NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3440367

They have the oil (see link above).
They have a tiny military.
They have a very small population.
They don't seem to have a history of militancy (either in the American right-wing militia sense, the rioters in the street sense (well, Quebec), or the Islamic suicide bomber sense).

It's a quick drive.

Heck, we could probably talk them out of it, like we did during the Cold War, when we talked them into all kinds of things.

Because the Canadians would beat the shit out of your puny armed forces if you'd ever dare to attempt something like that.

Anything else you would like to know?

They'd prbably invade Michigan or something.

Here's a better idea: Why not invade Alaska? ;)

It would take years to do so.

First you'd need to install a muslim puppet dictator in Canada, provide him with weapons of mass destruction and support his war against his neighbor (religious fanatics), then build up a pile of false accusations to have a reason to go to war against him.

Iraq is so much easier. ;)

It would take years to do so.

First you'd need to install a muslim puppet dictator in Canada, provide him with weapons of mass destruction and support his war against his neighbor (religious fanatics), then build up a pile of false accusations to have a reason to go to war against him.

Iraq is so much easier. ;)

The current PM of Canada isn't an American puppet?

Because the Canadians would beat the shit out of your puny armed forces if you'd ever dare to attempt something like that.

Anything else you would like to know?

hahahahahahahaha. Oh my, thanks. That really made my day. You should write for Leno!

The current PM of Canada isn't an American puppet?
Of course, but first we must convert him to Islam. That might be difficult, as Candians tend to explode when deprived of their funny bacon for more then a week.

Because we already rule over Canada.

Because we already rule over Canada.

That's not what Stephistan says, and she's always right about Canada. ;)

I think it's because you know that invade us would not sit well with the international community, and although American politicals don't seem to care about international opinions these days, they don't want a war with potential nuclear threats on American soil

I think it's because you know that invade us would not sit well with the international community, and although American politicals don't seem to care about international opinions these days, they don't want a war with potential nuclear threats on American soil

And I think it's obvious that you have no sense of humor.

I think it's because you know that invade us would not sit well with the international community, and although American politicals don't seem to care about international opinions these days, they don't want a war with potential nuclear threats on American soil

We offer half of it to China. Problem solved.

That's not what Stephistan says, and she's always right about Canada. ;)

She only says that because that's what we want her to say.

And I think it's obvious that you have no sense of humor.

Is there a problem with that?

If we invade Canada, all we would have to do is call it part of the war on Drugs. A lot of dumb people seem to think the war on drugs can be used as an excuse to do anything, even take away our own States rights.

If we can tell California to fuck off because they want to help cancer patients, we can certainly invade Canada for the same reason.

Just think, we would finally own ALL of Niagra Falls!

My best guess, it would take two weeks for the end of major combat, and then we'd need a small force of about 75k troops to keep the peace until we can get our own police force installed. And if they fight back, we just set our navy off their coast, and let the artillery and planes do the peacekeeping.

The Canadians would just sic their polar bears on you.

Well, you've made a convincing argument that we'd be able to invade Canada victoriously.

Now convince me that we invaded Iraq for oil. Could it be that:

Most of the world's oil production comes from South America (not the Middle East)?
That the United States only produces 20% of it's power from oil (as compared to 40% by natural gas)?
That you'll believe anything that's said as long as it's from some far leftwing liberal who only says stuff, regardless of its validity, to stir up trouble with the right?

LOL @ you, good sir.

Well, you've made a convincing argument that we'd be able to invade Canada victoriously.

Now convince me that we invaded Iraq for oil.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of that. Oh, I know about the oil production. But you'll never get some of the Leftists and Democrats (not the same thing you know) to ever admit that - ever - no matter what evidence you show them.

So I give them that - in exchange, I get to know that the reason that France and Russia objected to the invasion was really about the lucrative oil contracts and the lucrative weapons contracts.

Pfft, invade us, right. It's not like you Yanks could survive living in igloos year-round like we do! Do any of you even know how to control a dog-sled team? I thought not.

Doomed to failure, and you haven't even started yet!

Pfft, invade us, right. It's not like you Yanks could survive living in igloos year-round like we do! Do any of you even know how to control a dog-sled team? I thought not.

Doomed to failure, and you haven't even started yet!

We've been training our occupation forces in Alaska for some time now.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3440367

They have the oil (see link above).
They have a tiny military.
They have a very small population.
They don't seem to have a history of militancy (either in the American right-wing militia sense, the rioters in the street sense (well, Quebec), or the Islamic suicide bomber sense).

It's a quick drive.

Heck, we could probably talk them out of it, like we did during the Cold War, when we talked them into all kinds of things.
They'd be perfectly happy to sell you the stuff (rather than selling it to the Chinese) if you hadn't spent the last five years pissing them around with punitive duties on lumber imports. As things stand, the Chinese probably look like more reliable trading partners, though Condolezee Rice's comment about the American GOP's word being as good as gold is very funny indeed.

I think now is a good time for Canada to strike! We'll get our mounties together, herd the moose, and make a charge!
After New Orleans, we know America can't actually organize any sort of effective ANYTHING inside of two weeks, so we'd have 2 weeks to import ice to the northern US and fortify.
Once we control a nuclear facility, and take the time to figure out how these strange and deadly nuclear weapons work, we'll have all the fire power we need to make ridiculous demands, such as that America should say ZED properly!

