Does this mean we'd have to take Howie Mandel? If so, I say let the chaos reign.

It isn't as good a deal as it might seem.  The territories are so large that we would only get a handful of senators.  The western territories cannot be trusted to be any less Republican than Alaska.  Most of the population is bunched up near the US boarder anyway, and many are in the US as some form of dual citizens.  How many new Democratic voters would we get?  How many congressmen?  How many senators?

It would be better to do what the ACC lately did with a rival conference.  Not try to swallow the whole thing, but take the best pieces.

All we really would want would be Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Isand.  (I am not sure about PE Island, I hear it might go Quebequios.)

Why invade?  Get them to play with us.  Then next time the Quebequios are making a fuss, propose a 3 way split.  Offer fast track to statehood to the plum provinces.  I see 12 safe Democratic senators, maybe a few less and I am guessing 10 million new voters, leaning 70% Democratic. 

A possibility to consider: a strategic aliance with Dennmark which now has a territorial dispute with Canada over the ownership of Hans Island.  First, liberating harrased Hans Islanders would make it a Just War.  Second, Canada would had to defend on two fronts.

-----------

*Hans Island is a gloomy, barren slab of granitic rock so high in the Arctic that in some years it cannot be reached by ship.  Nearest human habitation is about 100 miles away.  However, as the disirability of Arctic real estate is bound to increase.... 

Bush is probably thinking Canada AND Mexico in order to protect our borders. It would cost less that building fences, of course. I believe they both have oil as well. God would probably agree that it would be best for them to have the US manage things for them. What do you think? 

The chances of one major western nation invading another at this time in history?  About zero.  So it is mostly BS going on here, although a little envy over the one possible way the Republicans could be swamped in Congress.

As to your moral high ground, its like the pre-Civil War moralism of the north over southern slavery.  Geeze, they'd been out of the practice themselves for 20 or 30 years, and they only made profit out of it through insurance, banking, corporate farms and what not.

Get off your high horse.  Canadian business practices are not US-lite they are just US, north of the border. 

If we invade and annex Canada, can we then give Texas back to Mexico, and throw in a few of the other other Southern red states?  Moving the Mexican border northward might help with the immigration problem.

The Irish-American Fenians used to periodically hatch plans to invade Canada, and launched several actual raids.  The prototype of the modern submarine was designed under contract to the Fenian Brotherhood, for raids on British shipping going to Canada.  The Fenians' micromanagement and impatience led to the contract being cancelled before the sub was built. 

"The economic impact of even a fairly short disruption of those ties would be enormous, so the president might feel the need to engage in a little peacekeeping to keep things flowing."

"A little peacekeeping" would guarantee a long-term disruption of the peaceful relations that exist now, with tremendous economic and political consequences.

Why is it that Americans get off on these militaristic fantasies, when the entire success of the American experiment has been historically based on creating a huge non-militarized zone of free markets and free movement and free thought and free speech? 

I can't believe I am reading this. Invading Canada! What the hell are you smoking?

thepeoplechoose

Ontario is the prize.  It must be Dem or there is no point.

That notwithstanding, the USA could clearly defeat the Canadian Army nowadays, and the political logic of the 1860s still holds today (though with the parties reversed) which is something the Democrats should keep in mind if they ever win an election.

Unless you are joking, that is a horrible thing to say.  You are suggesting an invasion and annexation of Canada for purely domestic, partisan reasons! 

The chances of one major western nation invading another at this time in history?  About zero.

When our politico-media nexus was done with Canada, Americans would believe the country was about as western as Madagascar.  I hope this thread is just sophomoric speculation, kind of how many angels could dance on the end of a pin, but I'm also seeing signs that people here just don't understand the nature of the beast that is homo erectus.  If it became obvious that it was in our best interests to invade Canada, a reason would be found, promulgated, and accepted; period.  That's the way people are and always have been, even us freedom loving, big hearted, generous, democracy-spreading Americans.  When we wanted a big hunk of Mexico, we found a reason to take it.  When we wanted to show how tough on communism we were, we found a reason to make war in Vietnam.  When we wanted absolute control of our hemisphere and to grab a piece of the pie of imperialism, Remember the Maine!  The Indians?  A bunch of heathen savages who didn't deserve the land they'd been on for centuries -- but we sure did.  So we took it.  Grenada, Panama, Iraq, or War of 1812, I'm sure I'm leaving a few out.  If we wanted Canada, it would suddenly be populated by knuckle-dragging monsters dripping American blood from their fangs (with funny accents to boot, eh?), about to destroy our precious democracy, and it would take about two months to make enough people here believe it, and then the tanks would be warming up their engines, the satellites tasked, and the cruise missiles programmed.    

