NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering what you folks thought of this consept. From an U.S veiw point, from a canadian or mexican view point, or even a european view point. Do you think a north american union is a good idea or not?

Edit: I used to not beleave this could happen. But in these past few years I have seen some "interesting" policy changes that may lead to this.

No.

It appears to me that it could happen in the future. However seeing the issues pop up over the EU shows that it is a difficult task. I am not totally against it but the three nations would have to come a long way before it is seriously considered.

Mexico's economy and political establishment need to develop further before a full AU could form, but I'm not averse to the idea.

I was wondering what you folks thought of this consept. From an U.S veiw point, from a canadian or mexican view point, or even a european view point. Do you think a north american union is a good idea or not?

Edit: I used to not beleave this could happen. But in these past few years I have seen some "interesting" policy changes that may lead to this.
http://reichcomm.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/2007/08/15/thumbs_down.jpg

Think that says it all.

http://reichcomm.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/2007/08/15/thumbs_down.jpg

Think that says it all.

Except for giving any reason for the position.

I can't see Canada, allowing the USA to join them.

Except for giving any reason for the position.
The thumbs down was symbolic to those that know me and a simple answer to the OP's simple question. :D

As for specifics.....way too many to get into at this time.

I can't see Canada, allowing the USA to join them.

Lol, yes and jokingly you hit on why it probably won't work. Canada and Mexico would take a back seat to their American counterparts as they do now. Their independence is the one thing that is uniquely theirs. I doubt they would surrender it to be governed by the US.

Except for giving any reason for the position.

A thumbs down is universal and needs no further explanation.

A thumbs down is universal and needs no further explanation.

I give the thumbs down to this comment as it misses the point completely.

Lol, yes and jokingly you hit on why it probably won't work. Canada and Mexico would take a back seat to their American counterparts as they do now. Their independence is the one thing that is uniquely theirs. I doubt they would surrender it to be governed by the US.

'tweren't a joke.

'tweren't a joke.

:eek:

I give the thumbs down to this comment as it misses the point completely.


:rolleyes:

It's a bad idea and I don't think it will, and hope it won't work out and will be dropped before too long. The governments and societies of The United States, Mexico, and Canada are too diverse and conflicting for such a merge (not to mention economically).

I can't see Canada, allowing the USA to join them.
What the fuck are you talking about? Canadia would be joining the US. America rocks and I don't think that the people of Mootixico would be all that opposed to having the standard of life raised a little. Team America, FUCK YEAH!

What the fuck are you talking about? Canadia would be joining the US. America rocks and I don't think that the people of Mootixico would be all that opposed to having the standard of life raised a little. Team America, FUCK YEAH!
If you are trying to be a comedienne.......well.....you fail.

We already have LG and Ruffy is our back up. :D

The EU's beginning had the advantage of relatively similiar countries in size and wealth, those being France, West Germany, and Italy. In North America neither Mexico nor Canada have much of a bargaining position with the US so I don't think they want to lose much policy making to the US.

But the EU is a joke. It's a craptastic European US rip-off. But you are right that Canada and Mexico would have very little to offer and would end up taking a backseat to America, and by that I mean the only America that counts.

Canada's national identity is built solely around, "We're not Americans," while the whole of Latin America (including Mexico) secretly chants, "Death to the Yanquis." It ain't happening.

I don't think it would happen because Mexico economy would drag the USA and Canada's economy down quite a bit.

I don't think it would happen because Mexico economy would drag the USA and Canada's economy down quite a bit.

But they have tacos!

I think the U.S. should go back to being a British colony. We have shown in the last few years that our independence was a little premature. I think we need to put the training wheels back on for a few centuries. God Save the Queen.

I think it should initially consist of the US, Canada, and maybe some of the Carribbean nations. Mexico is too underdeveloped yet for it to be fully integrated unless we want to risk an East Germany kind of situation where huge transfer payments will be needed to bring the country up to the level of the rest of the union with all kinds of negative economic effects.

