"Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal."

Duh, for the same reason the US has. Next step will be the announcement of the same agreement with Mexico.
North American Union, baby. You're being sold for Ameros.
Now let's hear the snickers about "conspiracy theories".

...in times of emergency and war

In other words, during Republican administrations.

We'll protect Canada so in case of attack all their bowling alleys won't get wrecked.

OMG...Canada you are SOOO lucky. Now you really are like our little brother. When the ChiComs come, you just keep the beer and bullets coming., we got your asses covered.

I would say something about using this as a possible end-run around posse comitatus, but that's already been repealed, so...

There could be both legitimate and nefarious reasons for wanting to do this. I'd have to take a closer look at the exact conditions under which the agreement can be evoked. I'm inclined to dislike it, though the simple demographics makes this much more of a potential threat to Canada than to the US.

If the Marines march into Ontario, do they have to put on Mountie hats?

HowlingFrog: Duh, for the same reason the US has. Next step will be the announcement of the same agreement with Mexico.


I think this "union" you speak of is now defunct. If Mexico was going to be invited to the party, they would have already received the invitation. While this immigration thing is unresolved, most American's would have a flat out shoot'em up hissy fit if they saw Mexican military on US roads.

We get Canadian Navy cruisers here during Rose Fest Fleet Week..it's a party!

I think we're past including that corrupt little 3rd world fascist state in our plans. Even the NASCO folks have pitiful excuses and "myth" busters on their home pages. This "union" you speak of is dying with it's creators..the Clinton's.

Much is changing..fast.

GaryPDX: I think this "union" you speak of is now defunct. If Mexico was going to be invited to the party, they would have already received the invitation.

Are you sure they haven't?

GaryPDX: This "union" you speak of is dying with it's creators..the Clinton's.

Yes, Clinton brought us NAFTA. And who was controlling the Clintons? Why are all of the current top-tier candidates (except Ron Paul, who is being ignored) affiliated with the CFR?

Much is changing..fast.

Indeed.

WOLVERINES! eh?

HowlingFrog: GaryPDX: I think this "union" you speak of is now defunct. If Mexico was going to be invited to the party, they would have already received the invitation.

Are you sure they haven't?

I don't think their dumb enough to try it in this political climate. America is PISSED OFF about this immigration thing and just look at Mexico, it ain't rocket surgery to conclude they aren't pleasant partners. I don't thinks it's going to happen anytime soon. The People drowned Capitol Hill with faxes, 24/7, every fax machine when they tried getting that amnesty through.

The mere suggestion burns downs whole forests and piles it on Congress. Big FAT "NO"'s.

No..I think it's a dead issue until certain real changes are made in the political climate.

Churchill2004: There could be both legitimate and nefarious reasons for wanting to do this.

After Katrina, the Canadian Forces' DART unit and their portable water distillation machines had to wait three days for permission to come and help the people of NOLA.

It may sound like silly paperwork, but without an official request from Secretary of State, it would have meant that Canadian forces had "invaded" the US.

I'm sure this deal is primarily for situations like this.

HowlingFrog: "Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal."

Duh, for the same reason the US has. Next step will be the announcement of the same agreement with Mexico.
North American Union, baby. You're being sold for Ameros.
Now let's hear the snickers about "conspiracy theories".

I just came in my pants, did you just come in your pants?

Flab: I'm sure this deal is primarily for situations like this

From TFA, the deal wouldn't change that at all.

HowlingFrog: Why are all of the current top-tier candidates (except Ron Paul, who is being ignored) affiliated with the CFR?

Have you ever considered that talk like that is part of why Ron Paul is being ignored?

As a Ron Paul supporter, there were many problems with his campaign, but one of the biggest was that the loudest and most obnoxious of his supporters defined his public image.

GaryPDX: No..I think it's a dead issue until certain real changes are made in the political climate.

I've never really understood why you'd want to include Mexico in a hypothetical NAU. US and Canada makes sense (though I'd oppose it tooth and nail), but Mexico is simply bizzare. Look at the strict economic/social/political conditions the EU places on prospective members- they'd never let a country like Mexico in.

It'd make a lot more sense to include Caribbean islands like the Bahamas, Bermuda, etc. than it would to include Mexico. Back when it was all part of the British empire there was serious thought given to attaching British Caribbean possessions (Jamaica and the Bahamas, among others) to Canada.

Churchill2004: From TFA, the deal wouldn't change that at all.

What makes you say this? The only part of TFA that doesn't deal with who would the forces get their orders from is the first sentence of the article.

I'm sure the the deal doesn't give permissions to the armed forces of either countries to go to the other whenever they want, but in the event of a real emergency, it should ease on the paperwork, while the Secretary of State is busy buying shoes in NY.

thamike: I just came in my pants, did you just come in your pants?

