Why would we make you the 51st. state? Then we'd have to build a really long interstate highway and the National Guard would have to add such military terms as "crikey" and other euphemisims vomited up by that Croc Hunter moron.
...and "Outback Steakhouse" would lose it's novelty.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
But then we'd be abl;e to finally have some real beer. Yay for Castlemaine from Brisbane & boo to Foster's ("Australian for 'Dingo's Piss!'")!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Wouldn't it be, like, seven states?
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
A Trans-Pacific Tunnel Hooray!
I think that we will have statehood for Puerto Rico and Canada before statehood for Australia, making Australia the 53rd state.
Joking aside, this history professor isn't saying anything that I haven't heard from other anti-globalization intellectuals here in the United States.
Reminds me of someone, whose name I am forgetting at the moment, who claimed that Washington state was a colony of the Chinese because of all the timber that was being exported and then coming back into the United States as finished goods.
Or the reports I occasionally see in newspapers with so called "alarming" statistics about foreign ownership of American companies and major office building in my country's most cosmopolitan cities owned by foreigners. They tend to pick on Asian countries the most, Japan in particular.
It reminds me of the United States for Americans crowd who demand that immigrants should be deported. A lot of the time they are, or have ties with, racial hate groups.
But I have never read anything or heard comments by Dr. David Mosler except for the news article you linked to. Any chance that he was intentionally trying to be outrageous to start a national debate on the issues he raised? At times it sounded like he was taking the approach that Jonathan Swift used in "A Modest Proposal". By intentionally being offensive, they might listen to what I have to say?
By the way, what is this fear with Indonesia that I keep reading about in the Australian press? I remember seeing what looked like a radical conservative web site from Australia that warned of the dangers of an invasion from the brown Muslims from Indonesia and that Australia would become an Indonesian colony? Are these people dismissed as mentally ill in Australia or is there a real fear of such a scenario?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Shut up. Canada has first dibs on number 51.
And I'll do anything to make sure that doesn't happen. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
We'd induct Canada, but then the value of the dollar would fall, so screw it. Remain in your frosty non-controversial country while we get rich by feeding you McDonalds food and underbidding your heavy industries......
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
Why don't we give statehood to Guam? They actually WANT to be a state...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Australia is a European outpost right next door to Southeast Asia, which happens to be one of the most dynamic (and therefore frightening and unsettling) regions on Earth. Of course they're going to be concerned about what happens there. The last time a nation in that part of the world came into serious power things almost ended with Australia a happy outpost of the East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
This reads like a bit of academic trolling, of course. For one thing, adding states is so boringly passe, not to mention economically and politically undesirable. What is this, 1803? All the points listed that aren't nonsense are already at work. If Australia wants nuclear weapons they will ask and the United States will no doubt be very happy to oblige. It worked for Canada. I don't see where statehood offers anything beyond what's already available via ANZUS.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Sol System are you saying that Canada is a nuclear power? Are these Canadian controlled nukes, or just American "guest" nukes that currently reside on Canadian soil?
I have never seen nuclear proliferation maps that identified Canada as a nuclear power. Please tell me where you found this nugget of information. I would like to know more. (No reference to "Starship Troopers" intended.)
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Would Canadian installaions be called "missile igloos?" Would the missiles themselves look like big carved Haida totems? Would they all be aimed at Qu�bec?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
How can Australia become the fifty-first state of the US when it's already the sixth country of the UK?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I have heard it claimed that these weapons were in fact under de facto Canadian control during the Cold War. This is, as you can probably tell, a controversial claim, and I am having some difficulty finding a cite.
At any rate, it would be trivially easy for Canada, or any Western nation, to go nuclear all by their lonesome, should they so desire.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Thank you for the link Sol System. Very enlightening, though I don't find the news very surprising.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by The359: Why don't we give statehood to Guam? They actually WANT to be a state...
Certain requirements are needed to gain statehood...population being the major one Guam is lacking.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Triton: A Trans-Pacific Tunnel Hooray!
I think that we will have statehood for Puerto Rico and Canada before statehood for Australia, making Australia the 53rd state.