I think now is a good time for Canada to strike! We'll get our mounties together, herd the moose, and make a charge!
After New Orleans, we know America can't actually organize any sort of effective ANYTHING inside of two weeks, so we'd have 2 weeks to import ice to the northern US and fortify.
Once we control a nuclear facility, and take the time to figure out how these strange and deadly nuclear weapons work, we'll have all the fire power we need to make ridiculous demands, such as that America should say ZED properly!

That is, without a doubt, the BEST plan ever! It's so E-Zed!

Since they are our allies, just put our forces in there cities then quickly strike from there. Before anyone realizes it, we'll have control of every major city as well as the provinces and territories. :D

Pfft, invade us, right. It's not like you Yanks could survive living in igloos year-round like we do! Do any of you even know how to control a dog-sled team? I thought not.

Doomed to failure, and you haven't even started yet!

You do know about Alaska right? Besides that, some areas in Northern US get just as harsh a winter as Canada does. We'll be ready :)

Why invade Iraq for oil, when we can invade Canada?

That's because if the US invaded Canada, Britian and other commonwealth countries such as Australia are going to team up to attack the states. Other than that, the world would be so outraged at the US, N.Korea sent a nuclear bomb to Washington and Russia formed back into USSR and the took over the US and renamed it to "The United Soviet Socialist States of America".

Other than that, the world would be so outraged at the US that N.Korea sent a nuclear bomb to Washington.

And the US will send a nuke to Pyongyang. :rolleyes:

Why invade Iraq for oil, when we can invade Canada?

That's because if the US invaded Canada, Britian and other commonwealth countries such as Australia are going to team up to attack the states. Other than that, the world would be so outraged at the US that N.Korea sent a nuclear bomb to Washington and Russia formed back into USSR and the took over the US and renamed it to "The United Soviet Socialist States of America".

Wait a minute, N. Korea already sent a nuclear bomb on the US because the world would be outraged, and nobody was told? [/sarcasm]

sorry, it sounded funny to me.

And the US will send a nuke to Pyongyang. :rolleyes:I thought the Americans don't have nukes.

Imagine a US - N.Korea nuclear war. I'll be seeing nukes flying above my town. Scary.:eek:

BTW, here's a mini flash game, very addictive:D:
www.supersoviet.com

I thought the Americans don't have nukes.

You bet your ass we have nukes. We just haven't used them since 1945.

Imagine a US - N.Korea nuclear war. I'll be seeing nukes flying above my town. Scary.:eek:

And I live inbetween Philly, D.C., and Baltimore. My hometown is near Pittsburgh. How do you think I feel?

Wait a minute, N. Korea already sent a nuclear bomb on the US because the world would be outraged, and nobody was told? [/sarcasm]

sorry, it sounded funny to me.oops. my bad

I think now is a good time for Canada to strike! We'll get our mounties together, herd the moose, and make a charge!
After New Orleans, we know America can't actually organize any sort of effective ANYTHING inside of two weeks, so we'd have 2 weeks to import ice to the northern US and fortify.
Once we control a nuclear facility, and take the time to figure out how these strange and deadly nuclear weapons work, we'll have all the fire power we need to make ridiculous demands, such as that America should say ZED properly!

Please, please liberate us!:D

You bet your ass we have nukes. We just haven't used them since 1945.Save them incase we ran out of oil.:D We can put them into good use like heating instead of bombing people.

Corny, play this mini flash game :D:
www.supersoviet.com

Canada, Mexico, Central America, Caribbean (excluding Cuba), the UK and most of Western Europe are already controlled by the USA. That is because of NATO and the US capitalist policy after the Cold War...

It would take years to do so.

First you'd need to install a muslim puppet dictator in Canada, provide him with weapons of mass destruction and support his war against his neighbor (religious fanatics), then build up a pile of false accusations to have a reason to go to war against him.

Iraq is so much easier. ;)


Dont forget to let that puppet dictator kill off a bunch of his citizens first. Make sure he invades a couple of his neighbors such as Greenland and Iceland. Then also have him pay suicide bombers in the middle east a reward for killing "Jews".

You will nev-air take our attack beavers alive!!!

Dont forget to let that puppet dictator kill off a bunch of his citizens first. Make sure he invades a couple of his neighbors such as Greenland and Iceland. Then also have him pay suicide bombers in the middle east a reward for killing "Jews".

They've already threatened to invade Hans Island, so we have a good start there.

As for the rest - with sufficiently "faulty" intelligence, we can easily convince the world that Canada has already done these things.

:p

I think there's a simple reason why. America's leaders like a good fight. Canada is the world's doormat. That's why they'd rather bother those in the Middle East...far more fun to disembowel people that aren't too fond of America.

-Asylum Nova

We aren't too fond of America these days. Thank Bush. :P

Anyways, I think Canada would be a tougher fight than Iraq would be. You might laugh, but think of this:

1. We have purchased American military equipment in the past, including Canadian made M-16's, M-60's, F-16's, F-18's, and others.

