Could a soverign Quebec play a role in a Federalist Republic
Numure @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:11 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Tricks Tricks:
You think every thing is an imperialist european war. You though ww2 was im sure. Why not spill your blood for france? They are the only ones that would ever be your ally. I doubt you would have a very reliable military. It would be too small to protect the size of land that you have. Borders would be a massive problem, since you would pretty much be an island among land.
Only a misguided separatist would look at the Great War solely through imperial goggles. The fact is that when innocent Europeans needed help, Canada answered the call – something to take pride in and honour. If someone is smug about protesting and rioting when they should have been marching and fighting then pity them. You’ll notice that a similar attitude was displayed during World War Two. What a great historical legacy. I’m glad Canada didn’t take that self-serving approach.
I guess the many Europeans, and most Americans that see the Great War in the same way are seperatists too, huh?
I didnt say the same thing for the Second World War though. That just an entirely different issue then the First one.
hamiltonguyo @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:17 pm
what were forgetting is if the british lost the great war the americans wouldn't have joined the allies and instead would have gobbled up Canada. if that happened I'd like to see how the Québécois Acadians, and Metis would have been treater.
Mustang1 @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:32 pm
Numure Numure:
I guess the many Europeans, and most Americans that see the Great War in the same way are seperatists too, huh?
And they, like separatists, would be historically naive – that’s why I don’t base history off the mob’s view. Imperialism is a cause, but it’s certainly not the only one (try Nationalism, Pan-Germanism, Militarism, Alliances + individual actor involvement – you stated otherwise) and it doesn’t alter the fact that innocent Europeans (say, Belgium) were the unfortunate victims of this march of history. Are you stating that their ill treatment wasn’t worth sacrificing? How about France? Only imperialism again? Again, Canada fought for those in need and you may want to read up on Britain’s Imperial requests versus our overwhelming overflow of volunteers – be careful not besmirch Canadian sacrifices in some misguided attempt to rationalize Quebec’s selfish attitudes.
Besides, you originally stated, “We opposed the war because it was simply an imperialist European War. We wernt intrested in spilling our blood for either Britain or France.” Sounds rather dismissive.
$1:
“I didnt say the same thing for the Second World War though. That just an entirely different issue then the First one”
Really? And why exactly did Quebec oppose (73% of the province voted against it in the WWII plebiscite) military conscription in the fight against totalitarian oppression in arguably history darkest hour? I’d be extremely interested in seeing how that one is addressed.
Mustang1 @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:36 pm
Numure Numure:
The only difference between us and belgium, is that Belgium Recognises both Nations. We don't.
Really? We tried – it was in the “Canada Clause” of the failed Charlottetown Accord.
Numure @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:37 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Numure Numure:
The only difference between us and belgium, is that Belgium Recognises both Nations. We don't.
Really? We tried – it was in the “Canada Clause” of the failed Charlottetown Accord.
Exactly. It was also in Meech.
Knoss @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:44 pm
$1:
We might be split on the issue of Souvrainté. But we arnt split on the issue of Nationalism. Except that 12% of anglophones, like you. I can understand why they feel they are Canadian. They are.
But the rest of us, Are Québécois. The issue that is splitting us, is wheter we want to be French-Canadians, too.
But the rest of us, Are Québécois. The issue that is splitting us, is wheter we want to be French-Canadians, too.
What about the Innuit who lived on HBC lands added to Canada in 1870 and made part of Quebec in 1912?
Numure @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:56 pm
Knoss Knoss:
$1:
We might be split on the issue of Souvrainté. But we arnt split on the issue of Nationalism. Except that 12% of anglophones, like you. I can understand why they feel they are Canadian. They are.
But the rest of us, Are Québécois. The issue that is splitting us, is wheter we want to be French-Canadians, too.
But the rest of us, Are Québécois. The issue that is splitting us, is wheter we want to be French-Canadians, too.
What about the Innuit who lived on HBC lands added to Canada in 1870 and made part of Quebec in 1912?
Natives. Natives are a completly different issue.
Poisson @ Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:54 am
Tricks Tricks:
You think every thing is an imperialist european war. You though ww2 was im sure. Why not spill your blood for france? They are the only ones that would ever be your ally. I doubt you would have a very reliable military. It would be too small to protect the size of land that you have. Borders would be a massive problem, since you would pretty much be an island among land.