It should exist, but it should grow gradually as countries meet its requirements; there should be no drive to enlist as many members as possible. It should also be headquartered in New York City or Washington DC, preferably the former.

Do you think a north american union is a good idea or not?

I don't care either way about a "north american union" in the abstract.

As far as actual proposals, it depends... if they encourage liberal immigration and social policies, I might support them, but insofar as they are just an excuse for shoving neoliberalism even more down our throats, no way.

It's never going to happen.

However having a North American Summit meeting every year to discuss issues would be fine, as long as it doesn't lead to an NAU.

I think it should initially consist of the US, Canada, and maybe some of the Carribbean nations. Mexico is too underdeveloped yet for it to be fully integrated unless we want to risk an East Germany kind of situation where huge transfer payments will be needed to bring the country up to the level of the rest of the union with all kinds of negative economic effects.

Yeah, I have to agree with Vetalia. I personally like the idea because it feels good...a union like that pulls us closer together and helps keep us from being likely to go to war with each other. Being the man of peace I am, I happen to like that.

It should exist, but it should grow gradually as countries meet its requirements; there should be no drive to enlist as many members as possible. It should also be headquartered in New York City or Washington DC, preferably the former.

Yes to this first part, and hell no to the second part. We're not placing any sort of headquarters of an American Union in New York or Washington D.C. You want to put it somewhere much more centrally located. Right now, I'd be willing to place it in Saint Louis, Missouri, but there are probably better choices.

To be honest, I'd rather it not be in the United States at all. I don't want this to be a "hey, everyone crowd around the big guy!" type of union. I want there to be economic and social equality between the member nations, and I certainly don't want one leading the charge. The last thing we need is good old United States of America arrogance fucking this up.

It'd be nice, but the lifestyles of the 3 states involved are completely and utterly different, not to mention if they chucked in the West Indies for good measure. Plus I can see the US really pissing everyone off, and generally being Pricktabulous.

Don't think it will ever work. Each is a bit too nationalistic for that too ever happen and the current fact the USA isn't very popular with anyone doesn't help either.

It'd be nice, but the lifestyles of the 3 states involved are completely and utterly different, not to mention if they chucked in the West Indies for good measure. Plus I can see the US really pissing everyone off, and generally being Pricktabulous.
I don't think we're talking about a full melding of nations into one governmental body so much as a closer union a la the European Union's open-borders joint trade economic type thing, though I would not be adverse to a joint governmental body, a sort of super-federal level government overseeing everything else. (With all other governmental structures preserved.) But we're not there yet. To be there we probably need another fifty years worth of cultural advancement.

What we really need is an American union. Both south and north could join together and become one nation. All we would need to do is get rid of Chavez and all of those physical and cultural barriers. First on our priorities is destroy the Amazon.

No, I won't allow a North American Union. I will allow Michigan to enter Confederation at any rate.

I might consider NAU if we can hold a hockey series every four years to see which city is the capital.

And on a more serious note; why the hell would we want yet one more layer of government?

As a Canadian, and one who works in an industry that regularly ships across the border, I can tell you that the notion of a unified North America is something of a joke. On one hand, the US wants to embrace 'free trade' with us, but on the other hand, they do everything in their power to tighten the borders and make it a hassle to cross.

The only alternative, is to scrap that border and focus on a continental border, i.e., give continental control to the majority shareholder; the US. Sorry folks, but that's a load of shit. We're happy to trade on our own terms, and don't need to shift our national capital for American access to our resources.

I was wondering what you folks thought of this consept. From an U.S veiw point, from a canadian or mexican view point, or even a european view point. Do you think a north american union is a good idea or not?

Edit: I used to not beleave this could happen. But in these past few years I have seen some "interesting" policy changes that may lead to this.
It depends what you mean by "union." Union as in what the United States is, or Union as in what the EU is?

