SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (228429)4/24/2007 11:39:12 AM
From: kumar  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
we did not invade/occupy patrs of Canada, but we did to the former Mexico - California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas.

So in the proposition, if you substitute the word "Canada" for the word "Mexico" would you still have the same view ?



To: Elroy who wrote (228429)4/24/2007 11:39:58 AM
From: michael97123  Respond to of 281500
 
Elroy,
I dont want to fight with you about this. Its a parlor game solution, nothing more. The parties in question are less able to live together than the iraqis whose solution appears to be three states. Same with the old Yugoslavia. The trend is smaller and more homo states, less hetero. Lets just agree to disagree on this one. Mike



To: Elroy who wrote (228429)4/24/2007 12:24:56 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I think combining Canada, Mexico and the US into one EU-type unit makes a lot of sense. The main obstacles are the Canadians and the Mexicans, who insist on their sovereignty for some stupid reason.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News