Na, just feel kinda sad watching stuff unfold. It's not like I want *any* of this stuff.

Flab: What makes you say this?

TFA:
But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries whether military assistance is requested or even used. He said the agreement is "benign" and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

"But there's no agreement to allow troops to come in," he said. "It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The 'allow' piece is entirely up to the two governments."

Churchill2004: Have you ever considered that talk like that is part of why Ron Paul is being ignored?

Ever listen to Ron Paul talk about the NAU?

As a Ron Paul supporter, there were many problems with his campaign, but one of the biggest was that the loudest and most obnoxious of his supporters defined his public image.

If you were a real RP supporter, you wouldn't be going around the burning house whispering "fire".
And the idea that his public image is defined by his louder and more obnoxious supporters is as absurd as claiming that the image of soccer is defined by hooligans. Only in the minds of fools, friend.

I just came in here for the wild-eyed conspiracy theories, and man, Howling Frog, you don't disappoint.

Seriously, do you know how long it took for the EU to form? They still don't have their shiat together. As for an NAU, where's the benefit? I can't see how any of the alleged partners would come out ahead in this. Nation-states act only in self-interest, and save perhaps Mexico, there is no self-interest.

Canada would gain nothing from a union with the US, as they already have a strong economy, stable political system, and are protected from invasion by their own military (go ahead, make the jokes... but those guys are for real) and that of the US.

The US would gain nothing from a union with Canada. The only possible reason would be mineral rights and a trade route through the soon to be realized NW passage. Again, though, what would the Canucks gain by sharing these resources?

Mexico? A union would mean an instant upgrade in standard of living for many citizens. This would immediately be followed by the sound of factories and manufacturing being exported to Vietnam or Thailand. As for the military aspects, again they are protected from invasion by the US.

So what am I missing?

/Also, the name "Amero" is stupid.

I liked Shadowrun better when it was sci-fi. UCAS my ass...

The last time troops from Canada entered the United States they torched the White House... and they're still proud of it!

HowlingFrog: Ever listen to Ron Paul talk about the NAU?

Yes, I have. Like when he made the specific point, several times, that it wasn't some nefarious back room plot but simply a movement which he opposed.

I am alarmed and perturbed by this revelation.

Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn't been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations.

So let's have approval already, both nations.

EZ1923: I just came in here for the wild-eyed conspiracy theories, and man, Howling Frog, you don't disappoint.

FTFA: "Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal."

And why are WE first hearing about this deal from a Canadian paper? Uh oh, sounds like people planning and executing those plans in secret. Also known as conspiring. Theory? Not so much.

I agree about the "Amero" part, but I didn't make that name up.

Mexico? A union would mean an instant upgrade in standard of living for many citizens.

Same with the EU, which you had mentioned. I was living there, and remember that the countries with the weaker economies were against the EU, and those with strong economies (like Germany, where I lived) were against it.

GaryPDX: ChiComs

ChiComs?

Churchill2004: HowlingFrog: Ever listen to Ron Paul talk about the NAU?

Yes, I have. Like when he made the specific point, several times, that it wasn't some nefarious back room plot but simply a movement which he opposed.

As do I, and for the same reasons.

snuff3r: GaryPDX: ChiComs

ChiComs?

HowlingFrog: As do I, and for the same reasons

Then stop talking about it as if it were some nefarious back room plot, because when you do so you trigger the "crazy conspiracy theorist" ignore mechanism most rational people have built-in.

HowlingFrog: and remember that the countries with the weaker economies were against for the EU, and those with strong economies (like Germany, where I lived) were against it.

FTFM, d'oh

adiabat: If the Marines march into Ontario, do they have to put on Mountie hats?



You got a problem with Mountie hats, maggot?

Churchill2004: Then stop talking about it as if it were some nefarious back room plot

Stop telling me how to farking talk, I'm a big boy now. And in case you haven't noticed, the NAU is considered a "wild-eyed conspiracy theory" by a lot of people. Probably the same ones who thought that about the PNAC, until they found their website. You know, like the people who asked back when I was a kid: "Do you believe in hypnotism?"

because when you do so you trigger the "crazy conspiracy theorist" ignore mechanism most rational people have built-in.

Very similar to the "stick your head in a hole and the enemy goes away" mechanism that most rational ostriches have built-in.
I'll trigger it any time I want to, it amuses me.

GaryPDX: OMG...Canada you are SOOO lucky.

You must be out of your f*cking mind.

This is not a good thing for us. At all. It's another step towards economic integration - something we don't want. At all.

Churchill2004: Like when he made the specific point, several times, that it wasn't some nefarious back room plot but simply a movement which he opposed.