I think an American version of the EU is possible. There are already several economic policies, such as NAFTA, that connect the three countries together. The United States is already such a huge producer and consumer, I don't know if it would in its interest to unite with other countries, but I don't see how it could hurt.
The biggest problem would be the Caribbean North American countries, especially the one the US has a trade embargo against. That's enough to make any union no fun.

As a Canadian, and one who works in an industry that regularly ships across the border, I can tell you that the notion of a unified North America is something of a joke. On one hand, the US wants to embrace 'free trade' with us, but on the other hand, they do everything in their power to tighten the borders and make it a hassle to cross.
You're right, it's a little weird. The times I have been to Canada, it's always pretty easy to get in, but harder to return to the US. I'm not sure why that is.

I don't think that Canada, the United States, or Mexico would give up any sovereignty to anyone. I think that big business would love the idea of open borders, though.

Mexico's economy and political establishment need to develop further before a full AU could form, but I'm not averse to the idea.

Indeed. What harm could it do for the continent to band together for mutual economic protection? that is, so long as it is ACTUALLY mutual, and not one or another bullying the other members....

like nafta and gatt before, as well as the proposed ftaa,
along with the wto,


it is for the benefit of huge trans-national corporations,
that seek to call no place home.


it is not for the benefit of the people of the US, Mexico, nor Canada

YES! I can't wait. They should set the US and Canadian dollars 1:1 now that they're so close. The cultures are practically identical, and Canada would move the US a good bit left.

It will happen eventually. It's the one thing I like Bush for.

I was wondering what you folks thought of this consept. From an U.S veiw point, from a canadian or mexican view point, or even a european view point. Do you think a north american union is a good idea or not?

Edit: I used to not beleave this could happen. But in these past few years I have seen some "interesting" policy changes that may lead to this.

Speaking as a Canadian:

No.

I was wondering what you folks thought of this consept. From an U.S veiw point, from a canadian or mexican view point, or even a european view point. Do you think a north american union is a good idea or not?

Edit: I used to not beleave this could happen. But in these past few years I have seen some "interesting" policy changes that may lead to this.

Canadian people have TV shows and holidays which celebrate the fact that they aren't American. Why would they want to unite?

Canadian people have TV shows and holidays which celebrate the fact that they aren't American. Why would they want to unite?

like 'trailer park boys' ?

I can't see Canada, allowing the USA to join them.

I can't see Canada allowing Mexico to join them either. They would have to become a tri-lingual nation. :eek:

From a European point of view, it depends on the form the union would take. I can see how a free trade union would be in everyone's interests, but political I'd say no. The Americans would dominate everything, and I couldn't see Canada liking that. It would be pretty unnecessary.

like 'trailer park boys' ?

I was thinking more in terms of Talking to Americans.

Never...If I wanted to be part of the USA I'd move there...

thread needs a poll

You're right, it's a little weird. The times I have been to Canada, it's always pretty easy to get in, but harder to return to the US. I'm not sure why that is.

Drug smugglers duuuuuuuude.

I have noticed all the nay-sayiers are from canadia, their culture sure seemes to be based on WE ARE NOT THE U.S!

I think the U.S. should go back to being a British colony. We have shown in the last few years that our independence was a little premature. I think we need to put the training wheels back on for a few centuries. God Save the Queen.

http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/3292/owlhellno1su.jpg

Drug smugglers duuuuuuuude.

I have noticed all the nay-sayiers are from canadia, their culture sure seemes to be based on WE ARE NOT THE U.S!

yeah somewhat...also what happens when the extreme Right of the US outnumbers and outvotes the Canadian Left?

I have noticed all the nay-sayiers are from canadia, their culture sure seemes to be based on WE ARE NOT THE U.S!
Not really, it's just that their culture is far more European in outlook (unsurprisingly) than the US, whose culture seems to be "WE ARE BETTER THAN EVERYBODY ELSE".

Drug smugglers duuuuuuuude.