By the way, what is this fear with Indonesia that I keep reading about in the Australian press? I remember seeing what looked like a radical conservative web site from Australia that warned of the dangers of an invasion from the brown Muslims from Indonesia and that Australia would become an Indonesian colony? Are these people dismissed as mentally ill in Australia or is there a real fear of such a scenario?
Yes, mentally ill. At least scare/hate mongerers. And of course, the ones with the more outrageous claims get the most press. There's a lesson in there somewhere!
I agree Puerto Rico and Canadia ( ) first!
And yes, add 6 states and 2 territories.
Infact - the likely hood of something like that ever happening - is quite remote. And for the record I would see a state succeeding and becoming it's own country before Australia becomes a part of the US!
And wouldn't it then be The United States of America and Australia?
USAA?
LOL United States of Alcoholics Anonymous! Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Australia doesn't have nuclear weapons... and we only have one nuclear reactor which is only used for scientific purposes...
Oh and that indonesia thing - I think (as I mentioned) some stirrers like to promote the fact that the largest muslim nation on earth and the third most populous country on the planet lies about 800km? off the coast! If they decided to invade - they'd be welcomed by a slice of happy desert. A desert roughly the size of Europe.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
This sounds like the kind of thing we get over here all the time. Basically a load of bollocks; I can't really see any country, especially one of the more developed ones giving up it's independance in order to be absorbed by the US. On the other hand my country is a member of the EU (shortly to be USE).
quote: How can Australia become the fifty-first state of the US when it's already the sixth country of the UK?
England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales=4 +Australia=5
Unless you count Canada.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Certain requirements are needed to gain statehood...population being the major one Guam is lacking.
Except it should be pointed out that a few of the CURRENT states in the USA have fallen below the minimum requirement needed for statehood. So really the population thing should be thrown out.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Or the states themselves. Like, say, Utah, and every other state with a population less than two million. 8)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales=4 +Australia=5
"Unless you count Canada."
I do. GB, NI, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. If you have the Union Jack in your flag or you put Queen Elizabeth on your money, you're still in the British Empire. Which, I suppose, means Fiji and Tuvalu go in there, too. And an arguement could be made about Hawaii, I suppose.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, OK; can't complain about that!!!
There are a bunch of other (little) places as well, I think. Hawaii would be nice... Although they actually have their own king over there (and their own seccession movement, apparently.).
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
If the Canadian territories became states, would we have to take Quebec too?
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Hawaii would be nice...
Indeed it would.
It would serve as an excellent base for conquering the Pacific.
I wonder if we could claim the ships in Pearl Harbor... Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I think you mean Pearl Harbour... Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Wraith I know that the European Economic Community (EEC), and now the European Union (EU), have been slowly working towards creating institutions and a common currency for a united European state, but do you tink it will really happen?
I get the impression from reading The Economist, the only European newspaper that I have access to, that there are politicians in the United Kingdom who continually place road blocks and barriers to prevent the UK from participating in European political integration. Do you think that citizens in the UK will accept political integration with the continent and a European Prime Minister and legislature, instead of a British one?
I always wanted to ask this because I fear that my perception may be distorted by reading a conservative publication.
Posted by Triton (Member # 1043) on :
Wozzle, I don't think that the "unique society" would tolerate becoming part of the United States. Look how much trouble the Quebecois are causing for Canada.
But seriosly, some questions to our Canadian friends, is the threat of Quebec succession real? Is there enough desire in the province to create a nation of Quebec? Or are the people with these feeling in the minority and the majority of the citizens of Quebec want to stay in Canada and consider themselves to be Canadians? Sorry for my ignorance, but I only hear pieces here and there of what is going on in Canadian politics.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Even the proponents of Quebeci (I am like a media pioneer!) independance don't seem to take it all that seriously.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And, uh, the EU isn't exactly sitting around desperately waiting for word from the United Kingdom.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales=4 +Australia=5
"Unless you count Canada."
I do. GB, NI, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. If you have the Union Jack in your flag or you put Queen Elizabeth on your money, you're still in the British Empire. Which, I suppose, means Fiji and Tuvalu go in there, too. And an arguement could be made about Hawaii, I suppose.
You said the sixth country of the UK, nothing to do with the Commonwealth or the Queen. The United Kingdom is comprised of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, plus the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Hence, you are stupid. And smell. And are fat.
