It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: US Threatens Canada's Airspace: Ignores International Law

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by soficrow

IMO - I provide a balance to standard propaganda. My stuff looks different because it is different. But it's not biased. It's a legitimate effort to pick the information lock - and deny ignorance.


Soficrow, the fact is that your articles are always biased against the US, your hatred towards the US, for some reason, doesn't let you see what you are doing,





Maudib - I am critical of this administration's policies on purpose. I love the USA. That's why I do it.






but none of the articles I have seen you post are balanced,





That's because I'm focusing on what's wrong - it's meant to be a wake up call.






they are all what you call "a regurgitated propaganda" against the US, if it was not, why is the Canadian article, you know, from the same country where the PM is refusing to help the US, less biased agaisnt the US than yours?....




One of the two articles I used as a source was more critical. I came out somewhere in the middle between the two. You are choosing to focus on the one that was less critical. Your perogative - but not my mandate.



.




posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
First you say this....



Originally posted by soficrow

IMO - I provide a balance to standard propaganda. My stuff looks different because it is different. But it's not biased. It's a legitimate effort to pick the information lock - and deny ignorance.



Then, when I said this;



but none of the articles I have seen you post are balanced,



You responded with the following.

Originally posted by soficrow
That's because I'm focusing on what's wrong - it's meant to be a wake up call.


You just agreed that your articles are not balanced.....and then tried to make an excuse for unbalanced articles....



Originally posted by soficrow
One of the two articles I used as a source was more critical. I came out somewhere in the middle between the two. You are choosing to focus on the one that was less critical. Your perogative - but not my mandate.


That's beside the point, the introduction in articles for ATSNN are supposed to be unbiased, then you can present "your opinion" in the last paragraphs, yet you always skip this and present your biased opinion against the US all over your articles.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
.
.
.
Maudib - this thread is about the airspace/missile US/Canada situation and now, NORTHCOM too - if we can stay on topic.

If you want to discuss my reporting and analytical abilities, maybe you could start a special thread? ...This is not the place to do it.


.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
i guess noone realises that due to being in nato if one ally is under threat from anyone and that threat is in your territory, automatically that ally has the right to engage the threat in your territory if you cant.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
.
.
.
Maudib - this thread is about the airspace/missile US/Canada situation and now, NORTHCOM too - if we can stay on topic.

If you want to discuss my reporting and analytical abilities, maybe you could start a special thread? ...This is not the place to do it.


Oh, so the article is now just about what you make it, and you can add anything you want to it... but i guess it doesn't matter to you whether the article is balanced or not...

I think the reasons why your articles, this one too, are biased against the US are important to find out what is the truth in these articles, and what is your agenda to make articles unbalanced and slanted.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
i guess noone realises that due to being in nato if one ally is under threat from anyone and that threat is in your territory, automatically that ally has the right to engage the threat in your territory if you cant.


Not only that namehere but Russia and China have called themselves the protectors of eastern europe against any missiles, meaning they can shoot at a missile that flies over certain parts of europe which are not Chinese or Russian territory, yet noone seems to mind this....hey the Russian and the Chinese have everyone's best interest in mind...right? but the US doesn't...

[edit on 27-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
i guess noone realises that due to being in nato if one ally is under threat from anyone and that threat is in your territory, automatically that ally has the right to engage the threat in your territory if you cant.



Good point, yes you are right the NATO treaty is to keep peace and to help the members in case of an ivasion.

But its old and in need to be fix, perhaps that's its were NORTHCOM comes in place in the new America.




The North Atlantic Treaty

Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :



www.nato.int...



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
i guess noone realises that due to being in nato if one ally is under threat from anyone and that threat is in your territory, automatically that ally has the right to engage the threat in your territory if you cant.





What's going on here is separate from NATO - and seems to supercede NORAD. In fact, turns out that NORAD now comes under NORTHCOM.

Seems clear that the key to understanding this issue lies in knowing details of NORTHCOM - maybe the info that the US was unwilling to share with Canada.

