NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone else hear about the snippets of newsbites over the past few years about an E.U. style Pan-American Union forming... with a capitol moved to Atlanta or Florida... and an "Amero" dollar for all? Canadian and Mexican troops (+ more from further southern countries?) can come assist with 'domestic terror' issues while US troops are controlling (it in) the rest of the world? It's out there... look.

Anyone else hear about the snippets of newsbites over the past few years about an E.U. style Pan-American Union forming... with a capitol moved to Atlanta or Florida... and an "Amero" dollar for all? Canadian and Mexican troops (+ more from further southern countries?) can come assist with 'domestic terror' issues while US troops are controlling (it in) the rest of the world? It's out there... look.

Why would the capital be moved? Washington DC is a very central location.

Real Answer: And then monkeys will fly from my bottom.

this amounts to flamebait for canadians.

Look it up... It IS out there...

Look it up... It IS out there...

Good sir, provide me with a link and I'll examine this myself.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_011303_global.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/190804anotherbullet.htm

But the E.U is a peaceful economic union, not a military union. also a "pan-american union" when one had only seen the name in the the title, one had mistakenly took it as a hotheaded ultranationalistic league, as were the pan-germanic league and also pan-slavic. are you sure the prefix pan- was used because I do not think it applies? Unless this is the far away dream of a few extremist right wing pan-americans, which will never eventuate.



Why would the capital be moved? Washington DC is a very central location.


But isn't the E.U capital Brussels? (note well: America is a region; pan-american union would = union of the region of america; similarly E.U. is a union of the region Europe)

This idea was thought up by the BBC years ago. I don't think there's any real chance of it happening now the Anti Abortionist Slave Trader Robin Hood in reverse called Bush has been re elected. I think there's more chance of a second Civil War.

this amounts to flamebait for canadians.

Quite true coz I'd sooner shove a flaming wad of tar soaked burlap between my buttcheeks than be a part of the backwards leaning United States. :D

Quite true coz I'd sooner shove a flaming wad of tar soaked burlap between my buttcheeks than be a part of the backwards leaning United States. :D

I know, I know...

[QUOTE=Rechze]But the E.U is a peaceful economic union, not a military union. also a "pan-american union" when one had only seen the name in the the title, one had mistakenly took it as a hotheaded ultranationalistic league, as were the pan-germanic league and also pan-slavic. are you sure the prefix pan- was used because I do not think it applies? Unless this is the far away dream of a few extremist right wing pan-americans, which will never eventuate.

Basically they're talking about the entire hemisphere being involved. I'm not saying it would have a similar agenda. It will start with an economic union as in Europe. It would strengthen the United States, them controlling it all.

Quite true coz I'd sooner shove a flaming wad of tar soaked burlap between my buttcheeks than be a part of the backwards leaning United States. :D

I would have to agree with this. the metric system is LOGICAL. I do not use an archaic form of english, and are currently exercising neo-colonialism (would drag others into it)

Basically they're talking about the entire hemisphere being involved. I'm not saying it would have a similar agenda. It will start with an economic union as in Europe. It would strengthen the United States, them controlling it all.

It sounds too much like 'manifest destiny' to get canucks happily or even willingly on board. you're talking about one of the originating factors for confederation in the first place.

It sounds too much like 'manifest destiny' to get canucks happily or even willingly on board. you're talking about one of the originating factors for confederation in the first place.

Most of Europe (80%) was against it, too when after a few years of slowly moving in that direction it was suddenly announced in total... and no one was allowed to vote...

Most of Europe (80%) was against it, too when after a few years of slowly moving in that direction it was suddenly announced in total... and no one was allowed to vote...

I can't think that is a good thing, less so between our two countries, as we really are no longer moving in the same direction anymore. I'm not saying we're better, just increasingly different than you, and it makes no sense to go forming a greater political union with people you have less in common with with every passing year.

I can't think that is a good thing, less so between our two countries, as we really are no longer moving in the same direction anymore. I'm not saying we're better, just increasingly different than you, and it makes no sense to go forming a greater political union with people you have less in common with with every passing year.

Conversely, I DO think you're better, but that makes no difference. How varied were the seperate European nations in policies? NAFTA was the beginning... Think for a moment...

Really people... this IS being discussed on high levels...

No it isn't.

I believe that this issue was important about 3 years ago now, but since Canada has declined any move in such a direction. Not only would this whole idea be useless, and counter-productive for the United States, the majority of Canadian's and Mexican's would refuse such a move. In Canada, our Government is adamently anti-american in policy.

No it isn't.

I believe that this issue was important about 3 years ago now, but since Canada has declined any move in such a direction. Not only would this whole idea be useless, and counter-productive for the United States, the majority of Canadian's and Mexican's would refuse such a move. In Canada, our Government is adamently anti-american in policy.

