Canada's Future

[Holiday20310401]

Canada has a very poor military, obviously, and needs to get better. Canada has much of the world's resources including uranium, oil, and fresh water. Canada is also the second largest country. And yet the military it pathetic.

In the future when resources are gone from other countries what becomes of Canada? What will the USA be able to do about anything. Especially when it comes to fresh water where countries have already lost so much due to global warming. I doubt Canada is going to be able to say "here, have some water, all of you, we'll just run out or at least have a hard time keeping up with all of your demands but its no problem" .

Is there going to be war in the future because of this?

[Theaetetus]

It is inevitable that Canada, the U.S. and Mexico will form a Union like the EU. It has already started with the SPP (The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America).

[Holiday20310401]

Yes that makes everything just go away

[Didymos Thomas]

I always thought their diminutive military was an asset. When was the last time Canada was stuck with tens of thousands of combat troops half a world away engaged in an futile bloody mess?

[Holiday20310401]

Yeah thats true, but I meant more for defensive reasons. I just think that perhaps we could see some eastern countries stranded for resources and deciding that Canada would make a mandatory target. And if Russia gets involved it could be a cold war. Plus Iran is developing nuclear technology. So what can the USA do to defend, and Mexico, lol.

[Didymos Thomas]

Monroe Doctrine, baby.

[Holiday20310401]

Perhaps a wikipedia link would suffice? lol. ... ... no really don't.

[Didymos Thomas]

I haven't checked, but I imagine wikipedia will give a good account of the Monroe Doctrine.

It's an important part of US history, and really the whole history of the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was outlined by President Monroe in an address to Congress. US interests were two fold - keeping the still young nation out of European political turmoil while protecting the nation's trading interests. Next to this declaration of neutrality in European affairs was a stern warning to European powers not to further colonize the New World or interfere with the political affairs of the emerging nations in the Americas which had recently cast off the imperial rule of Europe. Should European powers attempt to colonize or disrupt the newly formed American governments, the US would consider such action as hostile towards the US. The primary concern of US politicians was the Spanish attempt to regain lost colonies in central and south America - a real threat to American trade given the large south American market (which was seen as far more significant than the market in the US), and the collaboration of France and Russia with the Spanish dream of rebuilding it's vast and now lost empire in the Americas. France and Russia had their own motivations - they were not just being good friends to Spain. France also had an eye for lost territory in the Americas (Napoleon took to selling French interests in the Americas to fund his wars in Europe), and Russia was moving into Alaska having conquered a huge swath of northern Asia.

The Monroe Doctrine has been reinterpreted by different US leaders to suit current needs. Theodore Roosevelt assumed that the US could go so far as to intervene in the affairs of American nations for the sake of economic stability - European powers had loaned many of the small American nations money which they were having trouble repaying.

An even more modern interpretation, which I suggest as a pragmatic response to the fears you have expressed here (though I ultimately oppose the idea), would be that the US is justified in economic and military intervention to stabilize American nations against the potential commercial and military aggression of any world power, such as China or Iran.

[Holiday20310401]

Why did the USA go to war against the middle east instead of China. Control over china would make the USA economically much more efficient right?

And in terms of stability it wouldn't differ from the impossibility of controlling Iraq and Afghanistan.

China's society is very much immoral as the way extremist groups in the middle east have associated themselves as.

[Didymos Thomas]

Why did the USA go to war against the middle east instead of China. Control over china would make the USA economically much more efficient right?

China has nukes, over one billion people and owns a huge chunk of US national debt.

And in terms of stability it wouldn't differ from the impossibility of controlling Iraq and Afghanistan.

Right - invading the Middle East and invading China are bad ideas for the US - I say this as an idealist and from a purely pragmatic foreign policy perspective.

China's society is very much immoral as the way extremist groups in the middle east have associated themselves as.

China's society is no more immoral the US society, or Canadian society, or any other society.