I have noticed all the nay-sayiers are from canadia, their culture sure seemes to be based on WE ARE NOT THE U.S!

I'm from the US, and I say no. Stop triggering my 'I don't count' complex. (I kid, I kid)

North American Union!? Pfft.

That is a very boring name for a multi-national union.

How about...

The Confederacy of Independant North American States.

CINAS for short.

The Caribbean and Cuba can join later, maybe.

YES! I can't wait. They should set the US and Canadian dollars 1:1 now that they're so close. The cultures are practically identical, and Canada would move the US a good bit left.

It will happen eventually. It's the one thing I like Bush for.Nope. The US will make Canada significantly more right. We would be completely wiped out politically after the first generation or so.


I still find it amazing that Americans actually think we would be up for this. Every time threads like this pop up, every Canadian is dead set against it. The only exception I could think of is Stephen Harper, but his life goal is to be raped by the current US President. We like you as much as southerners like Mexicans.

Nope. The US will make Canada significantly more right. We would be completely wiped out politically after the first generation or so.


I still find it amazing that Americans actually think we would be up for this. Every time threads like this pop up, every Canadian is dead set against it. The only exception I could think of is Stephen Harper, but his life goal is to be raped by the current US President. We like you as much as southerners like Mexicans.

QFT!

God, a North American Union would be an outright disaster. At least if you had three countries you could move to another one if the one you live in was becoming more despotic, but if they were all three united it is a shoe-in for big government.

Nope. The US will make Canada significantly more right. We would be completely wiped out politically after the first generation or so.


I still find it amazing that Americans actually think we would be up for this. Every time threads like this pop up, every Canadian is dead set against it. The only exception I could think of is Stephen Harper, but his life goal is to be raped by the current US President. We like you as much as southerners like Mexicans.

So you admit your all bigots and racists? Nice.

So you admit your all bigots and racists? Nice.Yup, we admit it. It would be much worse to actually be bigoted and racist, and deny it.

Meh, we don't all hate yanks. We just don't all want to be yanks. Just because we're neighbours doesn't mean we have to tear down the fences and let your dog shit on our lawn.

Yup, we admit it. It would be much worse to actually be bigoted and racist, and deny it.

Naa we arn't racist homey. We just don't like uninvited guests stealling our stuff.

Meh, we don't all hate yanks. We just don't all want to be yanks. Just because we're neighbours doesn't mean we have to tear down the fences and let your dog shit on our lawn.

We don't like you telling us how horrible we are and how nice and perfect you are. Your (canada) like the snoty nosed brat of the world.

We don't like you telling us how horrible we are and how nice and perfect you are. Your (canada) like the snoty nosed brat of the world.

You're barking at the wrong Canuck. I like Americans just fine (not the government per se.) But we can't help being nice and perfect. We're just sexy that way.

Naa we arn't racist homey. We just don't like uninvited guests stealling our stuff.It comes off completely as racist up here. What I said was extreme, but I thought maybe it could put things into perspective. Allot of Americans said Mexico shouldn't be in, at least not right away. Similar case here. If it were actually possible to have a NAU without the US, we might go in on it. Otherwise, we think that every policy decision would be made by you guys with no input from anyone else. Your economy and population are larger than the rest of the continent combined. You would have significantly more sway in decision making because of those factors.

We already think that you down south already have far too much influence on Canadian policy, this would just make it all the easier.

:eek: Look guys, the union is a really shit idea. One, If Canada and Mexico were to unite with the United States we would see a huge increase in homicides due to the US gun laws, the US would dominate the AU parliament with it's crap and power hungry policies. America can't even get it's health department right let alone amalgamating an ENTIRE CONTINENT.

:upyours: America

:eek: Look guys, the union is a really shit idea. One, If Canada and Mexico were to unite with the United States we would see a huge increase in homicides due to the US gun laws, the US would dominate the AU parliament with it's crap and power hungry policies. America can't even get it's health department right let alone amalgamating an ENTIRE CONTINENT.