2. Our versions of the M-16, and other hand weapons, are superior to the American versions, and are considered the best weapons in the world.

3. Our countries have one of the top-trained soldiers in the world.

4. Our CF-16's, and CF-18's are flown by fighter pilots that have won against American pilots in Top Gun.

5. Our Leopard II tanks may be out of date, but they have been upgraded to be the equivelent of American MBT's.

6. Our terrain is difficult to navigate, as most of our land is forest, plains, mud, and snow.

7. Our troops are well trained in snowy weather, and yours not as much. Remember what happened to the Germans in Russia?

8. Unlike Iraqis (sorry to those who might be from there), although we both will fight the US in a gurrella war like the Iraqis, we will tend to NOT blow up ourselves for a God. Instead we'll set up bombs, and make it alive so we can strike again. And again. And again.

9. I can easily assume that an attack on Canada can be seen as a global threat due to our resources, so an attack on the US by Russia, China, Britian, and every other country on the world is a very high possibility, even if their reasons are nothing to do with Canada.

10. If that were to happen, the countries would no longer loan the US any money, and as the US debt is crippling, that would cause the US to collapse before they could even do anything about it.

That's my list on why we couldn't be attacked. And if you do attack, we'll burn down the white house again, just like in 1812. ;)

snipWell said. *claps* :p

Was it really about the oil?

http://www.manbottle.com/pictures/weshellnot.jpg

3. Our countries have one of the top-trained soldiers in the world.

Yes, his name is Bob, and he is very handy with a sniper rifle. But I don't think Bob is quite up to the task of taking on the entire US military.

The idea of the US invading Canada for its oil is intersting. There are a few things that ought to be considered:

1: Canadians are generally better educated and more affluent than Iraqis, meaning that they may be able to organize a stronger resistance and engage in more effective guerrella warfare. The scarcity of guns will be a major problem for the Canadians, except for in the areas where gun ownership is relatively high, like in the rural areas or in certain parts of Alberta. Ironically, people living in these places also tend to be somewhat pro-American and may even like the idea of being ruled from Washington better than the idea of being ruled from Ottawa. Basically, the people most able to resist the Americans are also the ones most likely to welcome them as liberators.

2: As was pointed out earlier, Canada's geography and climate may be a major problem for the invading forces. Napoleon Bonaparte once said that when he attempted to invade Russia he was defeated by Russia's two greatest generals: January and February. Those two guys are working for Canada, too.

3: Although Canada has a great amount of oil, most of it is in the tar sands, meaning that it is difficult to get it into a usable form. Even if America manages to take over Canada (or at least the oily bits of it), it will still likely be a less lucrative fuel source than Iraq.

4: Canada will rebuild the Avro Arrow and PWN YOU ALL!!!

Okay, maybe not that last one . . .

Excellent Idea!
But wait... wouldn't the Canadians eventually start complaining about how thier American Overlords don't allow them full repersentation? Eventually ye would cave and give them the vote. The 50/50 divide in America would slide too much in favour of the liberal side. America would start acting like the French on the world stage. I cannot imagine a worse fate.

4: Canada will rebuild the Avro Arrow and PWN YOU ALL!!!MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAH!!!!!!! *evil laugh*
Oh man, if we're really going to recreate the Avro Arrow, I'm definitely put my $$$ on that thing. It's going to be the best fighter jet that PWNS everybody! BTW, damn Diefenbaker who scrapped that project in the first place.

Excellent Idea!
But wait... wouldn't the Canadians eventually start complaining about how thier American Overlords don't allow them full repersentation? Eventually ye would cave and give them the vote. The 50/50 divide in America would slide too much in favour of the liberal side. America would start acting like the French on the world stage. I cannot imagine a worse fate.

The Americans could just take over Alberta. Alberta is the place with most of the oil, Albertans tend to be pretty conservative politically, and there have even been some Albertans who have suggested that the province ought to voluntarily separate from Canada and join the US. The American forces would be welcomed as liberators. Trust me.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAH!!!!!!! *evil laugh*
Oh man, if we're really going to recreate the Avro Arrow, I'm definitely put my $$$ on that thing. It's going to be the best fighter jet that PWNS everybody! BTW, damn Diefenbaker who scrapped that project in the first place.

What Diefenbaker did wasn't all that bad. He realized that an awesome good Aeroplane (While being both awesome and good) wouldn't be very helpful if the USSR decided to fire missiles over the north pole at the States, which was a major concern in Canada at the time, so he decided to cut the Arrow's funding and instead work toward a system of missile defence in cooperation with America. It really was the rational thing to do, especially considering how much the developement of the Arrow was costing.

If you want to blame someone for the demise of the Arrow, blame Crawford Gordon, the man in charge of the Arrow project. When he found out that Dief had cut his funding he got really angry and immediately fired all his workers in an attempt to get back at Dief. I think he may also have had something to do with the destruction of the Arrow prototypes, but I'm not sure. If it hadn't been for Gordon, the Arrow's demise wouldn't have been nearly as messy.

I thought the Americans don't have nukes.