The problem is that, as far as our government is letting on, it is a back-room plot. There is no transparency to the process, and that is not a good thing. You can't erode national sovereignty with the intention of eliminating it, and not involve your own citizenry.

miseducated: You can't erode national sovereignty with the intention of eliminating it, and not involve your own citizenry.

Sure you can.

And it'll work, because the "rational" segment of the citizenry will stand behind jeers of "OMGSTFU CONSPEERACYTHEORYLOLWTFBBQ!!!!1" until the hammer falls.

North American Union????

Holy shiattecakes! Then the Canadians can own guns!

Yippie Skippie!

This should help bring the War on Terror to a speedy conclusion.

We need a similar agreement with Mexico for the War on Poverty.

HowlingFrog: EZ1923: I just came in here for the wild-eyed conspiracy theories, and man, Howling Frog, you don't disappoint.

FTFA: "Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal."

And why are WE first hearing about this deal from a Canadian paper? Uh oh, sounds like people planning and executing those plans in secret. Also known as conspiring. Theory? Not so much.

I agree about the "Amero" part, but I didn't make that name up.

Mexico? A union would mean an instant upgrade in standard of living for many citizens.

Same with the EU, which you had mentioned. I was living there, and remember that the countries with the weaker economies were against the EU, and those with strong economies (like Germany, where I lived) were against it.

None of this really addresses why the 3 nations would see this as being in their own self-interest. Two out of the three (US and Canada) have no need for the others, and the benefits to the third (Mexico) are of no concern to the other two.

The EU was a natural response to the economic and military hegemony of the US and in earlier days, the threat of the USSR (though that was essentially a NATO job). There is no comparable need for a NAU. For what will it provide a counter balance a la the EU?

Again, what am I missing?

EZ1923: Again, what am I missing?

The gene that makes you disbelieve everything you read in the newspaper yet believe anything you read on a poorly formatted webpage?

AKA: "The crackpot gene"

(factcheck.org says that Ron Paul's NAU hysteria is just part of what makes Ron Paul and his followers so annoying. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html)

EZ1923: Again, what am I missing?

Long term economical gain, for one thing. The dollar is a bubble that's going to pop; how many are already hoarding gold and/or buying Euros? Open trade, open borders, one new currency, one big happy family. Won't cost us anything but our sovereignity.
And who gives a damn about that these days? Oh yeah, us whackos.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: AKA: "The crackpot gene"

How do you feel about Canadian soldiers being given marching orders on US soil in "an emergency", Bill?
How do you feel about these little things being agreed upon without the knowledge or approval of We The People?
Does that set okay with you, Bill?
Because it doesn't with me.

HowlingFrog:

Long term economical gain, for one thing. The dollar is a bubble that's going to pop; how many are already hoarding gold and/or buying Euros? Open trade, open borders, one new currency, one big happy family. Won't cost us anything but our sovereignity.
And who gives a damn about that these days? Oh yeah, us whackos.

The dollar, as a bubble, is pretty well deflated these days. Why would the Canadians want to jump on board that bandwagon? So, let's say that it would be good for the US to abandon the USD, what's in it for Canada? The CAN$ is on the way up. Why would they want to tie their economic future to that of the US, which is currently selling all of its debts to China?

As for free trade, we already have that. NAFTA, anyone?

For this thing to make sense, it has to have something to offer all three parties. Everything that you've said may be true for one country, or sometimes two, but never all three.

EZ1923: For this thing to make sense, it has to have something to offer all three parties. Everything that you've said may be true for one country, or sometimes two, but never all three.

Give this interview a read, I'd like to see what you think. All three leaders naturally pooh-pooh the NAU allegations, and yet discuss the benefits of such a union. And keep in mind that we are just now hearing about the military agreement, although it is weeks old. And we are hearing about it from a Canadian paper.

The tinfoil force is strong with this thread...

HowlingFrog: EZ1923: For this thing to make sense, it has to have something to offer all three parties. Everything that you've said may be true for one country, or sometimes two, but never all three.

Give this interview a read, I'd like to see what you think. All three leaders naturally pooh-pooh the NAU allegations, and yet discuss the benefits of such a union. And keep in mind that we are just now hearing about the military agreement, although it is weeks old. And we are hearing about it from a Canadian paper.

OK. Here's what it looked like: the leaders of three countries whose futures are inextricably linked stating just that. Recognizing that they have to work together for their mutual benefit is not the same as saying that they should dismantle their respective economic systems and erase borders from the map. I'm glad that they are talking. The alternative would be the same kind of cross-border adversarial relationships that usually accompany nations in close proximity.

There isn't really anything surprising about the military agreement. I'll agree, the timing is a little odd, given that no emergency currently is taking place. But the US and Canada have had close military relations for decades, just look at NORAD. The airspace over both is already under a single umbrella. This is a far cry from an economic union, and the oft-mentioned superhighway.