...NORTHCOM has real implications for Americans too, not just for relations with Canada and Mexico.



imgyn

NORTHCOM is significant because it is the final nail in the coffin for the already weakened 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibited the U.S. military from participating in law enforcement activities on U.S. soil. This was put in place because of the obvious need to protect Americans from the temptation to control citizens with military force and to essentially turn the U.S. into a military dictatorship. There are reasonable exceptions that have been made throughout history, such as when the military lends "passive assistance", like equipment, to law enforcement.

Posse Comitatus was weakened twice in the 90's under Clinton to allow military participation to protect Americans against terrorism, but NORTHCOM is much broader and much more dangerous--especially because it extends to ANYWHERE in North America and there is no Presidential approval required before acting.

The military can now assist in non-military events such as "crisis management, consequence management, and other domestic civil support." In addition, in the event that the national threat level is assessed to be red, Northcom will be a big part of coordinating the emergency government.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




...NORTHCOM definitely needs more attention. Another ATS post:


northcom ref


.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

as posted by soficrow
What's going on here is separate from NATO - and seems to supercede NORAD. In fact, turns out that NORAD now comes under NORTHCOM


Nope. Nada. Wrong. Mistaken.

Four US MilitaryCommands: NORTHCOM NORAD, SPACECOM, IRPP, STRATCOM — The Canadian Opportunity


The US and Canada-US command structure for North American defence changed significantly in October 2002 and can be expected to change further.

The best known of these changes was the creation of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). It shares a commander-in-chief and a Colorado Springs, Colorado headquarters with the Canada-US North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Worries about NORTHCOM’s implications for Canadian sovereignty and independence were wildly overblown. No Canadian forces are under NORTHCOM’s command.


Also more here:
Canada-US Relations - Defence Partnership – July 2003: NORAD, NorthCom, and the Binational Planning Group: The Evolution of Canada–US Defence Relations — Part 4

And here:
Parliament Question Period


Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, on April 17, 2002, the chairman of the American joint chiefs of staff stated that the U.S. northern command took Norad and moved it under northern command.

Since General Myers said clearly that Norad would come under the new northern command, could the Minister of National Defence assure the House that Norad will never be placed under U.S. northcom?

Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, General Eberhart, who is the commander of Norad, will also be the commander of northcom. However they are two separate organizations. Norad will continue as a binational command reporting to both Canada and the United States. We will have command and control over our own forces and our own territory as has been the Norad tradition. There will be no change in that whatsoever.

We are also looking for ways in which we can enhance co-operation for the benefit of our own citizens and our own continent in terms of co-operation in other areas involving the military.


Here:
Canada and the Future of Continental Defense - A View from from Washington

Here:
Canadian Defense Priorities


Now back to your previously watched programming.





seekerof

[edit on 27-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Current threats are not what anyone is concerned about too much with regards to a missile defense. It is FUTURE threats that warrant a missile shield's development.

And contrary to the belief of some, Russia is a long way off from amtching the U.S. technology-wise. It will take them far longer to develop a true missile shield then the United States.

But no one knows what the future holds. In the future, North korea could develop nuclear weapons that they can launch anywhere in the world. And even if they don't, the capability to strike a portion of Asia itself is still a huge threat, as RADIATION TRAVELS. It would really mess up Asia and the rest of the world moreso in the long run.

The truth of the matter is that the United States has never sought after developing a weapon system if they thought it was impossible to create.

People said the Moon was impossible. Nope. People said that AWACS aircraft were worthless. Nope. People said the Abrams tank, with its Chobham armor, was stupid and worthless, that there was no way "explosive-reactive armor" would work. The list goes on.

They would not be developing a missile defense if they didn't think it was possible to create. It just requires technology to advance and more research and lots and lots of testing.

AWACS today are needed more than ever. If the military had listened to critics in the early 80s, we wouldn't have these crucial aircraft right now.