:upyours: America

You can go fuck yourself.

I wouldn't want there to be a North American Union. The government is the States is already too big. This would just create a bureaucratic nightmare.

Well here's what I think.

I wouldn't be opposed to a gradual union betrween America and Canada, though I think it would first be economically, then militarily (and by this, I'd hope it would make America less interventionist) then at the end, depending on how it goes, politically.

Give this...I'd say here's how it would go. America would HAVE to militarise the southern border, to keep the bad elements from flowing in. Then, America and Canada would have to greatly restrict immigration to get their newfound union to work together. Once's that's done, I would hope that both nations would influence each other politically.

I'd hope that America's capitalism would influence Canada, but Canada's social libertarianism would influence America, sorta creating a common connection on a Libertarian country, that is socially and economically free.

I would NOT support any kind of union with Mexico, as it is not a devolped first world nation and would totally drag us down, not too much have a negative cultural influence on the nation.

The problem here is. French-Canadians. I have no idea how we'd manage to convince them to bend over and take anglo-ization up the ass. Anglo-Canadians. They base their entire culture (which is indeed very similar to ours [TALKING TO YOU, EUROPEANS], and there's nothing wrong with that, I like Canada) off the fact that they are not Americans...so we'd have to convince them that'd we'd change on the issues that piss them off (interventionism) and make a fair political system that does not dominate former Canadian areas. Then...there are the extreme religious of America, who would make it extremely difficult to libertarian-ize the country, which is crucial if a union with Canada is undertaken.


This is...hypothetical...but yeah, I'd support closer mergins with Canda but not with Mexico.

What would be really sweet, however, would be a economic (and possibly political/economic) alliance (NOT union) between the Anglo world. That is, America, Canada, England, Australia, New Zealand.....and bond on our common culture, language and generally free-market economics.

Careful Trollgaard.

Anyway, why are we just talking about a North American union?

Why not a Universal World Union? It'd be awesome. World peace and fluffy bunnie's for everyone!

Any politician who supports this should be jailed for treason.

Any politician who supports this should be jailed for treason.

I agree.

Careful Trollgaard.

Anyway, why are we just talking about a North American union?

Why not a Universal World Union? It'd be awesome. World peace and fluffy bunnie's for everyone!

A World Government would be as Orwell said something to the effect of:" a boot stomping on humanity's face forever"

Any politician who supports this should be jailed for treason.

That's not even remotely reasonable. It's a political position, and it's doesn't involve helping our enemies.

I don't think it would happen because Mexico economy would drag the USA and Canada's economy down quite a bit.

Finally someone who has something useful to contribute. However I think it is already happening, and yes, Canadians standard of living will probaly start to drop off to match their southern neighbours. That is the reason the states want to see it happen, so that Canada can prop their economy up for a little while longer.

That's not even remotely reasonable. It's a political position, and it's doesn't involve helping our enemies.

It involves undermining our sovereignty, and thus, compromising our independence. I would call it more than remotely reasonable. And note that the jailing would apply only to supporters of the NAU in the federal government, not ordinary citizens.

What the fuck are you talking about? Canadia would be joining the US. America rocks and I don't think that the people of Mootixico would be all that opposed to having the standard of life raised a little. Team America, FUCK YEAH!

What the fuck are you talking about? Holy fuck, Canada has been propping up the americaan economy for decades, just like Mexico sucks off ammerican economy. Go ahead, keep suckling off that fat Canadian natural resource tit, that's why americe wants a NA union. (sucking noises).

It involves undermining our sovereignty

Yeah, so?

If they cut a deal in secret, behind closed doors, without public approval, that would be one thing.

If they use legal, democratic means, out in the open, to get the US to sign a treaty that involves us giving up some sovereignty, that's not remotely treasonous.

It involves undermining our sovereignty, and thus, compromising our independence. I would call it more than remotely reasonable. And note that the jailing would apply only to supporters of the NAU in the federal government, not ordinary citizens.