Do you know how many Mexican pour over the US border to get into the US? Quite a few. What would happen is the same thing that happened when West and East Germany reunited...West Germany suffered.

It will never happen

*Canadian* <-

Anyone else hear about the snippets of newsbites over the past few years about an E.U. style Pan-American Union forming... with a capitol moved to Atlanta or Florida... and an "Amero" dollar for all? Canadian and Mexican troops (+ more from further southern countries?) can come assist with 'domestic terror' issues while US troops are controlling (it in) the rest of the world? It's out there... look.

I don't think so, ask Mexicans and Canadians if they want their troops to be under the command of USA-proxy government or not!

No it isn't.

I believe that this issue was important about 3 years ago now, but since Canada has declined any move in such a direction. Not only would this whole idea be useless, and counter-productive for the United States, the majority of Canadian's and Mexican's would refuse such a move. In Canada, our Government is adamently anti-american in policy.

As a Canadian, I would have to disagree. The Free Trade Agreement for the Americas is a reality that is being decided by the governments and businesses involved. The only country abstaining is, of course, Cuba. I would like to add, however, that many individuals and small businesses are against the deal, perhaps even the majority. I don't think the idea would be counter-productive for the USA, as it would give them unfettered access to our natural resources, increased access to our consumer base and an even stronger hold on our economy. I agree, however, that many Mexicans and Canadians would not support this idea.

I do not think that our government is adamantly 'anti-american', as the Liberal party is one ruled by the Almighty dollar, and the USA is our biggest trading partner. The illusion that our government is not supportive of the USA is due, I believe, in large part to the fact that Chretien can not stand George W. Bush. As to Mr. Martin, he is too much the finacier to piss off the corporate giant that is the USA.

As a Canadian, I would have to disagree. The Free Trade Agreement

This was done under a Canadian conservative government, we haven't had a conservative government in Canada in quite a few years and over all we don't have them often.

It was the Liberal government that did NAFTA, but we agreed to that because it was a better deal then Free Trade had given us. Free trade basically sold the farm, NAFTA we got it back, or at least a large amount.

Just as Americans like to say they are a conservative people, Canadians are a liberal people and I can't see in the fore seeable future that changing. I doubt Canada would ever agree to what the thread starter is suggesting and at the moment Canadians have become very anti-American policy since the invasion of Iraq.. and we don't much like Bush and that goes for not only this PM, but our last one too! Of course there are exceptions to every rule, I'm just speaking for the majority of Canadians who have been polled on this very subject often in the last few years.

Canadians have become very anti-American policy since the invasion of Iraq.. and we don't much like Bush and that goes for not only this PM, but our last one too!

As have most/many countries of the world, ie.anti-american, at least in the populace. But however the Prime Minister (Aus), is very supportive of George Bush, and also very conservative, initiating a Us-aus FTA. And he managed to stay in government for a fourth term recently, despite involvement in the Iraq war. he has been Prime minister since 1996 It seems that Australia is becoming more conservative currently, and often one notices the prime minister blatanly trying to apeal to nationalism in his speeches. I would dislike having Australians as nationalistic as Americans.....

As have most/many countries of the world, ie.anti-american, at least in the populace. But however the Prime Minister (Aus), is very supportive of George Bush, and also very conservative, initiating a Us-aus FTA. And he managed to stay in government for a fourth term recently, despite involvement in the Iraq war. he has been Prime minister since 1996 It seems that Australia is becoming more conservative currently, and often one notices the prime minister blatanly trying to apeal to nationalism in his speeches. I would dislike having Australians as nationalistic as Americans.....
In France it is about the same. The population is becoming more and more anti-american.
However, the scariest thing is that the conservatives are beginning to take over the country. We elected Chirac (conservative) because he was not le Pen (nazi) but Chirac was still considered as an asshole who should go to jail instead of being president. However, he regained some popular support recently thanks to his opposition to the war. The french are becoming more and more conservative, nationalistic and isolationist because of the common threat (the USA). This is very scarying. I see the same trend happening in the arab world. Extemists are getting more and more popular.

Anyone else hear about the snippets of newsbites over the past few years about an E.U. style Pan-American Union forming... with a capitol moved to Atlanta or Florida... and an "Amero" dollar for all? Canadian and Mexican troops (+ more from further southern countries?) can come assist with 'domestic terror' issues while US troops are controlling (it in) the rest of the world? It's out there... look.

You've got to be kidding me. Only if it's part of a World domination plan...hehe

It will never happen

*Canadian* <-

I agree, I don't see something like this happening. Simply because the government types are too different. I don't see the Canadian or American citizens buying into something like this. Not sure on the Mexicans.

I do see something similar to NAFTA happening. Especially if the EU works well.

This was done under a Canadian conservative government, we haven't had a conservative government in Canada in quite a few years and over all we don't have them often.

It was the Liberal government that did NAFTA, but we agreed to that because it was a better deal then Free Trade had given us. Free trade basically sold the farm, NAFTA we got it back, or at least a large amount.

