U.S. Bush administration allies want Canada, along with fran

Even if such a "promise" is based in their exploitation by a class of people for whom murder, invasion, lies, treachery, and deceit are nothing more than tools of the trade? Sounds just like what the British did to the francophones and the metis of this land a few hundred years back. When you've been had before, you usually are better equipped to deal with it when it comes around again. --- « Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron

Dr Caleb wrote : You just like pretending you are the victim. No one has ever despised Quebeckers here. You just like to think we do. h.f. wolff wrote:On this point I do agree with the Americans: just shoot the f*****s! Or better yet, send them into exile in France. Yeah. I like that punishment better. Much harsher than just shooting. No victims here yet Dr Caleb. Aren't I just the lucky one to come from a province, the Nation of Québec, which strongly believes in peace and gun registration ? --- « Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron

michou said:

>>>"Spoken like a true imbecile and Dr. C. will probably point out that..."<<<

Yes indeed, a well-argued come-back, supported by incontrovertible facts, from one who idolizes the Americans as his redeemer.

I was merely pointing out what short shrift the Americans would allow any separatist in their midst.

Name calling is the final refuge of the out-argued scoundrel.

H.F. Wolff

...from one who idolizes the Americans as his redeemer. Tu es dans le champ de patates et je ne suis pas surprise de t'y voir. I was merely pointing out what short shrift the Americans would allow any separatist in their midst. No you weren't. You wrote black on white that you would readily shoot or exile half of Québec's population, equaling approximately 3 million separatists, for their political stand on the Canadian federation. In history books, such an approach to a specific group of people has been called the holocaust. As far as the Americans go, they themselves used their political will and force to secede from British rule. Québécers being known for their pacifism, if they do secede from the federation, it will done through political means and not at the point of machine guns. Name calling is the final refuge of the out-argued scoundrel. And what would you make of someone who uses the front page of a Canadian political forum to affirm that shooting to kill or exiling 3 million Canadians for their political views on the federation is acceptable ? I simply call them imbeciles. I also believe that site moderators who allow such statements, encouraging violent retribution towards other Canadians, to remain visible for every Canadian or foreign visitor to read are just as imbecile as the original author is. --- « Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron

The reason Quebeckers keep whining and moaning is because of the positive reinforcement that follows the 'woe is me' outbursts from Quebec: more $$$$$ from the other 11 provinces poured down the drain in Quebec. Just like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum and being placated with increased pocket money...(I'll leave the obvious conclusion of this statement to the imagination of the reader since it is not in compliance within the spirit of this forum). Your comment makes absolutely no sense. Why would a spoiled child want to leave "home" ? If my child was as bad as you make Québec to be, I'd show him the door. But the truth is that Canada is not a family or a home, it is a loose knit federation of provinces and that's all. If you don't like Canadian taxes being poured into Québec, then choose otherwise and don't do it anymore. (Ah but then Québécers will want to become independent even more so and who wants their spoiled children standing on their own two feet.... see ? This kind of judgment makes no sense whatsoever. It's the easy way out used by many Canadians who have no wish to understand Québec's position further than their own biased and bigotted views.)--- « Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron

What you fail to realize my misguided friend is that Quebec still exists, as does the French culture therein.

IF the British at the time had a mind to, Quebec would have been utterly destroyed and it's culture ushered into oblivion.

Rest assured that those making NAU overtures to those sovereigntists foolish enough to believe them would not be so generous.

Your culture would continue to exist merely as a quaint tourist attraction, and within 20 years perhaps not even that.

If being cast into the role as Louisiana North appeals to you, then by all means go for it.

I'm sure that after 2 or 3 generations at least some of you would get the gist of the matter and come to the altogether reasonable conclusion that you got screwed far worse than you ever were by Canada.

Of course, by then, English Canada and the USA would be so melded together that no one would really give a sh*t either way.

Too bad for you, but as many have said before:

C'est la vie.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

What Deacon said ^^ and what Herr Wolff said below. "The US protects s**t, not even its own citizens or constitution. US protection is strictly reserved for the wallets of the rich. Quebec would not qualify: Look at Louisiana and its history, both recent and ancient." So what you are basically saying is that Québécers should feel much safer within the Canadian federation than within a newly formed North American one. And yet, you tolerate comments stating that shooting to kill or exiling 3 million Québécers is a perfectly reasonable solution to anyone choosing national independence over being part of a federation. Since I'm one to either get a bullet or receive a one way ticket, I suddenly don't feel so reassured anymore. *rolling of eyes*--- « Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron

Michou

I am only going to say this once.

If you really want to see what Quebec would enjoy under the NAU, you need look no further than Central and South America during the last 100 years.

They too did business with US corporate interests.