If you look at Iceland, it has virtually no military of its own at all to protect the island that is 1/4 larger than New Brunswick. Look at Canada, it takes one soldier to protect 50 sq. km of its territory...not exactly good, eh? Most of Canada is undeveloped, and same thing applies to Quebec. Quebec doesn't need a large military, just large enough to respond diasaters. Many countries can go on fine with having small armies. Oh by the way, Quebec does have a direct access to the ocean without having to cross other provinces' border, so it's not exactly landlocked as you may think.
$1:
I know what the UN, a piece of shit, but that does not mean you will get a seat there. Many countries do not have seats there, are you really that arrogant to think that you are good enough to be in the un? Don't call me a child...or I will rip off your head and shit down your neck you fucking asshole.
EH?! Almost every country in the world has a seat in the UN. The only exception is the Vatican. There are 192 independent countries, and 191 of those are UN members.
maple_leaf1 @ Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:17 am
Numure Numure:
Except that 12% of anglophones, like you.
.
.
Ahhh....you think they like me? That's very nice.....
maple_leaf1 @ Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:26 am
Numure Numure:
Knoss Knoss:
$1:
We might be split on the issue of Souvrainté. But we arnt split on the issue of Nationalism. Except that 12% of anglophones, like you. I can understand why they feel they are Canadian. They are.
But the rest of us, Are Québécois. The issue that is splitting us, is wheter we want to be French-Canadians, too.
But the rest of us, Are Québécois. The issue that is splitting us, is wheter we want to be French-Canadians, too.
What about the Innuit who lived on HBC lands added to Canada in 1870 and made part of Quebec in 1912?
Natives. Natives are a completly different issue.
Natives are always a different thing...In a seperatist's mind, if you're not one of them, you don't count.
maple_leaf1 @ Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:30 am
Poisson Poisson:
Most of Canada is undeveloped, and same thing applies to Quebec. Quebec doesn't need a large military, just large enough to respond diasaters. Many countries can go on fine with having small armies.
No worries....no worries. The new country won't need a large "army"....It won't be left with enough land anyways......
Knoss @ Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:50 am
$1:
what were forgetting is if the british lost the great war the americans wouldn't have joined the allies and instead would have gobbled up Canada. if that happened I'd like to see how the Québécois Acadians, and Metis would have been treater.
They couldn't catch Villa.
Poisson @ Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:54 am
maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:
Poisson Poisson:
Most of Canada is undeveloped, and same thing applies to Quebec. Quebec doesn't need a large military, just large enough to respond diasaters. Many countries can go on fine with having small armies.
No worries....no worries. The new country won't need a large "army"....It won't be left with enough land anyways......
Eh, if it separates...I'm just happy enough if Quebec keeps its orginal 1867 border, which accounts all of the Saint Lawrence Valley and some lands beyond it (that includes your beloved Outaouais).
With just the original 1867 territory, it's still a lot of land, bigger than many European countries and few Canadian provinces.
maple_leaf1 @ Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:28 am
Poisson Poisson:
maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:
Poisson Poisson:
Most of Canada is undeveloped, and same thing applies to Quebec. Quebec doesn't need a large military, just large enough to respond diasaters. Many countries can go on fine with having small armies.
No worries....no worries. The new country won't need a large "army"....It won't be left with enough land anyways......
Eh, if it separates...I'm just happy enough if Quebec keeps its orginal 1867 border, which accounts all of the Saint Lawrence Valley and some lands beyond it (that includes your beloved Outaouais).
With just the original 1867 territory, it's still a lot of land, bigger than many European countries and few Canadian provinces.
I think the vote should be regional. I explain: All of the province would vote to decide wether, as a whole, it wishes to seperate from Quebec. Then, if the Quebec generally wishes to seperate but does not obtain at least 90% support, it should go to a secondary vote by regions. I think it would be more fair that way.
Here are the regions: Regions of Québec
Numure @ Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:35 am
maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:
I think the vote should be regional. I explain: All of the province would vote to decide wether, as a whole, it wishes to seperate from Quebec. Then, if the Quebec generally wishes to seperate but does not obtain at least 90% support, it should go to a secondary vote by regions. I think it would be more fair that way.
Here are the regions: Regions of Québec
Hey, I agree! We should do it now though. A regional vote on seperation. Whats the use of a National vote if we could do a regional one huh?
So, Natives lands won't count. As they are part of the national regions. Only regions we might worry about a lost would be les Outaouais, Eastern Townships and Nunavik.
I like your idea alot more, would make our own country alot easiyer to obtain.