Imagine a US - N.Korea nuclear war. I'll be seeing nukes flying above my town. Scary.:eek:

BTW, here's a mini flash game, very addictive:D:
www.supersoviet.com
UHM, yeah, we have a few nukes laying around. And N. Korea does have nukes, but alas, no ICBM that would carry it to America. Maybe California, but that doesn't really count. :D

Canadians are generally better educated and more affluent than Iraqis

We're also generally more educated than Americans

What Diefenbaker did wasn't all that bad. He realized that an awesome good Aeroplane (While being both awesome and good) wouldn't be very helpful if the USSR decided to fire missiles over the north pole at the States, which was a major concern in Canada at the time, so he decided to cut the Arrow's funding and instead work toward a system of missile defence in cooperation with America.

But it was stupid to assume that the USSR would have done something that stupid in the first place. Damn Diefenbaker

Don't invade Canada, everybody loves Canada! Those crazy kids.

Is there a problem with that?

Yes. You will bring down the Wrath of Clowns upon yourself.

Yes. You will bring down the Wrath of Clowns upon yourself.
DIE CLOWNS!!! DIE DIE DIE!!!! As if we don't have enough problems without chainsaw bearing clowns at night.

Yes. You will bring down the Wrath of Clowns upon yourself.

It happens... seems as though I'm the brunt of everyone's wrath these days

Why invade Canada for oil instead of Iraq?

Simple, because we aren't in Iraq for the oil.
Iraq was a statement against all terrorists, we're serious about cracking down on that kind of stuff. Albeit the WMD charges might have turned up to be bad information, but you have to stand back and consider for a moment some of the over-looked facts about this 'war'.
*Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.
those just being some of the ones that might be more familiar to westerners like myself.

Al-Qaeda, (perhaps I am mistaken on the name of the group, but I'm assuming it was this one. If not them, then it was some other radical Islamic group.) claimed that Allah has given them the right to slaughter (again, not sure but a rough estimate.) 3 million American women and children. They posted this on their website as casually as the insurance ad I'm looking at right now as I check my hotmail account.

Iraq was funding (once more, to the best of my understanding) training camps for such organizations.

If for no other reason, the Iraq war can be sanctified because of what is now offered to the Iraqi people. I'll agree that imposing democracy might not be the correct way to go, but a terrible tyrant and his regime has been destroyed, and we're going about preventing that from ever happening again in the best way we know to.

To borrow some words passed onto me through MG Vernon Chong, USAF(ret):

"We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of
a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.
These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their
own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues,
and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam
Hussein.
And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000
of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy
fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred
corpses through the streets of Iraq.
And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing
videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American
prisoners they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days
have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some
Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses
through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.
Can this be for real?"

Does this not also demonstrate the absurdity of the 'problems' regaurding our operations in Iraq? Would we have cared if our Armed Forces in Europe were humiliating Nazi's during WWII? The media has far too much control today over the minds of the people who don't understand certain facts about American policy, foreign and domestic. I'll borrow a quote from a teacher I once had in saying, "D-Day would have never worked today, the Nazi's would have known we were coming!" As ridiculous as that might seem, it brings me to my next point.
I ask you to name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow
freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any
status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that
contributes to the good of the world.
As much as I might not like the media, it is at least allowed to exist in such countries that protect too many rights that I have taken for granted. Anybody remember Bahgdad Bob? Of course we all might know him as something different, but we all remember his reports, and how much fun they were to listen to. Do you think that was his individual choice? I for one have met a man who would opt to stand in front of the world and make a fool of himself.

I know this is probably a bit much regaurding the nature of this topic, but it is my hope that at least a few people out there might read this and consider some of the things I've said, maybe it'll cause some people to go out there and actually do the research that most people are lacking in their arguments. Either way, right or wrong, this is what I believe. Through those I talk to who have served, through those who I have mourned with in loss of a loved one (soldier or civilian, in this war casualties know no difference), and through my own personal searching, this is the conclusion I have come to.

Well, you've made a convincing argument that we'd be able to invade Canada victoriously.

Now convince me that we invaded Iraq for oil. Could it be that:

Most of the world's oil production comes from South America (not the Middle East)?
That the United States only produces 20% of it's power from oil (as compared to 40% by natural gas)?
That you'll believe anything that's said as long as it's from some far leftwing liberal who only says stuff, regardless of its validity, to stir up trouble with the right?

LOL @ you, good sir.
Middle East Iraq War Oil yeah that sounds about right.

You sir are stuck in the present and you are forgetting future oil needs for your country. You are also forgetting that China's economy is growing by leaps and bounds and also requires an ever increasing supply of oil.

And if you don't think the Middle East is all about oil, then you are forgetting to read the PNAC rule book?

We aren't too fond of America these days. Thank Bush. :P

Anyways, I think Canada would be a tougher fight than Iraq would be. You might laugh, but think of this:


Don't forget the submarines.

Don't forget the submarines.Yeah... we got British submarines that can blow it self up at any second.:rolleyes:

Yeah... we got British submarines that can blow it self up at any second.:rolleyes:

Here here!

Like seriously, is it cheaper for the defense department to buy 3 brand new submarines instead of getting bad lemons from Britian. JESUS!!! :headbang: Some people's kids!