First of all I have to say that in my opinion that I highly doubt that Quebec separation will result in an armed conflict. Bloc Quebecois (separatist) leader Gilles Duceppe said himself that a sucessful separation vote would not rule out another vote to re-integrate at a later date if the will of the people was such.

If indeed we are going to speculate on the pros and cons of an armed American intervention into clearly soverign matters then I think it behooves us to explore all of the political ramifications of such an action.

 The invasion of Iraq resulted in a swift defeat of the Iraqi military, however considering the amount of time that has passed since "Mission Accomplished" was declared in Iraq we can see that the defeat of a nation's military does not equate to a cessation of hostilities. The notion that we as citizens would passively accept defeat is unrealistic. I, myself am not militaristic. I completely abhor war, but if faced with the suggested reality I would not hesitate to take up arms in an instant be it in a traditional military structure or an insurgency. Think of it like having Iraq in your own backyard. It would be immensely easier to rotate troops home, and supply lines would not be much of an issue, however the effects of war would immediately be felt directly by the American population which im sure would quickly erode any kind of support  for the trumped up reasons for the action in the first place. This may not necessarily lead to an end to the action, but given our cross border social dynamic (Canadians living in America & Americans living in Canada.) I'm almost certain that it would cause unprecedented social tensions within America.

But that's just the domestic scene. Another question we would have to ask would be this: What are the global implications of such an action?

To have the United States execute a military action on it's closest ally and trading parter for political or economical gain would surely open the door to all out global warfare. This would be the bellweather that all nations opposed to US foreign policies were waiting for. Already there are those who are quick to use the the terms "Fascistic" or "Naziism" when relating to current government policies. While I am not one of those, I am quite concerned with many of the policies, and changes of policy made by the current administration. Armed intervention into Canadian soverign matters would easily be the push over that cliff though. Such an action would have to be unilateral, and we know how the free world views such actions. One contubutor mused in an earlier post about Tony Blair and the UK's position in such a matter, but I think it would be more widespread than that. I believe that such an action would cause all nations to consider this: If the US is willing to invade it's closest ally, then no one in the free world is safe from American interests when it comes to social or economic gain. This could solidify world opposition to American policy the same way that the march into France began to solidify world opposition to the aspirations of WW2 Germany, and at that point the drawing of similarities between the two would be justified.

Imagine if North Korea, China, Iran, and other countries who were not so warm to US policy had a righteous rallying point to start whipping up anti-US actions. Imagine if all the countries that formerly supported US policies began to seriously question the authenticity and security of being a US ally.

Considering the fact that we as well as Mexico are currently trying to get the US to fulfill agreements it has already ratified under NAFTA but is unwilling or slow to move on, I would have to say that actual armed US intervention in Canada would be tantamount to cultural, if not global suicide.

Is the bottom hunk of Ontario, Alberta, or Quebec really worth all that? I think not. If you really want all that stuff, just move here, we love new neighbors and welcome them with open arms. But if you're one of those who want to take it, be prepared to feel the hurt. Check our history, when freedom is at stake don't expect us to just roll over and capitulate. To do so would be a gross underestimation of our resolve.

I thought the idea was that continued Red Zone domination of American politics would lead the Blue States to beg Canada to let them join.

I live in Ontario and I've never heard of any Lake of the Woods negotiations.  Of course NW Ontario is fearfully neglected by just about everybody in the entire world.

Nah, the trend is towards regionalism.  If British Columbia ever becomes an independent country, it's taking Washington and Oregon with it. 

Image a by-then-fully-crippled Michael J Fox pleading with us on TV to stop the madness.

Did the Germans allow Jews to defend themselves?  Did Southerners allow slaves to speak out on the evils of slavery?  Did the Euro-Americans ever portray the Indian side of things during "Manifest Destiny"?  