In the future, no one know what kind of threats may arise. Suppose a discovery is made in nuclear physics that allows for an incredibly powerful nuclear blast, a "MOAB" of the nukes. No one knows what threats will arise.

Also, I don't think the idea right now is to really pour in tons of funding to literally create a missile defense, but to provide enough funding to keep the program alive and well, making advancements, so that if the time comes where we are in another "race" with some other country (say China for example), the program is already going and just needs to have more funding and scientists and such added to it.

To say China is not going to we willing to risk war is idiocy. The Chinese have the mindset of their old thousand year-old ways, that they are the superior race, and they resent the West from being around and preventing them from reaching their supposed true potential. They wish to be great. In order for them to be great, they must have access to resources and be INDEPENDENT. To maintain true independence is going to mean controlling Asia.

If you study China and its history a good deal, you will see this. To say that China is now "selfish" and thus won't want to risk war is just one side of the viewpoint. The other side states that China has always been willing to use military power to get what it wants and also, CHINA IS NOT A REPUBLIC IN THE WAY THE U.S. IS. The people can want what they want, but those that control China have been living just as comfortable as any rich American lives. Thus, they are not suddenly experiencing any "newfound freedom." It is those people who want more power, more territorial freedom.

China will be fine until the 2008 Olympics, but after that all bets are off. China is one to watch. I doubt China will surpass the U.S. militarily for a loooooong time (and even then only if the U.S. lets them through slacking off) but China will no doubt, at its current rate, become a power (and later on a superpower if they get some good naval expereience) that is going to challenge the United States and other countries for military control over a good deal of Asia.

ONE viewpoint is that the Chinese will increase in power and just stay pretty much the way they are, content with their new economy. The other view is that no they will not, and history has shown they are probably not content to. They will try to take over a good deal of Asia for resources and drive the West (France and America....France in Indochina) out of there. Whether it is their own downfall in doing so may not matter to them.

Read up on China and look at the Chinese mindset and how they view things. They are different than Westerners.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Soficrow and Marg, you two are once again blowing this out of proportion.


U.S. Northern Command is not the police auxiliary and does not supersede the "first responder" role of lead federal agencies.
The U.S. Constitution gives the President inherent authority to defend our country. Although the military is prohibited from domestic law enforcement, when called by the President, the military can support federal, state, and local enforcement agencies.

There are 11 million state and local first responders in the U.S. involved in homeland security activities such as local hazmat teams, fire departments, and emergency medical teams. They are the first line of defense for homeland security.


Excerpted from.
www.northcom.mil...

As another member mentioned northcom has 1,200 people under it's command, and as the excerpt i posted above states, one of it's main purpose is to help local first responders...



U.S. Northern Command plans, organizes, and executes homeland defense and civil support missions, but has few permanently assigned forces. The command will be assigned forces whenever necessary to execute missions as ordered by the President.

Approximately 1,200 civil service employees and uniformed personnel representing all service branches provide this essential unity of command from U.S. Northern Command's headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo.


Excerpted from.
www.northcom.mil...


[edit on 27-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Open letter to the Parasites in Al Canadah:

Dear liberals,
If an incoming missile is destined to impact our soil, we will shoot it down at any point possible, should this occur in your airspace, you are more than justified to attack the US for the violation. We will be merciful, maybe we will rebuild you.

sincerely,

An American Radical Christian Fundamentalist.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Now, i wanted to post this separetely so you will see that Northcom has limitations...


Given these parameters, U.S. Northern Command does not:

Create a new agency or military service (the command realigns and streamlines U.S. military structure to better address 21st century threats.)

Liaison directly with the Office of Homeland Security or the anticipated Department of Homeland Security. DoD conducts interagency liaison.

Conduct law enforcement operations (role of the U.S. Department of Justice)

Secure airports (role of Transportation Security Agency)

Secure borders (role of U.S Customs and Border Protection - CBP)

Provide "first responders" (role of federal, state and local community authorities, see state homeland security representatives.)