Quebec separatism has taken it UP TEH BUTT!!1! as of late and is not presently a viable political movement.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
Uh... no actually; these are Crown Dependancies (like Gibralter) and not part of the UK.
Triton: It is very possible that political integration will continue; the new EU constitution (which we won't be getting a referendum on) extends EU powers significantly. Many within the EU structure are pro integration, especially Giscard d'Estaign the disgraced former French President who was in charge of drafting the Constitution. I am not opposed to common economic policies that benefit all the members; strong economic links between the European countries would help reduce the liklihood of conflict, which is the basic point of the whole thing anyway. Equally a common pot of economic development money is good; just look at Ireland and Portugal. However, the political union seen as desirable by some is not something I agree with. The countries of the EU are just too different culturally for a common legislature and executive to function to the satisfaction of all. In addition the present political structures of the EU are corrupt and inefficient. I have lost count of the number of scandels concerning the commision and the financial doings of various sections of the EU bureaucracy. I have no problem with a common European centre for debate or co-ordinated responses to some problems- asylem for example. But I do not believe other countries laws should be valid in my country or vice versa. There are different cultural imperatives and social problems- Germany's xenophobia laws, for instance. As to whether it will happen; well, the EU often seems like an unstoppable steamroller, extending it's jurisdiction by bureaucratic directives, a process called Eurocreep. Many of these are superflous and pretty pointless; the ban on Imperial weights and measures for example. There is little democratic input in the process. Finally it has been seen as a desirable end by many politicians, especially in New Labour, and anyone who disagrees is portreyed as a xenophobic 'little Englander'. Extension of EU powers is difficult to stop but I realy don't think there's that much popular support for the idea among ordinary people in any country. At least, I haven't met anyone who is in favour.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: the new EU constitution (which we won't be getting a referendum on)
Tony will be out by the end of the Summer and Gordon will give us a referendum.
I hope. Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"The countries of the EU are just too different culturally for a common legislature and executive to function to the satisfaction of all."
Additionally, the constitution (not worth capitalizing just yet) that has been drafted is suspiciously propitious to Germany, France, and Italy, whereas the smaller EU members get fucked UP TEH BUTT!! AGAIN.
Add to that the PIC facts that 1) many East-European countries aren't ready to join the EU (like Poland, which has about fifty years of social and economic reforms to catch up on and rode the wave to membership on its pro-US stance re: Iraq) and that 2) European politics are a mess of intertwined interests and influenced by mindsets from hundreds of diverse cultural backgrounds, and you have the polar opposite of what the bureaucratic Europhiles in Brussels are aiming for.
Besides, the referendum held in Poland was rigged and contemptible. If it had been declared invalid, the Polish parliament would have cast the outcome aside and voted for admittance anyway. IOW: the opinion of 39 million people meant precisely jack shit. Democracy doesn't work like that, Miller.
Europe has nothing to gain by copying the United States, much as the dimwits in Brussels might like to project radiant images of a GARND UNTIED CONTNIENT WIHT A SINGLUAR ECOMONY AND OEN GOVARMNENT AND A COMEON MILTIARY ALL BREAHTING TEH SAEM OXAGEN MONOCUELS!!
It's an illusion to think there will ever be a central administrative body making supra-national decisions for all of Europe, not while the British are isolationalists, the French are chauvinists, the Italians are mafiosi, and the Germans are pacifists. Most European nations have fought too hard to preserve their cultural identity to give it up for downplayed sovereignty & a fairytale of exaggerated benefits. THERE IS NO European Citizen, let alone a European Electorate.
[ July 17, 2003, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Gibraltar
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Gibraltar
It's ours!!!
We should build an enormous military base there and use it to scare Spain. Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Forward thinking for the 1580s.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: We should build an enormous military base there and use it to scare Spain.
We already did that...
quote: Tony will be out by the end of the Summer and Gordon will give us a referendum.
Yeah, right. Unfortuneately the only way we can be rid of the Dear and Beloved Leader is if he resigns (not terribly likely, as I'm sure you'll agree) or if he loses a vote of no confidence in the House. Which is possible, but given the size of the Labour majority and the number of Blairites in New Labour is also unlikely. And even then there would have to be a general election with no guarantee of a Labour victory.
