Well, I didn’t mean it that way. When I was a little kid living in the UP, we’d drive up through Sault Ste. Marie and mom was all “hey kids, we’re in a foreign country!” But when we got there I was “we are?” :dubious:
I’m not trying to be paternalistic towards Canada or anything.
Well, of course Canadians’ view of the US is different than the US’s view of itself. To Americans, the US is their country, while to Canadians it is a friendly country, sure, but that doesn’t look for their interests first (and neither should it). It doesn’t change the fact that Canada and the US are quite similar countries. I’m sure both countries’ cultures are a bit different, but since there is quite a lot of cultural variation, both in Canada and in the US, I’m not sure how you’d even describe this.
As I’ve said, these certainly do exist, but I’m curious to know what they are, according to you.
Well, look at my location. 
Now that’s a bit dramatic, don’t you think?
Oh, of course, and I’d feel bad if any city in the world was attacked by terrorists, really. I’ll admit, though, that I wouldn’t feel as much “immediacy” if it was a city far from here, and rather different in culture. My post was actually more of a reponse to levdrakon’s comment that Canadian provinces are, to him, more states, especially with the other posters mentioning that they have family or friends in Montreal. Would it feel the same way to him (and others) if it’s a part of Canada that doesn’t speak the same language and with which he doesn’t have as much family ties? And how about Mexico, which as_u_wish already brought up? This is not a trap or anything, I can understand why it would feel less immediate (and I expect it, since it’d be the same for me).
This said, if we’re talking about an attack by international terrorists, an attack on any Canadian city is equally a threat to all Canadian citizens, and to the citizens of many other countries as well. So I guess it really depends on what kind of attack we’re talking about.
First, your national sovreignty has no bearing on what military action any other nation takes, unless it constitutes an incursion on your soil or an attack on your interests abroad. Second, if I recally correctly, NATO member nations are obliged (or at least allowed) to consider an attack upon any member as an attack upon themselves. This was publicly invoked after 9/11 by the UK (and a few other nations whom I don’t recall; perhaps Canada itself). If Canada does not want that sort of support, then it shouldn’t be a member of NATO. I suspect however that posters here are in a minority and it would be very unlikely that Canada (either the government or the majority of the people) would reject the support that NATO membership entitles them to, should events ever bring us to that.
No, I think what featherlou is saying is that if there is ever an attack by international terrorists on Canadian soil, the US should consult with the Canadian government before reacting. What motivated her comments was probably this:
So I see her point, but I actually expect that the US government would consult with the Canadian government in order to decide what the response would be.
I lived in NYC for 25 years, and I lost two friends in the WTC attack, so for me the attacks had a very personal significance. But other than that, I’d be equally horrified and angry if Montreal were targeted.
And I’d be even more horrified and angry if our President reacted by starting another war with a country that had nothing to do with it.
Sorry you interpret it that way…I think it was more meant as the fact that we consider you to be friends and family in the community of mankind, and people we like an awful lot. How should we express our care and concern, then, if you are going to read that kind of sentiment into it?
Fluh? Strengthening defence, certainly, but of course there was immediate and responsive bombing campaigns. Bombing of industrial cities was rewarded by bombing of industrial cities by the other side, and so on and so forth, not to mention attempts at cutting down defences on the continent. The Battle of Britain may be most famous as a war of defence, but attack played a pretty damn big role in it.
That is a staggering misrepresentation of the facts. I mean, wow.
I would be as shocked as any attack on the US, though not quite as shocked as 9/11 as that really hit close to home for me with family members endangered and one being ‘lucky’ enough to be home recovering from pneumonia.
If it was clearly sponsored by a state like Iran and Canada requested aid in carpet bombing Tehran, I would be all for it and hope we would respond fast and in all ways possible.
I feel the same way about the UK for the record. I would hope we supported them 100% and I still remain disappointed we did not help more in the Falkland’s War.