Train and maintain operational forces (the role of the various military services)

Plan or conduct homeland security in Hawaii (role of the U.S. Pacific Command)


Excerpted from.
www.northcom.mil...

[edit on 27-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Thanks for your opinions seekerof, and the links.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's statement that is posted on the NORTHCOM official site differs somewhat from yours.





"(The NORTHCOM plan) realigns and streamlines U.S. military structure to better address 21st century threats. For the first time, commanders' areas of operations cover the entire Earth." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

NORTHCOM Official Site





As I said above: "Seems clear that the key to understanding this issue lies in knowing details of NORTHCOM - maybe the info that the US was unwilling to share with Canada. ...NORTHCOM definitely needs more attention." ...No conclusions, just a direction and a few suggestions. ...I have not researched NORTHCOM - I first heard about it today, here on this thread.

But - it's quite clear that NORTHCOM is a political hot potato for Canada as well as the USA - and certain parties do NOT want any kind of spotlight on NORTHCOM.

Hmmm. [red lights flash]

Analogy: If NORTHCOM is a corporation (which it very well may be) then NORAD and the other "initiatives" are subsidiaries. Anomaly: The Canadian component of NORAD is arms length.





The NORTHCOM commander is responsible for homeland defense and also serves as head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a U.S.-Canada command. The current NORAD commander also is the commander of U.S. Space Command, also at Peterson. NORTHCOM's area of operations includes the United States, Canada, Mexico, parts of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The commander is responsible for land, aerospace and sea defenses of the United States. He will command U.S. forces that operate within the United States in support of civil authorities. The command will provide civil support not only in response to attacks, but for natural disasters. NORTHCOM takes the homeland defense role from the U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM). JFCOM's Joint Task Force-Civil Support and related activities report to NORTHCOM. The NORTHCOM headquarters has established liaisons with the homeland security directors of each state, and has working ties with related federal and state agencies.

NORAD transfered all command and functional responsibilities, including Operation Noble Eagle, to Northern Command by 01 October 2002. The command's area of responsibility covers the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico and surrounding water out to 500 miles. The new command is tasked with defense planning and security cooperation for other nations in its area of responsibility.

US Northern Command





In light of current activity with volcanoes and the earth's core - and NORTHCOM's mandate to provide military control for natural disasters - the situation is becoming quite interesting.



Also see:

Head of NORTHCOM/NORAD Discusses Threats



.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Soficrow, pretty much you confessed that you do not know everything there is to know about Northcom, you use sites which are biased against the US and the administration and which obviously are wrong as the evidence which has been presented clarifies.
So, you heard of Northcom today and you already know it's evil purpose?.... Wow, you could make a new website which would leave Rense's obsolete...

[edit on 27-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
...................
In light of current activity with volcanoes and the earth's core - and NORTHCOM's mandate to provide military control for natural disasters - the situation is becoming quite interesting.
...................


Humm.....what exactly does Northcom have anything to do with "the current activity with volcanoes and the Earth's core"?

What are you implying in here exactly?...........



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Soficrow, pretty much you confesed that you do not know everything there is to know about Northcom,






Someone mentioned NORTHCOM on this thread a few hours ago - I said then and several times since that I had never heard of it before - I scanned the links provided, and said it needs attention, and recommended research.






you use sites which are biased against the US and the administration and which obviously are wrong as the evidence which has been presented clarifies.






Like Rumsfeld and NORTHCOM's official site.







"(The NORTHCOM plan) realigns and streamlines U.S. military structure to better address 21st century threats. For the first time, commanders' areas of operations cover the entire Earth." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

NORTHCOM Official Site








So, you heard of Northcom today and you already know it's evil purpose?.... you could make a new website which would leave Rense's obsolete...







Wow. You guys are really rattled. I recommend researching NORTHCOM - say it looks like it's important - and you're all over me again like flies on poop.


Okay. I give up. You are right.

I confess.
NORTHCOM is not important.
I will not research NORTHCOM.
I will not ask any questions about NORTHCOM.
I will not ask anyone else to research NORTHCOM.
I will never write about NORTHCOM.
Please don't hurt my family.



