VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:13:07 12/27/01 Thu
Author: Andy from America
Subject: Re: manifest destiny
In reply to: shawn meades 's message, "manifest destiny" on 19:21:21 12/26/01 Wed



Dear Shawn

What u think the USA has been doing after the Spanish American War? It would serve America right if Canada just takes Alaska from the USA. The r believers in Manifest Destiny.


Andy





>While I'm not opposed to Canadian expandion, I am
>wrather opposed to imperialism. Naturally, I don't
>think you are proposing that we force ourselves upon territories mentioned below:
>
> Alaska, Point Roberts and the San Juan Islands, the
>North West Angle of Lake of the Woods ***(This is
>known as Angle Inlet, BTW)***, Isle Royale of Lake
>Superior, Saint Pierre and Miquelon Islands,
>Greenland, and Iceland.
>
>But I'm not keen on the idea of our country admitting
>to expantionist tendencies. If these areas take the
>initiative on their own to join Canada, GREAT! We'll
>welcome them with open arms! but I just don't think we
>should coax any people with "land of milk and honey"
>delusions. We're in quite a fix as it is trying to
>figure out the position of our existing provinces in
>Confederation- is expantion necesarily good?
>
>While politically, I'd like nothing more than for
>Kalaalit Nunaat to join confederation- think about it-
>the three main established parties consiste of Social
>Democrats, Liberals, and communists! It's about time
>a few more leftists were sent to the House of Commons
>(though Kalaalit Nunaat would get at the most two
>seats- same as they've got with Denmark. It wouldn't
>be all that much of an advantage for them)! But what
>about the extra equalization payments? The
>maintenance of yet more northern infrastructure?
>Trying to keep prices down in isolated areas? It
>would cost the federal government TONNES (that's how
>metric tonnes are spelt) of money! Money that our
>current government would rather use to "reward" those
>who vote for them. Personally, I'd be afraid that
>Kalaalit Nunaat and others would be completely ignored.
>
>Also, if Iceland, Alaska, and Kalaalit Nunaat were to
>join confederation- wouldn't it only be fair to make
>Icelandic and various Inuit languages OFFICIAL
>languages? This isn't TOO expensive, but it's
>certainly not cheap!
>
>Another can of worms we open up is how much
>sovereignty would certain areas such as Kalaalit
>Nunaat and Iceland have? Alaska stands to gain
>sovereignty, so it's practically a non-issue in that
>sense, but Iceland and Kalaalit Nunaat stand to lose
>quite a bit! Wouldn't sovereignty association or
>something similar be better in those cases? If we go
>down that road, then what's to stop the future Premier
>of Québec (or even Alberta for crissakes!) from saying
>they are deserving of such a position in
>confederation? It seams that the policies of Imperial
>Canada wouldn't ease things with Québec, but
>complicate them to degrees we haven't seen since the
>1995 referendum! :o
>
>And St. Pierre & Miquelon is quite complicated.
>France's constitution forbids the disolution of the
>Republic- and if France wanted to hold on to the North
>American territories against the wishes of the
>residents (being theoretical here- I haven't seen any
>evidence that the People of SP&M would either desire
>union with Canada, nor that it would be favourable)
>then it wouldn't be hard for France to encorporate the
>Islands into full French departments, I believe. Even
>if they did join- would they be a province? Would
>they join Québec? Would they join Newfoundland &
>Labrador? Would an alternative and unique arrangement
>be necessary?
>
>One last point- claiming sovereignty over a territory
>is one thing, but over an independant nation (Iceland,
>and to a certain lesser degree, Kalaalit Nunaat [it
>being a self-governing territory]) I find to be
>utterly immoral, and offensive.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.