NOTE: The following assumes that one is either a United States or Canadian citizen. If one is not such, then simply regard the following as addressed to United States and Canadian citizens in general who might share one's stated opinion. Edit: I am still searching for information on Mexican law regarding "treason." I've the feeling it will be similar to that of the United States and Canada.


Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002381----000-.html )


High treason

46. (1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,

(a) kills or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or imprisons or restrains her;

(b) levies war against Canada or does any act preparatory thereto; or

(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.

Treason
(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada,

(a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province;

(b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada;

(c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or

(e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

( http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_II-gb:s_46//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II-gb:s_46 )

As one can see, United States and Canadian law regarding "treason" are quite similar. The act of treason, in both cases, basically constitutes a citizen 1) waging war against his or her own country, or 2) provding "aid and comfort" or "assist[ance]" to an enemy of his or her country. The United States, Canada, and Mexico are not presently at war and are not presently "enemies." As such, it is impossible for a citizen of the United States or Canada to provide "aid and comfort" or "assist[ance]" to any of the other countries in question in such a manner that constitutes "treason."

A citizen of the United States or Canada may consider a North American "union" as a good idea, and others may disagree. But to characterize support for such a union as "treason" against either the United States or Canada is patently absurd.

No, because I hate Canada (and Canadians) with a passion.

No, because I hate Canada (and Canadians) with a passion.Rightly so.

No, because I hate Canada (and Canadians) with a passion.

While I don't hate canadians, I dislike them. They are so....snooty, for lack of a better word.

No.
Very eloquently put, and I wholeheartedly agree. Say "No!" to the NAU!

has anybody seen that movie on youtube, end game.

Its a little alarmist for my tastes, but it brings up some interesting issues about the NAU and globalization.

-snip-

I don't believe in treason, but I do think that any politician involved in forming this abomination should be punished by incarceration. (Then again, I would be hard pressed to think of a politician who I wouldn't like to see in jail.)

I don't believe in treason, but I do think that any politician involved in forming this abomination should be punished by incarceration. (Then again, I would be hard pressed to think of a politician who I wouldn't like to see in jail.)

Of course, the problem with jailing people one disagrees with is that, eventually, someone will disagree with you.

If politicians of Canada (and Mejico) have a single brain cell in their hollow heads, they will leave NAFTA as soon as possible and not even halucinate about north American unions of any kind.

If politicians of Canada (and Mejico) have a single brain cell in their hollow heads, they will leave NAFTA as soon as possible and not even halucinate about north American unions of any kind.

If you're going to be a goon at least bother to add the acute accent. Or, you know, spell it Mexico since you aren't currently speaking (writing) Spanish...

If you're going to be a goon at least bother to add the acute accent. Or, you know, spell it Mexico since you aren't currently speaking (writing) Spanish...

If you are going to be a jerk forever, do at least bother to logg off before you start spewing your ignorant irrelevant blabber -- in Word, rather than online.

Then save it, and when you peradventure do mature -- in 40-50 years -- re-read to see why nobody ever liked you.

If you are going to be a jerk forever, do at least bother to logg off before you start spewing your ignorant irrelevant blabber -- in Word, rather than online.

Then save it, and when you peradventure do mature -- in 40-50 years -- re-read to see why nobody ever liked you.

Man, at least Fass cleans up his typos.

Man, at least Fass cleans up his typos.

Yeah... he's Fass-tidious about his spelling.

Yeah... he's Fass-tidious about his spelling.

... (http://www.ilovewavs.com/Effects/Music/RimShot.wav)

I think it would be good for everybody. It allows America to form better realtions with our neighbors. It strengthens Mexico's economy and introduces stability. For Canada, it gives them more political power on the world stage. Plus I think that from a financial standpoint it will benefit all countries. It will also add a counterpart to the EU

Meh, I don't see it working. It took WWII to completely flatten the economy of western Europe for even the beginnings of the EU to come about (the European Coal and Steel Community). Then it took a further 40 years of bargaining and political manoeuvring for the Treaty of Maastricht to actually establish the EU. And it'll probably take at least another 40 years before there is any defence community within the EU.