.

[edit on 28-2-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow



Someone mentioned NORTHCOM on this thread a few hours ago - I said then and several times since that I had never heard of it before - I scanned the links provided, and said it needs attention, and recommended research.


Yet, you are claming that you know that northcom is "evil", and you exagerate what Northcom is about by what other sites say which are obviously biased against the US, and the US government....



Originally posted by soficrow



Like Rumsfeld and NORTHCOM's official site.


You take little pieces of information from different sites, exagerating and taking out of context what they mean to try to bring your agenda against the US government.



Originally posted by soficrow
"(The NORTHCOM plan) realigns and streamlines U.S. military structure to better address 21st century threats. For the first time, commanders' areas of operations cover the entire Earth." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

NORTHCOM Official Site


And you are so..... smart that you think that means the US has total control over the world......




Originally posted by soficrow



Wow. You guys are really rattled. I recommend researching NORTHCOM - say it looks like it's important - and you're all over me again like flies on poop.


We are not "rattled", just setting the record straight...if anyone has any "hidden agenda" in here, it is you against the US government...

You have said it yourself in the past that you blame the US government for the illness that you and your daughter have. I am sorry that you both are sick, but it happens all over the world...you are going after the US government because you blame the government, not only by what happened to you and your child, but because they are not doing things which you deem are more important, such as allowing "embryo stem cell research"...



Originally posted by soficrow
Okay. I give up. You are right.

NORTHCOM is not important.
I will not research NORTHCOM.
I will not ask any questions about NORTHCOM.
I will not ask anyone else to research NORTHCOM.
I will never write about NORTHCOM.
Please don't hurt my family.



.


Once again, you are deluding yourself...noone was saying for you not to do any research...but on the contrary to actually "do some research"....

[edit on 27-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   
No need to "give up," soficrow.

Despite what your implying about NORTHCOM and NORAD and despite globalsecurity.org's article, the two are separate entities, as stated from your "Rumsfeld and NORTHCOM's official site":


NORTHCOM is co-located with the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

"Co" implies what? Joint? Two separate entities working together for one broad common purpose?

As to NORTHCOM being a threat to Canada and Mexico: not seeing it.
As per globalsecurity.org ( as also substantiated by the links I provided)...:


The command's mission is the preparation for, prevention of, deterrence of, preemption of, defense against, and response to threats and aggression directed towards U.S. territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and infrastructure; as well as crisis management, consequence management, and other domestic civil support.


As per one of the links I previously provided:


NorthCom has been granted the authority to command forces from all services in times of need. Specifically, NorthCom will be permitted to utilize all "Atlantic-oriented" service commands for vital continental defence operations. In other words, in a crisis, the USN Atlantic Fleet, USAF Air Combat Command, Marine Forces Atlantic and US Army Forces Command may come under the direction of Combatant Commander NorthCom.

Although NorthCom is responsible for the defence of the continental United States, the air defence of North America remains NORAD's charge. Indeed, since 11 September, NORAD's role has expanded. Notably, NORAD has begun tracking North American air traffic in conjunction with the civil authorities – the US Federal Aviation Administration and Nav Canada.

This new responsibility resulted in a 'streamlining' of the Rules of Engagement, allowing for a more aggressive defence of North American airspace. (NORAD had been principally concerned with external aerospace threats and drug trafficking.) More importantly, in order to better coordinate their intertwined and mutually relevant tasks, NORAD and NorthCom were 'dual-hatted' – General Ralph E. Eberhart, Commander-in-Chief NORAD – was immediately given command of NorthCom upon its creation.

NORAD, NorthCom, and the Binational Planning Group: The Evolution of Canada–US Defence Relations — Part 4

Those other links would explain more as to the functions of both NORTHCOM and NORAD in respect to the US, and in respect to Canada and Mexico. The two are separate entities and have two separate functions, one with Canadian assistance, the other not. