War of 1812?

EDIT: That member was not a good example of the American education system... Or was he? Hard one to call, depends on your outlook I suppose and what you want people to believe.

[edit on 22/5/08 by stumason]

Do people make up these stories just to add to their points??? I think so. I cannot believe that they have the nerve to do this just to get some people angry. Anyone can make up any kind of story and post it here without any known facts. Besides, Canada will always be Canada. They would not want to do anything with the US especially becoming a State.

is not israel the 51st state????

Originally posted by freedomforall
Do people make up these stories just to add to their points??? I think so. I cannot believe that they have the nerve to do this just to get some people angry. Anyone can make up any kind of story and post it here without any known facts. Besides, Canada will always be Canada. They would not want to do anything with the US especially becoming a State.

Alright, alright...



Let's see, here it is again...

Originally posted by not so crazy cannuck
My theory is simple in 2010 the winter olyimpics will be in Vancouver Canada bringing all the worlds leaders in together in one stadium. a perfect oppertunity for a false flag operations leading to the use of US troops to cross the border and ocuppy Canada. Now why I belive this is very simple a friend of mine has an co-op with Natural Resources Canada a goverment organization resposible for all the satillite mapping of Canada and as part of the secruity for the US president and atheletes has been sending maps of not only vancouver but also Ottawa the capital of Canada, Tronto canadas largest city , Montreal the second largest city, and Calgary the center of the cadian oil trade and fourth largest city. none of wich are involved in any way with the Olyimpics.

Well, I've seen better spelt conspiracies but I like it. It immediately brought this to mind...

Will historians one day record that “It happened on Valentine’s Day” when chronicling the timetable of the North American Union (NAU)?

With no warning, a significant military agreement was signed by the chief Armed Forces commanders of both the U.S.A. and Canada on Feb. 14. The agreement allows the armed forces from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a domestic civil emergency.

And as Jerome R. Corsi writes of the range of domestic civil emergencies, in WorldNetDaily, “even one that does not involve a cross-border crisis.”

The Valentine’s Day pact got zero coverage in the mainstream media...
canadafreepress.com...

I like this version though...

This agreement helps to further erode the sovereignty of both nations by allowing a foreign military to support that nation’s military during any type of civil emergency. Essentially, Canadian military forces would be allowed to support U.S. military forces during a declaration of martial law.
www.blacklistednews.com...

I found it odd - "Canadian military forces would be allowed to support U.S. military forces during a declaration of martial law."


Seems pretty moot to me, obviously the opposite is what applies. If some scenario, of the OP’s variety, were to go down; this seems to pave the way.


Brew

reply to post by stumason


I maintain that the War of 1812 was begun not because of the invasion of Canada. War was declared on all British interests in this hemisphere for the reasons cited in my previous post.

You can couch the war in any manner you may choose from your perspective. To that extent, your perspective is valid.

WWII didn't start when Pearl Harbor was attacked. Pearl Harbor marked the entry into WWII of the US into WWII.

Had Britain not restricted trade with France and impressed our sailors into the British Navy and other matters, there wouldn't have been a War of 1812.

So, from a Canadian perspective, your involvement in the War of 1812 many have begun with the invasion of Canada, but it certainly wasn't the cause of the war.

Canada just a front in a larger war.

Originally posted by stumason
The reasons cited in your post are the US reasons for going to War. Notice how you seem to think that "driving the British from the America's" is different to wanting Canada to be part of the US. Surely they are one and the same, as the end goal after Britain was driven was the incorporation of Canada into the US, hence, the invasion was the cause of

I see, stumason, that you are British.

That's a strange characterization coming from the loser of not one, but two wars with the US.


[edit on 2008/5/22 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


I agree with your general assessment. Two sides of the same coin, as it were. As it stands, however, one of the stated objectives at the outset was to take Canada, which ultimately failed. When the Treaty of Ghent was signed in 1814, the UK had actually taken some 40,000 Km2 extra off the US than we had at the begining. We gave it all back in exchange peace though, as we're awfully good sports.

C'mon Grady, I would have thought you'd know where I am from by now, we have been engaging in debate for some years now. They do say memory is the first to go.....

I am intrigued as to what this "second defeat" is though. I thought I was pretty well clued up on British and World history, yet this one has passed me by. Educate me!

Yes, I do know and have known that you are British, but as usual I read posts without checking to see who the poster is. It would have been more accurate to say that I was reminded that you are British, but based purely on your post, I thought I was speaking to a Canadian.

I guess technically, the US did not defeat the British in the American Revolution, if that's the source of your confusion, but here it is customary for Americans to trace our roots to the American colonies.

For example, the United States Marine Corps celebrates November 10, 1775 as its birth, even though it was the Continental Marines who were established on that date and first recruited at Tun Tavern in Philadelphia or so the legend goes.

So, while it was the American colonies who first defeated the British, it was those same colonies who became the United States of America.

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Yes, that's the one defeat I am aware of. I wholeheartedly subscribe to the School of thought that Britain was defeated by the Colonies/USA.

