From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:01:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, structure of the N
Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty: > Hello all! Well, that's exactly it. And I had thought from maybe a 'historical observer' perspective. It wasn't meant to be about current day politics, just their impact on how the NAC came into being. > OK Thomas, I have some responses to your responses to my responses, Prudent, to be sure. > >As a corollary of that, the Mohawks and other Native People You mean like at Arkwasasne, Ganawake and Khanasetake? The QPP moving in with army backup? The same QPP/Surete de Quebec that have had a large volume of complaints of their treatment of aboriginals filed? Led by the separatists in Quebec who're pretty bigoted (witness some of their comments)? And opposed by very frustrated Mohawks and other Native People's who've got various excellent military veterans and a lot of firepower on their side? I think if Quebec does not let the Indians secede, problems will occur, and they seem unwilling to let this happen. Many > people predicted a war in Czecholslovakia when it started to break up. And look what happened in Bosnia. There are numerous scenarios. I just think yours is unlikely. Ever been on one of those reserves? Ever spoken at length with the aboriginal peoples that live in those areas? I have met some of them, and I've been through one or two of the reserves. And I live right beside Quebec so I get a lot of stories about the Surete. And if you take a deep look at PQ and BQ underlying philosophy, you'll realize inclusion and tolerance are not really factored in. I think your scenario is kind of hopeful. (But, I concede, a possible outcome). If there's one thing many Candians have learned through the > years of watching Eastern Europe, Northern Ireland, and Africa tear I don't think they WANTED it to happen either.... Yes there are > lots of hotheads - plenty on all sides. I think each of the various Like at APEC? (Sorry, Canadian joke - about a PM who siccs his Mounties on protesters....) To paraphrase (sort of) what someone else said in a recent post, > Canadians have a radically different view or federal-provincial Well, I think they'd wait till we were falling apart first, or were asked in which is quite likely. Quebec could not win a fight with us, but we won't fight them. They'll much more likely have internal security issues imposed by Mohawks, hardcore anglo Quebecois, and other minority groups. > >** No, due to the conflicts brewing up with the Natives. AND Canada's > >defence establishment being stretched too thin and Quebec's desire to > >(like any nation) have its own army. Yes, but then so is Canada's. Quebec's might be a fair size. And Surete would be powerful. Remember, the Surete de Quebec ordered 3 Leopard IIs for 'transport of personel in conflict areas' or something like that. > No, they wouldn't be happy. I hypothesized a cleaner situation with a Somebody always makes money. I don't think the state of the market does more than affect the smaller powers. The big ones move their money around all the time and can deal with this. And I think a native uprising doesn't rule out anything in the future. It just requires a solution which lets Quebec, Ontario, the Natives, and everyone into the NAC in the long run. > I don't buy the "Native Civil War" scenario, romantic tho' it may be. Call it Insurrection. Call it Guerrilla War. Call it acts of Terrorism. Call it confrontation. Civil War might be to harsh a word. Yes, > I remember the Oka crisis - but that was a very limited scenario, out Sure. I have less faith in the lessons taking than you do apparently. I see too many of the PQ and BQ statements that scare me, and I see the frustration that isn't going away on behalf of the Native community. Especially the youth. If the James Bay project didn't get a war started, > with the Natives losing hundreds of thousands of acres of their land Okay, the other thing is you are treating 'The Natives' as a group. In reality, they are a number of fairly different groups. I can see the Mohawks provoking armed confrontation and guerrilla wars. Do you think the separatists are that bright? > No, they aren't going to impeach him. It was, dare I say it, a Sorry. I realize now your reply was tongue in cheek in places. I'm sorry if I seem over serious. I just didn't realize you were joking and I'm interested enough to take this game-serious... > >This might be the end result, but I believe you'll have Civil War Well, it might get on New York local news. "This is Channel 10 in Watertown. Large Convoys of 5 ton trucks seen heading North towards the Mohawk Reserve bearing crates believed to contain the latest generation of Stinger Anti-Aircraft Missile." > What a horrible thought. ...generations of Parizeaus whining and Life isn't what we want, just what it is. And yes, this sucks. I could smack the people who allowed this to happen in the first place. > >Resolution of this issue is almost more science fiction-ish than any I don't know, we like SG2 scenarios. Native Irregulars versus Quebec National Army in the suburbs of Quebec City sure sounds like an interesting twist.... The real issue here is how did the NAC > form and what was Canada's place in it. As I pointed out in another Sure. I'd like a cleaner way to get there. But its time for me to put up or shutup. I've put on my thinking cap, and I'll give you an alternate view shortly. > Ireland isn't exactly a resource rich area. Neither is Singapore. Both do > really well with higher value-added industries like the high-tech I'd agree, but I'm not sure of that entirely. Ireland is now becoming a tech haven for some valid reasons that the Maritimes could emulate. But at some level, you still lack some of the resources that help to make growth easier. There were > several locations in the running, and Halifax is one of the preferred As long as they don't bring Ammo ships into the harbour. OK, the immigration has been mostly to Vancouver, Montreal and > Toronto, but there will be a trickle-down to the rest of the country. I thought that had more to do with the Japanese and Chinese running out of stuff to buy in Vancouver (and it getting more expensive) so they naturally take their investment capital inland.... which is by no means a bad thing for them or Calgary. I've been there. Good Tavernas and Restuarants. We have the largest Carribean celebrations > outside of the Carribean. That's a huge tourist event. It lives in part because it makes huge tourist dollars. We have one of the largest urban Italian > speaking populations in the world, including many cities in Italy. You can > go to restaurants from over 90 different cultures. Vancouver has you beat for Restuarants. Something like 6500 or something like that. But there's lots of > faces to this city - it's a big place. Multiculturalism here WORKS, Hmm. That's a Toronto bit of propaganda I think you've bought into. I think it works pretty well in Sydney, London, Vancouver, and probably some US centres. But Toronto I do give credit for doing some things right. It just got too damn big for my personal taste. > >If the civil war affects Seattle, it'll affect Vancouver almost Not suck them in, but surely it affected them seriously. > >Large.... ummm.... well, I guess to a Canadian... I think our Well, since Germany has had calls to withdraw its Battle Group and Britain has talked about doing the same, the truth may be nothing. I don't think so, but I don't think we'll see more than (at most) twice the current force levels. > >This presumes Europe is stable enough for Germany to spare the force. > >or had you only in mind the German Kampfgruppe in Manitoba? Well, considering our tanks are Leopards.... the Germans could be said to have a LOT of tanks here.... > >Large relative to the battered survivors in the USA. not really large > >compared to Pre war force formations. there'd be plenty of motivation to prevent some warlord from getting > clever and annexing Alberta... Remember this is taking place a long Never. But don't cling to outmoded views of what war will be like, the time frames, or the cost of forces. I concede we can grow, but if we want to grow and maintain quality and professionalism levels we won't grow like we did in WW2. This is also NOT a hot war as you point out. > And yes, it would not be compared to pre-war formations. But I highly A fair assessment. Shrunk by 20%, it will still leave us in the dust. Not by > a long shot - there's no way they'll be able to afford it, and Which is seen by the wiser heads as an error, but will likely be how they do it. After several years of civil war, I imagine most of the > high-tech gee-whiz stuff will have worn out or been destroyed - What about all the mothballed tanks and weaponry? Even their mothball storage might be equal to our best efforts.... and esp if those mothball reserves were captured by nutzo factions.... > So if Britain and Canada were to field large formations of troops, Agreed. I just didn't see this enough in what you wrote. In defence of your story though, you tried to tell a huge sweeping epic in a couple of pages.