Germany went from being an historic ally of Britain's to being portrayed, literally, as animals in British propaganda, while England's inveterate and historic enemy, the French, became staunch allies; this happened in a couple of years.  Muslims and Hindus lived together on the sub-continent for centuries, and were suddenly at each others' throats when nationalism was loosed.  I could go on forever.  Sympathy is a flimsy guard against the passions of self-interest.

I forgot to add a plug for one of my favorite authors.  Harry Turtledove writes in the genre known as alternative history.  In his series "Southern Victory," he posits what would have happened had the South one the American Civil War.  He has the North invading and occupying Canada, with the Canadian response, which is, predictably, terrorism.  It's just fiction, of course, but it is interesting -- I recommend the series to you if you're interested in this sort of thing.  It isn't overtly heavyweight literature, but Turtledove is a thinking writer; he covers important topics -- suicide bombing, terrorism, race relations, red state vs blue state -- in such a way that you hardly realize he's making commentary on them.  

I know.. that's why I put a smile after I wrote that (and I'm also fairly confident you have no interest in ever being elected to Congress).

Look, most warmongering Americans go by another label, Republicans.  Democrats mostly support war when they are too cowardly to stand up to Republicans who have wrapped themselves in the flag.

Republicans can count Canadian voters just as easy as Democrats can.  There is NO WAYRepublicans are going to annex Canada.  

God would probably agree that it would be best for them to have the US manage things for them. What do you think?

Im hoping that you're being facetious with your remarks, but they are neither playful, jocular, or humourous. Your post smacks of the outdated belief of "Manifest Destiny". The assumption that you have God in your pocket is at the very least blasphemous, blinding, and misleading and at the very most a foreboding sign of reckless disregard to the rest of the world. Is it your position that God would conveniently ignore his own rules in favour of your own personal gain in the same way that your current administration does? Personally I find that absurd in the extreme. It certainly makes one wonder as to the "realitycheck" component of your handle. Just what reality are you actually referring to? Certainly not the one I live in since there seems to be no reflection or objectivity present in your statement.

It would cost less that building fences, of course.

By what economic aspect? Money? Resources? or lives? Which of the three is worth more to you? 

If your post was an attempt to play devil's advocate just to show how silly that particular way of thinking is, then I apologize profusely in advance. 

Its possible that may happen very soon because of the sponsorship scandal, and how the parties are campaigning against gun violence.

For those of you who are not aware here's a quickie catch-up.

 In 1995 there was a vote on Quebec sovereignty. It was pretty close, but Quebec stayed as part of Canada. Due to the closeness of the vote, the Federal Liberal Party set up a fund to promote federalism in Quebec with the objective being to effectively raise Canada's profile in Quebec. It was unclear, however how that money was handed out, and a Canadian newspaper under the freedom of information act discovered that there were $550,000 paid for a report that did not exist. The Auditor General was then commisioned to investigate the fraud and reported that around $100 million was misappropriated. During the investigation even our Prime Minister was subpoenaed to testify. In the aftermath Liberal Party confidence dropped which led to a triggering of an early election on which we are about to vote.

Recently there has been quite a bit of gun violence in Toronto. a 16 year old bystander was shot in the head while shopping with her parents on boxing day as gunmen fired into a crowd during a drive-by, also it took but 5 hours into the new year before we had our first shooting victim. Previous to these murders though, Paul Martin leader of the Liberal Party vowed to ban handguns in Ontario. Although we already had a partial ban on handguns anyway, Legal registered gun owners took serious offense to this plan because it involved buying back existing guns for a fraction of their price.

It seems as though the ban has caused a serious surge in Conservative support. Where once the Liberals still had a clear lead (despite the scandal) has all but been erased by this issue of gun violence. The Liberals and Conservatives are relatively tied now, and with the Bloc Quebecois doing well in Quebec (partly, it is theorized because they misrepresent the situation to new immigrant Canadians) and the Green Party doing well along the west coast, it effectively splits the vote from the third major party the NDP. If things continue as they are going we may well see Ontario going to the Conservatives this election. We'll just have to see. Keep in mind though that the Canadian Conservative Party values differ from American conservatism.