A brief review of history will quickly reveal the fairness with which thy were treated.

That you would even consider entering into any form of communion with people that vicious only show just how ignorant you are of both their true nature, and their true intentions.

Of course, if you think you can resist them once they make there demands, you can always do business directly with whatever military commander eventually succeeds in breaking you.

But for some reason I do not believe you will be the ones setting the terms.

Sovereignty is somewhat difficult to execute with a gun to your head.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

In response to your comment Deacon, it will be for Québécers to decide if they are better off within a Canadian or a North American union. And as with the Canadian federation, it will also be up to them to decide if they choose their independence or not. I've said it before, your best allies against an North American integration are Québec sovereigntists. But this kind of alliance means you would be required to remove your blinders in regards to Québec's independence movement and from I have read here so far on this thread, either Canadians are unable to do it or are just too stubborn to do so. Old prejudices die hard and comments like h.f. wolff's are perfect examples. --- « Il y a une belle, une terrible rationalité dans la décision d'être libre. » - Gérard Bergeron

The continued relationship between Canada and the province of Quebec is based upon the premise that Canada will continue to exist as a nation under the NAU.

That premise is simply invalid.

You also seem to assume that the Quebecois, unlike English, will actually be informed and consulted.

Again, the premise is invalid.

They didn't consult the citizens of the US, or Mexico either. What is it about Quebec that would make them any different?

When Canada effectively ceases to exist as a sovereign state under the NAU and the laws thereof, any protections given Quebec under Canadian law will also cease to exist.

One last point: you state that the rest of Canada needs to see things your way.

How about some reciprocity from you first?

I for one, am tired of hearing on how much you claim to "suffer" under Confederation.

You complain about everything, want everything, essentially get it, and then at the end of it all, want to use Canadian currency after you secede.

Sorry pal, but that bird's not flying with me.

If Quebec ever does get it's independence, it will do so with it's own currency and not leech off the currency of another sovereign state.

That's one of the things sovereign states do, mint their own unique currency,unless of course you feel that Quebec is somehow unable to play in the same league with the rest of the nation states.

If that is the case, maybe secession isn't the great thing you thought it was after all.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

"And yet, you tolerate comments stating that shooting to kill or exiling 3 million Québécers is a perfectly reasonable solution to anyone choosing national independence over being part of a federation." 
 
Non Sequitr. I tolerate no such thing. If I recall Mi-Chaud, it was you that made the comment that the federalists would be shooting Quebeckers at the pro-Canada rally in Montreal. 
 
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20040909113708919">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20040909113708919</a> 
 
"I do get the feeling you would definitely enjoy it if it did and that you would gladly participate so that you too could be given leeway to shoot little old Québec ladys and leave them face down in a swamp" 
 
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/comment.php?mode=view&pid=29648&sid=20050606101430731&type=article&cid=29648">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/comment.php?mode=view&pid=29648&sid=20050606101430731&type=article&cid=29648</a> 
--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"Since I'm one to either get a bullet or receive a one way ticket, I suddenly don't feel so reassured anymore."

The mention of other struggles for independence and the associated bloodshed that went along with them is historical fact. That you don't seem to have studied the history of other conflicts tells me you are little more than a dilettante when it comes to sovereignty, and the efforts others have gone through to attain independence.

The truth that so far, the Quebecois separatists, have not been subject to the same indignities totally escapes you apparently.

If they have, then please, tell me when this heretofore unknown civil war took place.

I guess the American Revolution of 1776-1781 was just a quaint afternoon tea party where they discussed "sovereignty association" and other such matters.

As for the "one way ticket" quip: you want out, it's all the way.

I personally want Quebec to remain within Canada, but if you want out then you take the responsibilities that go along with it.

Just remember the old proverb: be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

yawn

once again Michou opens his mouth, makes noise, and says nothing of substance.

---
'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'.
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

And Micho, tell us, what if the native population says "Non" to your little attempt at independence? 
 
They were there long before you. 
 
You may wish to read this before answering: 
 
<a href="http://inuitnativeart.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-quebec-divisible-quebec-natives-say.html">http://inuitnativeart.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-quebec-divisible-quebec-natives-say.html</a>--- 'When you have eliminated the impossible, what ever remains, however improbable, must be the truth'. 
- Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes.

michou,

Has it EVER occurred to you why no government in Canada, be it federal or provincial other than Quebec, has had the nerve to ask Canadians if they wish to keep Quebec in the confederation under the current status-quo?

Because the answer would be a resounding NOOOOOOO.

Politicos have, what the Germans call Fingerspitzengefuehl, that is, a 'feeling in their fingertips' as to what the populace will swallow.

And the Canadian populace would not swallow the current status-quo with Quebec.

H.F. Wolff