Having seen the state of Montreal’s downtown and Plateau streets recently, I’d be surprised if anyone noticed the fall out of a bomb or crash. I’d also wonder exactly what kind of message terrorists were trying to send, though really Montrealers probably have more in common with New Yorkers than many Americans. I suppose they might be targeting the city’s large Jewish and gay populations (and don’t forget the gay Jews), but really, I can’t even think of a major monument they’d hit. The cross on Mt. Royal? Farine Five Roses?
I understood the sentiment the poster was trying to express to be “I consider your country to be like a brother to my own, and we have a special bond.” But that’s a very different sentiment from “I consider your country to be a part of my own.” The second is like saying “your country isn’t really a country, and we have sovereignty over you by virtue of our superior might and importance.”
I mean, you’ll notice the comment was “those things you call provinces to me, are just more states.” It wasn’t “I feel like our states are just more provinces.”
Ditto.
In a hypothetical instance of state-sponsored terrorism against Canada, how much of a militaristic response could Canada wage unilaterally (not that it would ever come to that*)? It’s not just a matter of weighing the number of cruise missiles, jet fighters & bombers, tanks, or artillery pieces; but also the ability to project that force (plus infantry!) halfway across the world, with logistics, telecom links, independent satellite feeds and intel, etc.
Let’s say it was a Kuwaiti conspiracy… could Canada single-handedly conquer Kuwait? In what kind of timeline? How about Egypt or Saudi Arabia?
Canada does not have the capability to effectively project that sort of force.
To be honest, there are very few countries that do. Very few nations retain the capability to move and sustain an attacking force of substantial size overseas.
Exactly- but if both sides of the border were the same, if Canadians were just like Americans, this wouldn’t be the case. The US has a self-imposed news blackout, and doesn’t know what the world at large thinks, except dopers and people who listen to NPR. So Americans think they’re great guys, and thinks that the rest of the world think the same, and the rest of the world thinks what the rest of the world actually thinks…you know…the thing…don’t tell them…you know. 
Socialized medicine, gun control, cooperation in place of individualism, federalism, inclusiveness, Gay marriage, seal clubbing, cultural integration without a melting pot and Tim Horton’s were the answers on my citizenship exam. But hell, I’ve only been out west for a week, so I may get yet be listing bike lanes and coffee shops as core values.
Nope. I think when you don’t know much about a place, and you extrapolate what you think you know, you get a stereotype. Canadians are similar to Americans, but not the same, and it’s lazy not to bother to know anything more. (Trust me when I say that I was as lazy in this regard as was humanly possible prior to moving North.) Canadians rarely say that Americans are just like Canadians. That’s because they know it isn’t true.
Matt_mcl Made the point I was trying to make in a much better way.
I can’t imagine that Canada would reject aid from NATO or other countries, and in fact would be very grateful for it.
What I think posters here are trying to say (including myself) is that Canada would not be grateful if (using 9/11 as the example), a group from Afghanistan had attacked us, and the USA or another country unilaterally decided to attack Afghanistan in response. Even after the actual events of 9/11, countries such as the UK considered it an attack on their soil, the fact is they did not act without consultation and agreement with the USA (beyond internal response to protect their own citizens). The USA was attacked - the USA directed the response.
Canada would want, and expect, the same… courtesy, I guess is the word?
As for the perceived lack of symbolic monuments; I never once considered the WTC to be important, other than that they were very tall buildings. The Statue of Liberty, the Empire State building, even the New York Public Library were more symbolic, to me. But the WTC had people. Lots and lots of people. In Montreal, pretty much anything in the downtown core would do - that’s where all the people are. 1000 de la Gauchetière is as good a target as any. The Forum, McGill, the Bell Centre. The Underground city. But to cripple the city… 17 targets. Bridges and tunnels. It is an island, after all!
Worse yet, the power lines. There are a limited number of them. Actually, I think if you took out Montreal’s power supply, it would do for much of southwestern Quebec – as we learned in 1998.
And hating Toronto - don’t forget that. 
(West, eh? We’ll be expecting an invitation for beer and wings, you realize. 
)
Cool, but I’m -----------------------------------waaaay west, in Vancouver, Pearl of the West.
I would be worried that the attack might hasten the Expos move from Montreal. 