Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (10147)	4/22/2002 6:43:00 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

she is still our Queen of course, we would defend her against aggression, unquestionably So unquestionably hopping up to defend someone else's sovereign is a way of expressing this: we grew up, evolved into a distinct and independent nation ? I don't get it? What am I missing? It sounds like you're a British colony with one degree of separation. we find her particularly useful in expressing our distinction from the US, so she serves an eminently practical purpose And needing someone else's sovereign for that says the same thing. the UK is far too lock-step with the US So tell me: Is it in Canada's best interests to inspire the enmity of the US? I would say that it is equally not in the interest of the US not to inspire Canada's distrust and enmity. We share a long border- -currently undefended. And we are each other's major trading partner. And we are long time allies coming from a common Western democratic tradition. 'And Canada is in NATO. You could be dragged into the defense of Germany' And Turkey and Greece and ..... and the United States. And Canada can call on the US to defend it against attack. That's what that treaty is about. depends on the situation, each one is a new story Not all the new. It takes a vote in the NATO Council to activate the mutual defense provisions of the treaty. If that happens, you get a whole lot of help. So do we if we are the victims. Do you actually think the US would renege on its commitments if Canada were attacked? You lived under our nuclear umbrella for 45 years of Cold War. And when the US is unjustly attacked, we must be there, of course, we are the next-door neighbours, not separate from something like that ... in the first moments of seeing those planes into the towers, we saw that as an attack on us, not just on the US, but on all of us in the civilised world Do you mean that or is that just boilerplate?