Cartmaniac: I agree with you completely. Let's not forget the Irish, who didn't ratify the Treaty of Nice (I think). So what did their government do? Have another referendum a few months later. After plugging the 'yes' campaign endlessly.
The (massive) differences in Europe have been particularly evident in recent months over Iraq and the row between the Italians and Germans.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Yeah, if there is ONE telltale sign that hell has to freeze over TWICE before Europe can be unified, it's the comments made by that corrupt, portentous, fascistic piece of filth Berlusconi and his cronies like Stefani.
Oh, and that tailor-made law granting him immunity for as long as he is in office. I mean: the "FUCK"?!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"You said the sixth country of the UK, nothing to do with the Commonwealth or the Queen. The United Kingdom is comprised of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, plus the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man."
I don't think you got my point. I was mocking the aforementioned countries because they were given their independence, and they couldn't even be independent enough to come up w/ their own flags or leaders to put on money.
Though, honestly, I don't understand how Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Tuvalu (and others?) can claim the British monarch as their head of state, yet claim not to be part of that monarch's kingdom.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Because your view of nationalism is charmingly archaic.
quote: I don't think you got my point. I was mocking the aforementioned countries because they were given their independence, and they couldn't even be independent enough to come up w/ their own flags or leaders to put on money.
Though, honestly, I don't understand how Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Tuvalu (and others?) can claim the British monarch as their head of state, yet claim not to be part of that monarch's kingdom.
Well none of those country's legislatures or executives have to comply with what is passed by HM Government or to any Royal Proclamations. They are free to elect their own political representatives and their own policies in all areas. That is independance. They all have their own flags, yes many of them incorporate the Union Flag but that's because being part of the Empire is part of their history as well. And the various countries you mentioned do have pictures of their leaders and famous historical figures on their money. They also have the Queen, who is also their leader and head of state. It might be difficult for foreigners, especially Americans, to understand but she is their Queen as much as she is ours. And while Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. are independant now the retention of links like the head of state does help to foster a certain amount of friendship/unity among these countries. Yes, these ties are not as strong as they once were, mainly due to the actions of various British governments, but they are still there. Most people I know don't regard those countries with the Quen as head of state as being foreign at all; not British but not foreign either.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Though, honestly, I don't understand how Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Tuvalu (and others?) can claim the British monarch as their head of state, yet claim not to be part of that monarch's kingdom.
Most of us don't claim that although now it is refered to as a commonwealth. And there still are some parts of our government that is still tied to the Queen, mostly simbolic though. No law may be passed in Canada unless signed by the Governor General, or in the case of provinces by the Lieutenant Governor. Both considered Vice-Regents in our country. Also the Queen still retains the say in how many Senators we can have, up to a maximum. She has no say in who they are though. Also our country pays about $2,000,000 in fealty to the queen each year.
Since we repartiated our consitution the powers of the Monach were greatly reduced. They used to be able to call us to war, confiscate ships for war and all kinds of neat things.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That's the stupidest government ever.
"Yeah, we have a queen, and she's our leader, but we don't actually listen to her. But we send her a bunch of money for no real reason."
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'd love to have that kind of arrangement. "That's right, you send me money and I have NO responsibilities whatSOever..."
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"Yeah, we have a queen, and she's our leader, but we don't actually listen to her. But we send her a bunch of money for no real reason."
Somehow you've only just realized this is how monarchies work?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Really that's the situation over here too; although the Queen technically has far more power here than in the Commonwealth countries, she just doesn't exercise it. But I'd still rather have a constitutional monarchy than a president. They're more fun .
quote: Also our country pays about $2,000,000 in fealty to the queen each year.
Cool, I didn't know that. Thanks!!
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Really that's the situation over here too; although the Queen technically has far more power here than in the Commonwealth countries, she just doesn't exercise it.
I wish she did.
What with Tony abolishing the Lord Chancellor, taking the country to war, and generally acting like a President, the country could do with some right royal sanity.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Or insanity in the case of George III...
But yes, as it happens I agree with you. Our politicians seem to be completely incapeable.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) first!![[Frown]](frown.gif)