I say we just get out our automatic super crazy patented slush-ball rifles

Like seriously, is it cheaper for the defense department to buy 3 brand new submarines instead of getting bad lemons from Britian. JESUS!!! :headbang: Some people's kids!
Why does Canada even need a military? Our drugs will solve the problem for us. Compared to the US, all of Canada has benn hot-boxed (I believe the source is Vancouver). When the US soldiers arrive they will all get the munchies and eat all their rations. It will be a logistics nightmare.

Why does Canada even need a military? Our drugs will solve the problem for us. Compared to the US, all of Canada has benn hot-boxed (I believe the source is Vancouver). When the US soldiers arrive they will all get the munchies and eat all their rations. It will be a logistics nightmare.

Apparently, someone doesn't know the US supply train as well as they think they do. :D

Apparently, someone doesn't know the US supply train as well as they think they do. :D
Apparently, someone doesn't know the munchies as well as they think they do. :D

Apparently, someone doesn't know the US supply train as well as they think they do. :D

That's why I stick with my slush-ball rifle. I'm on the verge of perfecting my glacier-catapult too :D

I think now is a good time for Canada to strike! We'll get our mounties together, herd the moose, and make a charge!
After New Orleans, we know America can't actually organize any sort of effective ANYTHING inside of two weeks, so we'd have 2 weeks to import ice to the northern US and fortify.
Once we control a nuclear facility, and take the time to figure out how these strange and deadly nuclear weapons work, we'll have all the fire power we need to make ridiculous demands, such as that America should say ZED properly!

Besides, if you call on the Commonwealth, you get Britain, Australia and about 50 other countries.
You get Australia, you get the SASR, no one wants to fuck with the SASR
These guys scare Steve Irwin

Besides, if you call on the Commonwealth, you get Britain, Australia and about 50 other countries.
You get Australia, you get the SASR, no one wants to fuck with the SASR
These guys scare Steve Irwin
Shit that is scary.

I going to skip the fancy-schmancy thought process and opt for the idea that it's just too close to home. Although, if we invaded Canada and won the Mexicans could just keep moving north and sooner or later we'd have Mexkimos.

Meximos? Wouldn't that also create Americanadians? ;)

They have the oil.
They have a tiny military.
They have a very small population.
They don't seem to have a history of militancy.
It's a quick drive.

Because it's morally and ethically wrong?

Meximos? Wouldn't that also create Americanadians? ;)
Makes as much sense as a Confederate Yankee.

It's morally and ethically wrong?
So's naming your province Satcatchewanawannawan-something.

So's naming your province Satcatchewanawannawan-something.
Oh, it's easy to pronounce - just like it's spelled: Sass - catch - eww - awn. At least it bears a great deal of similarity from the written word to the spoken word, unlike say - Arkansas, which honestly, always messed me up. I didn't amke the connection between Arr - kan -saw and 'Arkansas' until well into my early twenties... when Clinton became Prez.

Spell it like you say it, I always maintain.

Oh, it's easy to pronounce - just like it's spelled: Sass - catch - eww - awn. At least it bears a great deal of similarity from the written word to the spoken word, unlike say - Arkansas, which honestly, always messed me up. I didn't amke the connection between Arr - kan -saw and 'Arkansas' until well into my early twenties... when Clinton became Prez.

Spell it like you say it, I always maintain.

Oh don't say that. That's their excuse for dropping the "u" from "colour".

Beer. Snow. A determination to be recognised as Not America. And a nasty case of France.

Yup, that about covers Canada.

Here's my compromise:
If they give us their oil and maple syrup, we are willing to return Pamela Anderson...BUT they have to take Celine Dion with her.

Doo, Doo, DOOODOOODODODO, And I know that my heart will...

Oddly, I have heard that although you can pronounce Arkansas 1 way, you can actually pronounce the river either way:confused:

We aren't too fond of America these days. Thank Bush. :P

Anyways, I think Canada would be a tougher fight than Iraq would be. You might laugh, but think of this:First, I'll take that opportunity to laugh now. HAHAHAHAHAHA

1. We have purchased American military equipment in the past, including Canadian made M-16's, M-60's, F-16's, F-18's, and others.
Bang! They're dead! (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/)

2. Our versions of the M-16, and other hand weapons, are superior to the American versions, and are considered the best weapons in the world.Yes, but how many do you have, and how many hands to put them into?

3. Our countries have one of the top-trained soldiers in the world.
Join the club! :D

4. Our CF-16's, and CF-18's are flown by fighter pilots that have won against American pilots in Top Gun.Bang! They're dead! (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/)

5. Our Leopard II tanks may be out of date, but they have been upgraded to be the equivelent of American MBT's.Thats a good one. A leopard -vs- an M1A2? I know where my money is going.

6. Our terrain is difficult to navigate, as most of our land is forest, plains, mud, and snow.We train on terrain just like it. It's not Mars, ya know.

7. Our troops are well trained in snowy weather, and yours not as much. Remember what happened to the Germans in Russia?We train in Alaska too. So technichally, your surrounded, too!

