>Wow, the opinion of the U.S. govt by our neighbors is very interesting. I do not this see this happening at all, never.

Well I wouldn't have either, and I would still feel so IF the government was actually "by the people, for the people". I have full confidence that the vast vast majority of the people of the US have no interest in building an empire or of 'owning' any more land than is 'owned' today or even of having puppet regimes around the globe pretending to be democratic but all the while kow-towing to the US.
But the new policy, allegedly aimed at "security", will give corporate leaders more ways to justify more takeovers (does anyone REALLY doubt that oil is the MAIN objective of an Iraq attack????) and it is the corporate agenda that REALLY RULES in Washington.
This surely is becoming clearer to more people since the fall of communism. Previously the corporate agenda had to include SOME consideration for the people to ensure that capitalism continued to look more attractive than communism. That need is now gone and corporations are exploiting this aggresively. The peoples' voice means nothing any more, especially so in the US and growing so in many other countries including Canada, the UK, etc.

>Afterall, what threat to the U.S. national security is Canada??? Who would sell her to us (like the russians sold us Alaska)? If the border is not sufficient to keep out terrorists, then it is the responsibility of the U.S. to change it on OUR side of the border. When, since 1776 did the U.S. ever take over a democracy by force???

Last first... I'm not aware of any but some people point to Panama and the Spanish-American war 'acquisitions' as possible examples.
What threat is Canada?... we don't think we are any threat at all, but more and more of us are getting a growing feeling that the US government thinks we are!
For instance, more than one politician (American) has said that a plane from Montreal or Toronto or Vancouver or virtually any other Canadian airport could just as easily ram the Sears Tower or the Empire State Building or some nuclear plant as could a plane from Boston or New York or where ever in the US. They may be thinking that they want to mandate SPECIFIC changes to how we do things here and if we don't 'measure up' then they'll "help" us do it.
Strengthening the border?... my guess is that, INITIALLY, the corporate agenda (with HUGE interests in Canada) tries to dictate/implement measures to keep GOODS flowing freely while keeping much tighter reins on the people flow. But eventually the realization hits that the restricted flow of people is COSTING TOO MUCH in terms of lost time and missed meetings, so there begins a movement of those interests OUT OF CANADA. Not necessarily to the US, mind you, but to the place of lowest (production) cost, since border problems are now the SAME no matter where they are. Soon our economy is drastically affected.
Who would sell her to us?... Maybe we would sell ourselves or maybe the corporate agenda would "tell" the (US) government that rather than moving interests out of Canada it would be far more effective to have Canada IN the US. My guess is that the US government would 'make us an offer' and if we refused that offer then they would simply take us. Much in the same way that President Bush made an offer to the UN - do something that lets me do something to Iraq OR I will do something to Iraq ANYWAY.
>
>Oops, bad question, while we bought Alaska, at the urging of Theodore Roosevelt and others, the U.S. annexed Hawaii. Grover Cleveland said the coup by sugar plantation owners (which led to the overthrow of the queen and the U.S. annexation years later) was a disgrace. Oh wait a minute, Hawaii was not a democracy but a monarchy! That makes it all ok! Doesn't it????

Didn't know those details. But surely the new policy makes the answer to your "doesn't it????" a 'yes'.
>
>History does not necessarily bode well for the U.S.....

I don't know about that. The countries that "lost" their advantage are still with us and are doing OK, by and large. At least starting with the Greeks. The Romans, the Turks, the Spanish, the Portugese, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Brits and the Germans all have adapted nicely I would say. In fact there may be a huge advantage in not being "THE FORCE" of the world, at least based on history. But nuclear weapons may allow a different picture to be painted on this go around. Who can say?


>
SNIP