It's a slow process that you don't just suddenly decide you want to do something like this overnight.

Everyone seems to be suggesting that Mexico and Canada would be losing sovereignty to the US. That's bollocks. A North American Union might only consist of those three countries. Meaning that if system using unanimity was used, then no country would ever be forced to engage in policies it was against.

Plus, the US could give up the idea that secession is wrong. If the union is working harmoniously then no one will want to secede. If the union is working well then no one will want to secede whilst they benefit economically. And finally, if neither of these conditions are true then members need the right to secede to show their dissatisfaction with the project in the most extreme circumstances.

I am willing to bet Denver will be the capital of the AU. Just for some reasons that many would shout "conspiracy." *laugh*

It's my belief that, dispite the verbal diarrhea spewed by our (American) media outlets, Americans will never allow American sovereignty to be dissolved into a merger with Canada and Mexico. Media propaganda crying out that the "NAU" is only a matter of time is their last ditch effort to try and push this idea on the American public.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate,". That said, while the media may play it out that most Americans may approve of the idea, I truely believe that should our government, or that of Mexico/Canada, take a serious step in that direction, that the "silent majority" of this nation will speak out, much to the chagrin of Big Business, the Neocons and all other Fascist/Communist/Socialist/etc in this nation who cheer it on. Americans are to arrogant and proud to allow our nation to be dissolved into some 2nd world, Socialist nation by importing Canda's leftist ideas and Mexico's extreme poverty and corruption.

Just my two cents ...

It's my belief that, dispite the verbal diarrhea spewed by our (American) media outlets, Americans will never allow American sovereignty to be dissolved into a merger with Canada and Mexico. Media propaganda crying out that the "NAU" is only a matter of time is their last ditch effort to try and push this idea on the American public.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate,". That said, while the media may play it out that most Americans may approve of the idea, I truely believe that should our government, or that of Mexico/Canada, take a serious step in that direction, that the "silent majority" of this nation will speak out, much to the chagrin of Big Business, the Neocons and all other Fascist/Communist/Socialist/etc in this nation who cheer it on. Americans are to arrogant and proud to allow our nation to be dissolved into some 2nd world, Socialist nation by importing Canda's leftist ideas and Mexico's extreme poverty and corruption.

Just my two cents ...

I agree.

I don't understand this idea of an AU about to happen. Most Americans definitely don't support this, if they at all know about it. Right now half the population's main concern is keeping Mexican immigrants out (no offense). Also, who said Canada or Mexico wants this.

Whatever you may say, all three countries are democracies, and since from what I've seen, Americans don't want this, it isn't going to happen in the near or somewhat distant future. American society will have to change dramatically. We already don't want an intruding federal government, and hate the UN's laws, I don't think we're going to want another government body.

It comes off completely as racist up here. What I said was extreme, but I thought maybe it could put things into perspective. Allot of Americans said Mexico shouldn't be in, at least not right away. Similar case here. If it were actually possible to have a NAU without the US, we might go in on it. Otherwise, we think that every policy decision would be made by you guys with no input from anyone else. Your economy and population are larger than the rest of the continent combined. You would have significantly more sway in decision making because of those factors.


I'll man up and explain, since I was the first to say it:

Mexico has neither the tradition of stable, advanced democracy, nor a sizable enough economy to enter into a Union with the US and Canada. The EU does the same thing: nations have to meet certain political and economic standards before they are admitted. I have no problem with the thought of the admission of Mexico, it's just that, at the moment, it would be an uneven and unstable union, and it would be counterproductive.