8. Unlike Iraqis (sorry to those who might be from there), although we both will fight the US in a gurrella war like the Iraqis, we will tend to NOT blow up ourselves for a God. Instead we'll set up bombs, and make it alive so we can strike again. And again. And again.I'll give you that one.

9. I can easily assume that an attack on Canada can be seen as a global threat due to our resources, so an attack on the US by Russia, China, Britian, and every other country on the world is a very high possibility, even if their reasons are nothing to do with Canada.Attacks? NO Sanctions? MAYBE

10. If that were to happen, the countries would no longer loan the US any money, and as the US debt is crippling, that would cause the US to collapse before they could even do anything about it.
No one is dumb enough to try to destroy the U.S. econmoy by not participating with it. Its suicide.
That's my list on why we couldn't be attacked. And if you do attack, we'll burn down the white house again, just like in 1812. ;) Go ahaed, we'll build a new one again. Big Meany!

First, I'll take that opportunity to laugh now. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Bang! They're dead! (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/)
Yes, but how many do you have, and how many hands to put them into?

Join the club! :D
Bang! They're dead! (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/)
Thats a good one. A leopard -vs- an M1A2? I know where my money is going.
We train on terrain just like it. It's not Mars, ya know.
We train in Alaska too. So technichally, your surrounded, too!
I'll give you that one.
Attacks? NO Sanctions? MAYBE
No one is dumb enough to try to destroy the U.S. econmoy by not participating with it. Its suicide.
Go ahaed, we'll build a new one again. Big Meany!
FYI he was comparing the Canadian military to the Iraqi military. Whether or not the USA would still masacur us wasn't being discussed. Anyways, we know the US is good at killing Canadians, even when we are on the same team you kill us.

FYI he was comparing the Canadian military to the Iraqi military. Whether or not the USA would still masacur us wasn't being discussed. Anyways, we know the US is good at killing Canadians, even whem we are on the same team you kill us.
Damnit boy I told you not to bother me while I'm in the middle of a pissing contest! I think I was winning too! GEEZ!

Damnit boy I told you not to bother me while I'm in the middle of a pissing contest! I think I was winning too! GEEZ!
I'm sorry! *assumes fetal possition* Please don't do to me what you did to our troops.

Oh, it's easy to pronounce - just like it's spelled: Sass - catch - eww - awn. At least it bears a great deal of similarity from the written word to the spoken word, unlike say - Arkansas, which honestly, always messed me up. I didn't amke the connection between Arr - kan -saw and 'Arkansas' until well into my early twenties... when Clinton became Prez.

Spell it like you say it, I always maintain.
Yeah...pick the one state named by the one American sub-culture that saturates the English language.

Why couldn't you pick something we originally came up that neither the Mexicans, English, or the Southerners came up with? Like...Wyoming....ho yah.

I'm sorry! *assumes fetal possition* Please don't do to me what you did to our troops.
Oh please. If your troops did more, they'd have a record to bitch about too.

Canada has Moosehead . We cant invade Canada ..canada is our friend..they have Moosehead. Leave canada alone ..my money is worth something there. I can get lots of beer. We have all the oil we need from Iraq. Iraq has no Moosehead .

Oh please. If your troops did more, they'd have a record to bitch about too.
What?

An invasion of Tuvalu would be far more cost-effective than one of Canuckistan.

Thats a good one. A leopard -vs- an M1A2? I know where my money is going.
On whoever fires the first shot, I take it?

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
Just as powerful a gun (if not stronger), tungsten-tipped ammunition (just like DU) and 3rd-gen composite armour equivalent to the top of the range newest DU-armoured Abrams.

On whoever fires the first shot, I take it?

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/leo2.htm
Just as powerful a gun (if not stronger), tungsten-tipped ammunition (just like DU) and 3rd-gen composite armour equivalent to the top of the range newest DU-armoured Abrams.
Me too, because the Leopard will be frag before it ever gets close enough to the Abrams to shoot at it.

Me too, because the Leopard will be frag before it ever gets close enough to the Abrams to shoot at it.
It's the same gun you know....

EDIT: And I really don't see an issue with targeting systems...

A qualification though...the Canadians have not yet purchased any of the new "EX" models, they run an older "C2" version, which lacks about all the nice new features KMW and Rheinmetall have developed - so in the case of the US vs Canada, Canada's tanks would be pwned.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_49_1.asp?FlashEnabled=1&uSubSection=49&uSection=1
Plus there's only 114 of them.

I was thinking Abrams SEP vs Leopard 2A6 EX.

I was thinking Abrams SEP vs Leopard 2A6 EX.
Funny, I was thinking about apricots. About how I haven't had any for a while.

I miss apricots.

What the Hell are you talking about? Abraham Lincoln versus a Leper? Wha-a?

I give the edge to Lincoln. Those Lepers fall apart under stress.

It's the same gun you know....

EDIT: And I really don't see an issue with targeting systems...
REALLY?