Had circumstance been different for us, however, things would have been very different for the colonies! That, as they say around these parts, is another thread ... All I will say is "Damn those bloody French!"

I am still puzzled by your claim of two defeats. If the War of Independence was the first, what was the second? I am genuinely intrigued!

I am speaking of the defeat of the British at the Battle of New Orleans and yes, I know that this battle was fought after the war had ended and was actually fought in Chalmette, Louisiana, not New Orleans.

So, yes, you are technically correct that the War of 1812 did not end in the defeat of either side, but we Southerners are wont to look at the Battle of New Orleans as a defeat of the British, especially given the odds and the outcome.

At the end of the day, the British had 2,037 casualties: 291 dead (including three senior generals), 1,262 wounded, and 484 captured or missing.[12][13][14][15] The Americans had 71 casualties: 13 dead, 39 wounded, and 19 missing.[12][16][17]

en.wikipedia.org...

In fact, had you grown up in Louisiana, the Battle of New Orleans and the actions of the privateers in the Gulf would about the only notable events in the whole war, even though it took place after the war.

[edit on 2008/5/22 by GradyPhilpott]

reply to post by GradyPhilpott


Hmmm... Thats like claiming the Germans defeated the Allies and citing the Battle of the Bulge as evidence. One battle does not equate to winning the War!

The Battle of New Orleans was part of the war of 1812, but word hadn't reached either detachment of troops of the signing of the Ghent Treaty, so the fought on for a short while after.

Whilst the British lost that particular battle (through negligence and downright incompetence by the commanding officers), as they did many others I'm sure, that same British force went on to win the Battle of Fort Bower near Mobile before withdrawing upon news of the peace treaty.

As for the War's outcome, I'm sorry to say that historians tend to agree it was a dismal failure on the behalf of the USA.

Barely any War aims were achieved (seems to be a common thing with the USA, declare victory despite quite obviously not winning), aside from the ceasing of impressing Americans into the Royal Navy.

However, that practice was stopping even as the War broke out, as the War with France had been won so we had no need for extra sailors to man the North American Squadrons.

In fact, the only positive outcome for the USA was that France had been defeated, thereby removing the need for all the grievances you guys had in the first place!

Had France still been on the agenda, the War of 1812 would have been an utter waste of time and men for the USA.

Considering the advantage the USA had at the outset and that the UK was fighting a very bloody War with France at the same time, you guys performed dismally.

[edit on 22/5/08 by stumason]

I think Iraq or Israel would become a state way before either Australia or Canada does. Well to go on Tangents, I had a dream a While Back in which Canada had sent off a nuclear warhead to the U.S. North East coast, talking about shaky friendship.

I highly doubt this would ever happen. So what if you have maps of our cities? I have an atlas at home with the maps of all your cities. Oh, and don't forget about Google Earth. Besides, while you have soldiers in Vancouver, and the rest in every other country in the world besides your own, we could get a few thousand soldiers from Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec and send them down to Washington and the games over. Then, this continent would be so much better. Canada is much less corrupt than America you know.

Originally posted by Erastis07
I think Iraq or Israel would become a state way before either Australia or Canada does. Well to go on Tangents, I had a dream a While Back in which Canada had sent off a nuclear warhead to the U.S. North East coast, talking about shaky friendship.

This could come true. When I become Prime Minister, say hello to Canada's first nuclear weapons program intended to secure ourselves, not provide enriched Uranium for other countries.

[edit on 103131p://444 by For(Home)Country]

reply to post by fiorano


Sorry, but the Articles Of Confederation were abandoned when the U.S. Constitution was adopted. So anything stated in that document has been declared "null & void" over 230 years ago.

The US will need the resources of Canada to sustain itself in the
next 50 years or so. Canada as the 51st state makes perfect sense.
Put a bunch of domed cities in the Yukon. Most of the clean water
will be up there come the late 21st century.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


i cant help it if those other people here in Canada speak that foreign language which sounds so funny on my ears -what are they called le french mon ami?here in merry old Ontario we speak English or rather the vast minority of us do.does it matter whether you use curds or why or your choice of cheese , i don`t think so , they have their style of poutine and we have our own style here so i guess i`ll pass on the smack-now if we could only teach them how to speak the national language English.because were not supposed to speak our native tongue in le belle province and all signs are in French -all kidding aside i`m glad that you decided to remain a part of Canada now if we could only get along.

I seriously doubt it, espacially since averyone else in NATO would be like "What are you doing?" and probably help us. Anyways, I think the size of the army as well as gun sales would significantly go up very quickly. Canada isn't exactly known as a military power, but even I would be either in the army or shooting a rifle out my window at passing Americans if that really happened. And I don't even own a gun, imagine what some of my friends who hunt would be like.

Not to be a dick.. But every Canadian with a gun would retaliate..

You think "insurgents" in Iraq are bad?? Step into Canada.

In a word "nooooooooooo". We love you Americans but our beer quality would suffer too much.