Look, I can't say I'm too fond of yank bashing. You'll be shocked to find that none of us fit the disgustingly simplistic steriotypes applied to us, but come to understand that over the next generations, America is going to swing back to the left and come more into line with the world, even as Europe and Canada are moving to the Right as their economies slowly stagnate and neo-liberal reform occurs in waves. Politics are not static. Even political culture changes.

Besides which. Shrub and Co leave in less than 2 years, Posi, and most Americans are for creating substantive, involved diplomatic ties. Shrub is not indicative of anything.

Of course, the problem with jailing people one disagrees with is that, eventually, someone will disagree with you.

I never said jail them for disagreeing. I said jail them for working towards creating a union like this. Saying that you want an NAU is not an immediate threat, just like writing a death threat is not an immediate threat either (though indeed morally distasteful.) Working to create it is rather immediate, as you are in the process of an aggression (just the same as coming up behind a person with your knife out.)

No, it really wouldn't. :|


It's my belief that, dispite the verbal diarrhea spewed by our (American) media outlets, Americans will never allow American sovereignty to be dissolved into a merger with Canada and Mexico. Media propaganda crying out that the "NAU" is only a matter of time is their last ditch effort to try and push this idea on the American public.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate,". That said, while the media may play it out that most Americans may approve of the idea, I truely believe that should our government, or that of Mexico/Canada, take a serious step in that direction, that the "silent majority" of this nation will speak out, much to the chagrin of Big Business, the Neocons and all other Fascist/Communist/Socialist/etc in this nation who cheer it on. Americans are to arrogant and proud to allow our nation to be dissolved into some 2nd world, Socialist nation by importing Canda's leftist ideas and Mexico's extreme poverty and corruption.

Just my two cents ...
QFT! I could never have said it better myself.

We already don't want an intruding federal government, and hate the UN's laws, I don't think we're going to want another government body.

1. What in the hell does this have to do with the UN?

2. The UN does not pass laws. It is not a legislature. It passes resolutions that countries may or may not choose to follow.

It's sort of inevitable really. If for no other reason than trade and economic barriers will continue to fall, making nationalism less and less relevant.

Mexico is a little backward right now, but that is mostly because they have a very very corrupt government (even by US standards, which tells you something). From a long term perspective that is not really an argument to exclude it. Indeed, a NAU situation would probably speed much needed reform.

I actually like the idea.

Working to create it is rather immediate, as you are in the process of an aggression (just the same as coming up behind a person with your knife out.)

If someone were planning an invasion of some sorts, talk of "aggression" or "knives" might be relevant. But invasion is not a necessary part of forming a "union."

As I stated in my original post about how talk of "treason" is complete nonsense, "aggression" is hardly an accurate description of the present relationship between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, at any rate.

Since there is no present "aggression," and thus no reason to jail anyone for "aggression," I am led back to the conclusion that the desire for jailing stems simply from a desire to not be disagreed with.

No. Having Canada and the US support the economic sinkhole that is Mexico sounds really, really bad, from everybody's standpoint except Mexico's.

If someone were planning an invasion of some sorts, talk of "aggression" or "knives" might be relevant. But invasion is not a necessary part of forming a "union."

As I stated in my original post about how talk of "treason" is complete nonsense, "aggression" is hardly an accurate description of the present relationship between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, at any rate.

Since there is no present "aggression," and thus no reason to jail anyone for "aggression," I am led back to the conclusion that the desire for jailing stems simply from a desire to not be disagreed with.

I'm not talking about aggression against nations. The idea of a nation is an illusion cultivated by centuries of misinformation by the state, from the re-introduction of Roman law onwards, and as it does not exist it cannot be aggressed against. I am talking about the expropriation that would occur through harmonization of regulations and taxation and inflation (remember, one of the safeguards against inflation is that people would turn to other currencies that are more reliable as a store of value, and if there are fewer currencies to compete against the more free bureaucrats are to inflate). This is an aggression against me, as a private citizen, and against many others. As such, anyone who would manuever to implement this plan is no better than a person who would come up behind me with a knife.