Abrams
105mm M68A1 Rifled Cannon(M1A1) or 120mm M256 Smooth Bore Cannon(M1A2)

Leopard C2
The 105-mm L7A3

you'd have to be an idiot to believe the war on iraq was purely about Oil!!!


its called Zionism, something Americas been supporting since the creation of Israel

(if you dont know what Zionism is, its basically a person that supports a greater Israel that expands from the Nile River, a bit south in Saudi Arabia and to the Euphrates River)

what are the main threats to Israel??? Palestinians with rocks??? of course not

main threats = Egypt and Syria, who were put in there place when they lost land during the Arab Wars

Jordan and Lebanon, are too small of a country to make any real threat

so that leaves; Iraq, Afghanistan (Taliban) and Iran

Iraq and Afghanistan have been dealt with by America

so i wouldnt be suprised if Iran is next after Iraq

SNIP
Ah, so were back to "Blame the Jews"? Like when the Isreali president announced to the world that the main goal of Isreal is the total destruction of Iran? (oh wait, do I have that backwards? Silly me! :p )

Canadians are generally better educated and more affluent than Iraqis


We're also generally more educated than Americans

You're noticeably silent on the difference in affluence between Americans and Canadians.

You're noticeably silent on the difference in affluence between Americans and Canadians.
And you seem to be placing some undue importance upon it.

Ah, so were back to "Blame the Jews"? Like when the Isreali president announced to the world that the main goal of Isreal is the total destruction of Iran? (oh wait, do I have that backwards? Silly me! :p )

America does seem to have this bad habit of making allegiances with foriegn countries and then getting sucked into their wars. If only Americans were more patriotic:

http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html

33 So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

34 As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

And you seem to be placing some undue importance upon it.

You can never place too much importance on money! Well, okay . . . maybe you can. But still, it's not a factor to be ignored.

You can never place too much importance on money! Well, okay . . . maybe you can. But still, it's not a factor to be ignored.
The days of spending your way out of troubles rather than thinking your way out of them are dwindling.

You can never place too much importance on money! Well, okay . . . maybe you can. But still, it's not a factor to be ignored.
No, you can't. I tried paying my electricity with jello once. That was a cold month.

I give the edge to Lincoln. Those Lepers fall apart under stress.
:D
Well, if the question is whether the US can invade Canada, asking what the tanks can do is a valid option, right?

REALLY?

Abrams
105mm M68A1 Rifled Cannon(M1A1) or 120mm M256 Smooth Bore Cannon(M1A2)

Leopard C2
The 105-mm L7A3
As I said...I was talking about the EX version. And that one has essentially the same gun as the newest M1s - a Rheinmetall cannon, for the US licensed by some firm to be produced there.

you'd have to be an idiot to believe the war on iraq was purely about Oil!!!


its called Zionism, something Americas been supporting since the creation of Israel

(if you dont know what Zionism is, its basically a person that supports a greater Israel that expands from the Nile River, a bit south in Saudi Arabia and to the Euphrates River)

what are the main threats to Israel??? Palestinians with rocks??? of course not

main threats = Egypt and Syria, who were put in there place when they lost land during the Arab Wars

Jordan and Lebanon, are too small of a country to make any real threat

so that leaves; Iraq, Afghanistan (Taliban) and Iran

Iraq and Afghanistan have been dealt with by America

so i wouldnt be suprised if Iran is next after Iraq


Oh please! Zionists DO NOT believe in a greater Israel taking up half the Middle East. The US is its own country that decides its own policies.

:D
Well, if the question is whether the US can invade Canada, asking what the tanks can do is a valid option, right?


As I said...I was talking about the EX version. And that one has essentially the same gun as the newest M1s - a Rheinmetall cannon, for the US licensed by some firm to be produced there.

Tanks need to worry about hellfire missiles . What protection from Apache and super Cobra gunships ...not to mention A 10 's do they have ? All they are is interesting targets that burn nice , they will never get the chance to target anything so that problem is moot .:D

Because Canada is the one country to have carried off a successful invasion of the U.S. and to have burned the White House down. Imagine the bad PR that would generate if that happened again.

An invasion of Canada by the USA…hmmm how that would go disastrously wrong.

First of all your own population wouldn’t support it. You know the American rights, freedom all that sort of stuff.

Secondly Europe and Russia would go absolutely AWOL and probably declare war on the United States for doing it.

All commonwealth countries would block US goods and begin stopping imports from the USA.

Now these are only three ramifications that I can pull from the top of my head, but lets see what would happen to the USA if these three actually happened.

First of all, your President and government would be fighting an extremely unpopular war, so I would anticipate mass demonstrations very much like the Vietnamese protests, but perhaps larger. Suffice to say the current Administration wouldn’t last it’s term or even the next election, but for arguments sake lets say it does.

Then, the European Union and Russia would probably declare war. This in itself would not necessarily be a threat until Europe begins pumping out warships and military equipment which would certainly threaten US interests in the Middle East. Russia would and could easily win a land battle against the USA in the middle-east by sheer numerical and logistical superiority, as by this time, the United States is fighting a war half a world away without any land based installations to offer any resource drop off. The war would be in Europe and the Med at first, however I expect the sheer logistical nightmare, and public pressure from home would result in a US defeat.

Now, The USA’s export goods would be blockaded, with American textiles, food surpluses, and manufactured goods forming a rather large backlog in American warehouses. Suffice to say American unemployment would skyrocket, while European employment would go down, due to the significant needs for new labourers in factories etc etc.

