It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada to become 51st state in 2010

page: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Sorry if this was mentioned in the thread already - I'm in a rush and don't have time to read it all, I just wanted to say, that before stating that Canada has 20 percent of the world's fresh water supply, you may wish to check out canadians.org... - the Council of Canadians, who explain that this is, unfortunately, a corporate myth/misunderstanding to perpetuate the North American Union - "hey, they've got so much fresh water, and should "share" it with us!"

Bullsh*t. Canada has water, yes, but not like "they" say we do, and by "share" they mean "allow to be stolen through bulk water exports deemed unstoppable following the signing of bonding agreements".

Please don't let the illusion of greater abundance than there is be used in a negative way.

Peace.




posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
The thiing is,

If Cannada and Mexico, and most of the Caribean Islands were made States, and we are still known as THE Untited States of America.

It would still make sense... in fact, the US could make ALL of North, centeral, and south America, States, and then, we would have a true United States of America... ALL OF AMERICA...



posted on Aug, 1 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 



If Cannada and Mexico, and most of the Caribean Islands were made States, and we are still known as THE United States of America. It would still make sense... in fact, the US could make ALL of North, central, and south America, States and then, we would have a true United States of America... ALL OF AMERICA...


OK, Mr T/K/Z, but who is in charge? What if the official legal language is changed to Spanish? Or even Portugese? Will we have to push “2" to continue in English?

I recently did the numbers, and the Great Slave Lake and the Great Bear Lake. Both contain around 550 cubic miles of water. I am holding a newspaper article that says Atlanta uses 1 billion gallons a day out of Lake Lanier which has about 190 days supply of water remaining. NW Georgia is in the 3 rd year of a 100 years drought. So how long would either lake supply Atlanta? A cubic mile has about 1000 X 10 to the 9th gallons. A trillion gallons. So to answer my own question about Atlanta, about a thousand days. Or say, 3 years. (This disregards rain or snowfall replenishment).



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by not so crazy cannuck
 


your facts are wrong.... population is approx. 32 million... and it has over 2/3rds of the worlds fresh water dip#... www.ciaworldfactbook.com ... and what purpose would it serve as joining the US? that would only create unstability....



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 



Lake Lanier which has about 190 days supply of water remaining. NW Georgia is in the 3 rd year of a 100 years drought. So how long would either lake supply Atlanta? A cubic mile has about 1000 X 10 to the 9th gallons. A trillion gallons. So to answer my own question about Atlanta, about a thousand days. Or say, 3 years. (This disregards rain or snowfall replenishment).


I believe I have made an error in my calculations. To get to cubic feet in a cubic mile, I used 5000 X 5000 X 5000, rounded off to 125 X 10 to the 9th. Each cubic foot of water contains 7.5 gallons. That equals 937.5 X 10 to the 9th gallons. I rounded that up to 1000 X 10 to the 9th. A thousand billion. Which is also 1 trillion. 1 X 10 to the 12th. At 1 billion gallons a day usage, it would take 34 months - or about 3 years, roughly speaking - for Atlanta to consume 1 trillion gallons - one cubic mile of water.

Both the Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake contain 550 cubic miles of water each. So either could supply Atlanta for - roughly - 500 X 3 = 1,500 years! (I have no information on the replenishment rate for the lakes).

It is, going the great circle route, 2,380 miles from Yellowknife to Atlanta. At $1 billion a mile - allowing about $500 million a mile for graft - it would cost $2.4 trillion to lay the pipe line. With the STANDARD cost over-runs so popular nowadays, lets sell $5 t. in bonds to CYA. With that much FREE money floating around, anything is possible! Time to construct? At one mile a day, and starting at both ends at the same time, about 3-4 years depending on the weather.

There are formulas in the wonderful pocket size reference book, “Pocket Ref” 2002, by Thomas J. Glover, Sequoia Publishing, Inc., Littleton, CO 80120. I have the 3rd edition always at hand. On page 633 you will find tables showing the flow rates of various diameter pipes. To reach a 1 billion gallons a day rate of flow seems to take 10 pipes of 1 meter diameter (40 inches). My tables do not include sizes larger than 1 meter. Roughly speaking the number of pipes required would be inversely proportional to the square of the inside diameter. The larger the diameter pipe, the lower the internal losses to friction would be. Perhaps 2 pipes of 3 meters ID would be good? For more info go to www.sequoiapublishing.com.

How much would a gallon of Great Slave Lake water cost in Atlanta?
Using $3 t. as the pipeline's final cost, amortized over 20 years, it seems to be about 2/10th cents or 3/10ths cents per gallon. That’s $3 per 1000 gallons. The average homeowner in Atlanta uses 80 gallons per day. A household of 4 persons would therefore consume about 4 X 80 X 30 gallons per month. Say 10,000 gallons a month. Cost of the water? About 30 bucks. Add 100% Canadian royalty and the cost is still very affordable at $60 a month. With great care, the stated usage could probably be lowered to half the given amount.

So who gets to sell the bonds? Offered at say, 8.75%?