Just as Americans like to say they are a conservative people, Canadians are a liberal people and I can't see in the fore seeable future that changing. I doubt Canada would ever agree to what the thread starter is suggesting and at the moment Canadians have become very anti-American policy since the invasion of Iraq.. and we don't much like Bush and that goes for not only this PM, but our last one too! Of course there are exceptions to every rule, I'm just speaking for the majority of Canadians who have been polled on this very subject often in the last few years.

I was speaking of the Free Trade Agreement for the Americas, not the original Free Trade agreement as enacted by the Mulroney government.

I agree that the majority of Canadians would not want their sovereignity threatened by a Pan-American Union. However, a cursory glance at the articles at the other end of the links shows that the authors believe that such a pan-union will occur after a free trade zone encompassing the Americas is created. What I was trying to say was that the Canadian goverment and the large businesses that are based in Canada would support the creation of such a zone, despite the opinions of a majority of Canadians. The Quebec City fortress and subsequent demonstrations illustrate this point. Whether or not such a free trade agreement would lead to a Pan-American union, I don't know, nor would I hazard a guess. I do believe that the government and the large multinational businesses whose interests would be served would have us join such a union regardless of majority opinion if it felt it was in their best interests.

Yes, many Canadians oppose current US policy. Yes, I realise that our former PM does not like Bush (I believe I mentioned that) and I would not doubt that our current PM dislikes him as well taking into account the softwood lumber dispute and now the pork dispute.

I agree that on an international level Canada has not followed US policy as blindly as before. However, I think that the reason why the policy makers of our country have done so has little to do with how 'liberal' or 'conservative' we are, and has more to do with basic economics. I think Paul Martin and the Fraser Institute feel they were better served economically by staying out of the war on terror. You will note how this war has affected the US economy.

Please note: in my posts in this thread I have been speaking of the opinions and views of the government and the corporations that hold the most sway over our economy, not the majority of citizens.

I'd like to remind the people of the US and Canada that America is not a country, but a whole continent. I also would like to encourage Canadians to see past the elephant in the living room. The rest of the house is quite nice and large too.

Therefore panamericanism is not something to do necessarily with the US or Canada, but with America, and most of America is not English speaking countries. And it's not a new idea, the first one to propose it was Simón Bolívar in the 18th Century. There were even many talks and an American Congress was formed. The capital was going to be a rotative thing, and military contribution based on each country's capabilities, mostly from Mexico, Venezuela and Argentina.

The idea didn't work out there because of many internal differences, but I thinkg it can work out now, with or without the US and Canada. In fact, I think it should work out first without the US and Canada to strengthen the AU economically and politically and then create a more balanced relationship.

As it is now, under the proposal of the US and as an extension of the FTAA, America would just be under the whim of the US, which is far from ideal.

I would have to agree with this. the metric system is LOGICAL. I do not use an archaic form of english, and are currently exercising neo-colonialism (would drag others into it)

Just so you know, the US has TWO official systems of measurement. The Metric and the English system. It's been that way for a while, as in, before I was born.

We don't use archaic English either. Ever talked to an American, because as a Yank, I've talked to Canadians and Brits and no one has ever said they couldn't understand me. And at least we don't use the term 'eh at the end of sentences.

Neo-colonialism is fun.

Well maybe the idea of 'Pan-Americanism' wouldn't stick in Canadians' collective craw if The US actually adhered to NAFTA instead of coming up with BS excuses to screw us over at every opportunity and NOT live up to the treaty.

Softwood lumber, pork, beef, wheat...every single commodity gets shafted by the US Gov, and every single dispute takes a lifetime to resolve, only to have the US Gov not go along with rulings, and drag it all out another few lifetimes. Open markets? HAH!

Let's face it: there's only one commodity that you guys want, and that's water, which until NAFTA, was never considered a 'commodity', but a basic human right. It was the Americans who insisted it be considered such, with dire implications for Canada.

SOme of you are missing an important point: when the EU began, 80% of European citizens were against it and the powers that be pushed it through anyway. So it doesn't matter what the Canadian and Mexican citizens (let alone the Central and South Americans who are also included in this notion) think...

Just so you know, the US has TWO official systems of measurement. The Metric and the English system. It's been that way for a while, as in, before I was born.

We don't use archaic English either. Ever talked to an American, because as a Yank, I've talked to Canadians and Brits and no one has ever said they couldn't understand me. And at least we don't use the term 'eh at the end of sentences.

Neo-colonialism is fun.


I've heard that there are only a few small archaities (<--this is probably not a word). I assume (correct me if i'm wrong) that one there would say 'z' as 'zee', as opposed to 'zed', as an example if that is correct. But, I was kidding somewhat as well, and it also demonstrate that I don't know that much about the situation in many countries.

Australian is the clearest form of English