This thing just doesn't make sense to me. Nation-states just don't act in the way that would be needed for a NAU to come about. Too little to gain, too much to lose.

HowlingFrog: How do you feel about Canadian soldiers being given marching orders on US soil in "an emergency", Bill?
How do you feel about these little things being agreed upon without the knowledge or approval of We The People?
Does that set okay with you, Bill?
Because it doesn't with me.

First off...I'm not Bill. I'm just his friend. You is no reading so goodly, hien?

To the point....If there's a massive flood in upstate New York I'm sure they'd appreciate Canadian troops from CFB Kingston being able to cross the border to assist without any red tape. Similarly, if there's a catastrophic earthquake in Vancouver it'd be nice if Washington State National Guardsmen could have the ability to come and help without having to wait for permissions. "Neighbours Agree to Make Helping Each Other Easier" is how I read that headline.

I don't spend my days worrying about nefarious government conspiracies which might be usurping Canadian powers. I don't worry about black helicopters. I don't worry that the road signs are giving marching orders to the UN shock troops. In fact, I think that when anyone who isn't a drill sargeant uses the term "marching orders", that person most often sounds like a paranoid jackass.

No comment on the Factcheck.org link? A shame. I was preparing to hear their sober and cited analysis is trumped by the fact that they are owned by Zionists, Lizardmen, Bilderburgers, Freemasons, Bush family connections, Hearst newspapers, the Trilateral commission, The Belgian Mafia, "big pharm", Shriners, Illuminati or Major League Baseball.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: First off...I'm not Bill. I'm just his friend. You is no reading so goodly, hien?

"hien"? Is that a word?

"Neighbours Agree to Make Helping Each Other Easier" is how I read that headline.

Yeah, I don't doubt for a minute that that's how you read that headline. And just how much red tape would Canadians have to go through NOW to help out in a Washington State disaster? What would it take? A phone call? And isn't that the job of our own National Guard? Oh yeah, they're overseas in Bush's mideast clusterfark.

I don't spend my days worrying about nefarious government conspiracies which might be usurping Canadian powers. I don't worry about black helicopters.

You also didn't worry about the second question I asked: How do you feel about these little things being agreed upon without the knowledge or approval of We The People? Shouldn't this have a little more... you know, transparency? Why are we just now hearing about it? Surely it's more newsworthy than whatever lunatic escapade Britney Spears is currently on.
Wouldn't you think?

David Rockefeller would be proud of you.


In fact, I think that when anyone who isn't a drill sargeant uses the term "marching orders", that person most often sounds like a paranoid jackass

Sorry, slipped out. I'm a vet.
And it's spelled "sergeant".

There's a lot of paranoia in this thread, but I read this as fairly simple: in the case of a civil emergency, either country can send aid as needed without a whole lot of noise to slow it up. Such an agreement would have been huge in New Orleans, in most recent memory, but also in various places here in Canada as well as the US. It should provide for the closest available force to do what needs doing and is a logical extension of the myriad military agreements that we already have (e.g. NORAD).

HowlingFrog: Stop telling me how to farking talk, I'm a big boy now. And in case you haven't noticed, the NAU is considered a "wild-eyed conspiracy theory" by a lot of people. Probably the same ones who thought that about the PNAC, until they found their website. You know, like the people who asked back when I was a kid: "Do you believe in hypnotism?"

I'm going to have to agree with Churchill2004 here. Ron Paul supporters really did hurt his campaign with the conspiracy theory stuff, and that's mostly because Ron Paul's campaign didn't play any part in creating who their candidate was. Ron Paul's campaign was really, really poorly run, but that's a sidenote.

Note: I'm not talking about the internet. I don't think being annoying on the internet translates into votes, so I'm not saying RP supporters posting on the internet are hurting their cause, but I live in a city where Ron Paul got 49% of the vote (and this isn't because our city is a Ron Paul mecca, it's because it was a Republican caucus that nobody but hardcore supporters turned out at). As a result, I've seen a lot of Paulites doing their own version of canvassing. This version involves telling 'sheeple' to 'wake up' and making people believe that 2nd amendment restrictions were in place because the government was about to institute a police state. I've seen it.

And the result, nationwide, are questions like the one at one of the FOX debates; instead of asking Paul a legitimate question, they asked him if he believes in the 9/11 conspiracy theory. In the CNN/YouTube debate, Ron Paul got a question about the superhighway from Mexico to Canada. The media played along with this narrative because his most vocal supporters made those the issues, instead of what they should have - Ron Paul has a history of lowering taxes, he opposed the war, and he's a strict supporter of individual liberty. Now, do I believe that? A bit, a bit not. Either way, that narrative would have taken him a whole lot farther than "Ron Paul is the only one that will keep the government from turning us into slave-people".