[edit on 9/5/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I think it would be a huge mistake to start a war with Canada. Hell, our brothers to the north will probably be the only ones to help us out in the event of a civil war.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by BloodRedSky
 



I think it would be a huge mistake to start a war with Canada. Hell, our brothers to the north will probably be the only ones to help us out in the event of a civil war.


I’m not too sure of that, Mr B/R/S. Helping us out. We did invite the Canadians to join in our 1775-1783 Revolution - see Article 11, Articles of Confederation - but they declined. See foot note below. Then we - lacking genuine provocation - invaded Canada in 1812, captured the capital York (now Toronto), got mad and burned the main buildings. Later, towards the end of that war in 1814, the British Redcoats landed in Maryland and marched to our capital, Washington and burned the White House among other buildings. A fair number of British Crown Loyalists - Tories - who were expelled from America after the Revolutionary War had moved to Canada. Like today's Arab-Israeli condition, we took their property with no compensation. No Right of Return either. No love lost up there.

But it’s not WAR that I am advocating. If we could change our attitude towards the rest of the 6.4 billion inhabitants of the planet, we could probably work out a mutually beneficial deal. I know we are at war today for crude oil, and that rings alarm bells anywhere there is a commodity WE might want. The American public has NOT rebelled against the new vision of PREEMPTIVE war. As a matter of fact, 53 million voters gave that novel concept its absolute stamp of APPROVAL in 2004. Canadians are rightly wary of Americans.



signature "It's better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand years as a lamb."


Unsolicited observation: This adage seems to encourage aggression and to denigrate passivity. Is this not also America's mantra?


Foot Note.
Canada was offered a special deal on joining with the US. Articles of Confederation. Article XI.
Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States. www.yale.edu...

[edit on 9/7/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Wow, that's some great logic.

The olympics are in Canada in 2010, so that must mean there will be some sort of false flag attack? lol...

I doubt anything like that will happen at the 2010 olympics, just as nothing happened at the 2008 olympics.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
USA will not " occupy" Canada no #ing way. Canadian patriotism should not be taken lightly. Canada does not value militarism without reason, don't provide the reason!

[edit on 7-9-2008 by kreese]

[edit on 7-9-2008 by kreese]



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Doesn't this belong in the Skunk Works forum, along with the other harebrained delusions? It might make a good South Park episode though.



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   


It will never be an Occupation, but it will happen,

treaties, free trade, porous broders

Check, check, check

Water and resource deals

Check, Check

Military protection

Check

All we actually would have to do is intentionally move in ex us Military, already have done this withins corporation and bought off many politicians too

Just a matter of rocking the vote a bit and getting the Canadians to want this

It will happen sooner or later

In fact the only reasons there is a big resistance... George Bush, American bahavior and Quebec a territory that doesn't even like Canada

There was talk in the USA of helping push the seperatist movement there so we could simply absorb the rest of canada (back when canadians didn't think we were freaks)

But really t will happen, excpect alot of Americans to move to Canada when things get worse here, there will be some disaster or war, or it just gets poor and ugly then those of us like me that are relatively normal have skills and businesses will run to Canada

Then when everything dies down...

we will want to be part of the USA again

predictable...why do you think they let all Mexicans in? So lots of white people eventually head north

If we pull a Mexico on Canada there would be no conflict and it's going to happen because of the way things are going in the states and current legal and commercial ties

America will need health care, it's economy getting straight and to calm the F down and maybe legalize weed...

WHEN we hit that pahse the rest will follow... and that's where we will head after a war... maybe even if Obama gets elected, but I think it will need to get bad here before Americans run North in real numbers and the country learns it's lessons

this isn't tomorrow, but the time will come



posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
First of all, I would like to say that the OP is a moron who should play in the Skunk Works.

Second, I don't think that there would be a conflict between the USA and Canada such as the one that has been talked about in this thread.

Third, Canadian patriotism should not be taken lightly. Canada does not value militarism because we don't have a reason to.... and I feel sorry for any nation that gives us one.



[edit on 7-9-2008 by kreese]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kreese
 



Third, Canadian patriotism should not be taken lightly.


Canada's Alberta oil sands will never be recovered until there is almost no crude oil remaining anywhere. It does not matter if crude goes to $200 a bbl. The relative cost of recovering oil from the sands is so much more than drilling into a pool of oil under the ground or sea floor that it won’t happen.

Same problem obtains with our own Colorado shale oil. Yes, it’s there, but it costs 5 X what crude oil costs to recover from the oil formations. When all the earth’s crude oil has been pumped, then we will shift to Alberta and Colorado, but not before.

[edit on 9/8/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Not saying I don't agree (in part) with your comment about the real reasons behind the declaration of war but please do not cite wikipedia as a credible source.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I think the topic sounds plausible, but at the same time, I don't think the plans for the North American union are anyhwere near being over. Maybe just postponed.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Canada's Alberta oil sands will never be recovered until there is almost no crude oil remaining anywhere. It does not matter if crude goes to $200 a bbl. The relative cost of recovering oil from the sands is so much more than drilling into a pool of oil under the ground or sea floor that it won’t happen.

Same problem obtains with our own Colorado shale oil. Yes, it’s there, but it costs 5 X what crude oil costs to recover from the oil formations. When all the earth’s crude oil has been pumped, then we will shift to Alberta and Colorado, but not before.