American debt for the war would skyrocket, external investment in North USA would collapse, while in Europe itself it could easily foresee a new economic boom. The United Nations would probably relocate or dissolve because of this, the security council would expel the USA, and all in all it would result in humiliating internal and external problems for the US.

But…the USA would defeat Canada, it just wouldn’t keep it.

I reckon Canada could rather quickly get a few allies to back them up - the Commonwealth to start with. somehow I suspect America could find allies a bit thin on the ground.

Also, to put it bluntly, i dont think many americans would go for it as they would be killing 'people like us', rather than strange foreigners from other races overseas

Because Canada is the one country to have carried off a successful invasion of the U.S. and to have burned the White House down. Imagine the bad PR that would generate if that happened again.

Well another historically inaccurate post if I ever saw one.

Well another historically inaccurate post if I ever saw one.
How is it historically inaccurate?

How is it historically inaccurate?

First off, there was no Canada in 1814.

Secondly, it was done by the British Regulars and not the Canadian Militia.

How is it historically inaccurate?
The British burned the White House down. British Army.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washingtonsack.htm

The British burned the White House down. British Army.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washingtonsack.htm

Yep which was in response to us torching York (Toronto today) What goes around comes around.

The idea of the US invading Canada for its oil is intersting. There are a few things that ought to be considered:

1: Canadians are generally better educated and more affluent than Iraqis, meaning that they may be able to organize a stronger resistance and engage in more effective guerrella warfare. The scarcity of guns will be a major problem for the Canadians, except for in the areas where gun ownership is relatively high, like in the rural areas or in certain parts of Alberta. Ironically, people living in these places also tend to be somewhat pro-American and may even like the idea of being ruled from Washington better than the idea of being ruled from Ottawa. Basically, the people most able to resist the Americans are also the ones most likely to welcome them as liberators.

(snip)

I can't believe that nobody has picked up on this five pages later...

Canada has more gun per capita than the US. The scarcity of guns is non existant. We have enough gun for a guerilla warfare that last a few generations.

Now, don't make us burn your white house again...

I can't believe that nobody has picked up on this five pages later...

Canada has more gun per capita than the US. The scarcity of guns is non existant. We have enough gun for a guerilla warfare that last a few generations.

Now, don't make us burn your white house again...

The problem is that you have so few people.

First off, there was no Canada in 1814.

Secondly, it was done by the British Regulars and not the Canadian Militia.

Good times........ good times...... but gone now, all gone to the vast soup of history :(

Good times........ good times...... but gone now, all gone to the vast soup of history :(

Is it Chicken soup?

The problem is that you have so few people.
Agreed. But even with that in consideration, we own quite a bit of guns.

Agreed. But even with that in consideration, we own quite a bit of guns.

Guns, especially considering that modern infantry body armor is quite resistant to rifle fire, are less effective in an insurgency than they were 20 years ago.

Improvised explosives are the current choice for an insurgency, largely because any attempt to fight armored individual soldiers results in the death or capture of all insurgents involved in the skirmish.

Guns, especially considering that modern infantry body armor is quite resistant to rifle fire, are less effective in an insurgency than they were 20 years ago.

Improvised explosives are the current choice for an insurgency, largely because any attempt to fight armored individual soldiers results in the death or capture of all insurgents involved in the skirmish.Well, I can imagine the construction season might hamper any advances the US military would try to make...

I think now is a good time for Canada to strike! We'll get our mounties together, herd the moose, and make a charge!
After New Orleans, we know America can't actually organize any sort of effective ANYTHING inside of two weeks, so we'd have 2 weeks to import ice to the northern US and fortify.
Once we control a nuclear facility, and take the time to figure out how these strange and deadly nuclear weapons work, we'll have all the fire power we need to make ridiculous demands, such as that America should say ZED properly!


Fantastic! Come on Canada. The whole English speaking world is behind you.

Guns, especially considering that modern infantry body armor is quite resistant to rifle fire, are less effective in an insurgency than they were 20 years ago.

Improvised explosives are the current choice for an insurgency, largely because any attempt to fight armored individual soldiers results in the death or capture of all insurgents involved in the skirmish.
That is true but not relevant to the point I was making.

Someone argued that we would have a tough time, what with having few guns and all, and I told him that his assertion is faulty.

I never even entered the crux of the debate or argued about guerilla tactics.

The problem is that you have so few people.
Tell the french protestors Canada are looking for Guerrila combatents and you'll have considerably more people.

if the US was to invade, i'd assume they win a conventional war quite quickly. More tanks/long range weapons/etc...

But what about the huge borde the countries share. Would not plenty of canadian freedom fighter/terrorists be able to move into the US and cause huge amounts of death, etc..

Can imaging the warnings on US news. Police searching for White caucasian 5ft9, blue eyed male.....

That is true but not relevant to the point I was making.

Someone argued that we would have a tough time, what with having few guns and all, and I told him that his assertion is faulty.

I never even entered the crux of the bedate or argued about guerilla tactics.

I think that it's only a matter of time before there's a major assimilation of countries on the American continents. Probably by slow conversion by treaty, much in the same fashion as the EU.