Mark Gregson wrote:
> > I get it, but as I explained, it's not a level playing field, morally speaking.
> > No part of Zion has lived up to the contract in Ether and we're all corrupt. Much
> > as we would love to take a higher ground, it is too expensive for us. We *could*
> > do it, but your government's actions make it more difficult for us. We have free
> > agency but limited options, which is usually how life works.
> What would be more expensive and difficult, Marc? Are you saying that it is cheaper
>for Canada to support nearly every US military operation (i.e. war) than to not
Yes. Reluctantly, but that's the conclusion I've come to.
> That makes no sense to me.
My reasoning is that we are being hammered enough by US protectionism as it is -- if
we upset the US it could get worse. So I mean "expensive" literally. So then the
question becomes, should we take the moral high road despite the increased financial
cost? (we'd need to beef up our military, too, speaking of costs). Look at the
reaction Chrétien's remark got in the US. Fox, in particular, for some reason,
has their sights set on us, and this is not good. Better to be taken for granted and
forgotten about than to become an item on US network news.
> Are you saying that it is cheaper and easier for Canada to support other US policy
>actions even if we don't like them and feel that they will be detrimental to our
>country? That also makes no sense.
Literally speaking it may not make "sense" but I'm trying to explore the options open
to us. I'm open to alternatives, believe me. I know you're hesitant to get too
involved in political topics at this time, but if you have any ideas, I'm open.
> I'll slightly violate a personal (temporary) rule of mine and ask all on this list
>who think that Canada needs the US to protect it:
I'll vote in a typically wishy-washy way. It *was* necessary during the Cold War. All
those missiles that the US and the USSR had pointed at each other would have been
flying over Canada in the case of nuclear war. As you know, we were also pressured by
Kennedy to station Bomarc nuclear missiles on Canadian soil. When we refused, the US
dismantled our aerospace industry (remember the AVRO Arrow scandal?) and
violated our sovereignty by stationing nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles aboard
in the straits of the Arctic Archipelago. They still refuse to recognize our
sovereignty over the internal waters of the Arctic.
It's absolutely NOT necessary today, imo.
So record that vote in the context in which you asked the question.
> Please send me a list of Canada's enemies who could invade Canada.
> Your list will be empty. There is no one.
> Hence, Canada does not need _any_ form of US protection. Not economic, not from
>ballistic missiles (who would launch against us?), not from land invasions, not from
>sea invasions, not from air invasions, not from no one no how.
> (Just as a little tip to those who might think that invasions are easy: research the
>allies' effort in the Gulf War to beat puny little Iraq. Try to extrapolate to
>massive Canada (one of many caveats: we have winter). Extra hint: try to find any US
>Cold War plans for the invasion of Russia).
LOL. I know what you're getting at. We'll see who else gets it. Can I add John Candy's
name as an additional hint? That truth is stranger than fiction?
However, here's the kicker: I don't think it's anyone's military we have to worry
about, but the US economic might which is steamrolling over us in absolute blatant
hypocrisy even now; imagine if we had someone like Paul Martin, who at least speaks
one of our official languages, as PM, who told the Pentagon to stuff it. What do you
think would happen to Nortel, Canadian Marconi, Spar Aerospace, etc., etc.?
(let alone all the unknown little specialists who subcontract to US companies like
Lougheed-Boeing and MITRE).
I only pray that we become Scotland to their England and not Romania to their Soviet
> ========= Mark Gregson [EMAIL PROTECTED] =========
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling
short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely;
its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer, nor those of
any organization with which the author may be associated.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: email@example.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!