[edit on 9/8/2008 by donwhite]


Are you sure about that, because I would really beg to differ. The oilsands are being mined right now. There is almost a million barrels of oil a day coming out of the plants there. I think you need to do a little bit more research because what you have said is just plain wrong.


As a result of the development of Canadian oil sands reserves, 44% of Canadian oil production in 2007 was from oil sands,


Oilsands

And to whoever said about Canada during the American Revolution. We weren't a country yet, we were British. Most of the citizens up here were loyal British citizens. Why would they help the enemy of Britain?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
 



Are you sure about that, because I would really beg to differ. The oilsands are being mined right now. There is almost a million barrels of oil a day coming out of the plants there. I think you need to do a little bit more research because what you have said is just plain wrong.


Yes, Mr R45, you are right to (mildly) rebuke me. I was wrong.

I have discovered however that all is not always what it seems to be at first blush. See this from Wikipedia.



The minority Conservative government of Canada, pressured to do more on the environment, announced in its 2007 budget that it will phase out some oil sands tax incentives over coming years.

Currently . . the U.S. imports twenty percent of its oil and refined products from Canada . . Section 526 of the Energy Independence And Security Act prohibits US government agencies from buying oil produced by processes that produce more greenhouse gas emissions than would traditional petroleum including oil sands.[Operative word is “agencies” which is mainly the DoD]. [Bold is my own]. en.wikipedia.org...


Two points. 1) Subsidy. Tax incentives play a role in "cost calculations" in Canadian oilsand product. It is not stated here nor do I know what the value those tax concessions are to the producers nor do I know how much revenue is lost to Canada. 2) Lack of environmental controls may also go to make oilsand oil affordable. Which potential adverse global climate effect is short-sighted to ignore is the best I can say for that. See the extract below.



. . [at] the current average cost of production of $28 per barrel of bitumen, all of these projects appear likely to be profitable. However, bitumen production costs are rising rapidly, with production cost increases of 55% since 2005 . .

In July [2007] Royal Dutch Shell released its 2006 annual report and announced that its Canadian oil sands unit made an after tax profit of $21.75 per barrel, nearly double its worldwide profit of $12.41 per barrel on conventional crude oil . . en.wikipedia.org...


Continuing



And to whoever said about Canada during the American Revolution. We weren't a country yet, we were British. Most of the citizens up here were loyal British citizens. Why would they help the enemy of Britain?


I am probably the person you allude to. I rely on the Articles of Confederation prepared in Philadelphia in 1775. I also mentioned the American invasion of Canada in 1812. The Americans expected local or indigenous support but got none. The Expeditionary Force then turned punitive and burned York. I am not sufficiently familiar with Canada's history to know what status the English speaking people living north of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence held in 1775. I assume their status was that of a "colony' as it is so referred to in Article XI of the Philadelphia document mentioned above.



Dominion Day, is Canada's national day, a federal statutory holiday, celebrating the anniversary of the July 1, 1867 enactment of the British North America Act of 1867, which united Canada as a single country of four provinces. The holiday was renamed Canada Day (Fête du Canada) on October 27, 1982. The Statute of Westminster 1931 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (22 & 23 Geo. V c. 4, December 11, 1931) which established a status of legislative equality between the self-governing dominions of the British Empire and the United Kingdom . . en.wikipedia.org...


Again, not being familiar with Canadian history - as I should be - sorry about that - I'm wondering what the legal distinction between DOMINION status and COMMONWEALTH status would have been? That is, what was accomplished FOR the benefit of Canada by the 1931 Statute of Westminster?

[edit on 9/9/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


I used to work in the oilsands and the tax benefit they get, comes more from the Provincial than it does from the Federal government. It basically states that as long as the mine is deemed "under construction" there is a royalty relief system. This is why ever since 1962 the companies have been always building something.

I can see that history is different depending on what side of the border you happen to live on. Up here we were always taught that the Americans tried to invade Canada but the army made up of British soldiers and Canadians regulars fought back and invaded the US burned the White House then turned around and came home. Not saying you are wrong, I guess it all depends on location.

As far Dominion and Commonwealth it is all a matter of governance. We are still part of the British Commonwealth, as we still recognize the Queen, yet we have our governing body that represents the people.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Why would the USA declare war on the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India and dozens of other countries who are all currently their allies? Not to say breaching NATO agreements which would bring the rest of Europe against you?

Hmmm, USA v the World. I wonder who would win?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 



Why would the USA declare war on the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India and dozens of other countries who are all currently their allies? Not to say breaching NATO agreements which would bring the rest of Europe against you? Hmmm, USA v the World. I wonder who would win?


Well, it does not look good for the US. We got run out of Mogadishu, then we quit the field before the Taliban was done in, and who are now back in charge of about 80% of Afghan, and we have been asked to leave Iraq on a fixed schedule. We don't want to leave Iraq until we get sweetheart oil deals for ExxonMobil and TexacChevron but it looks like we might have to. We have learned to LIVE with al Qaeda and on January 20, 2009, we can declare the War on Terror OVER!




top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join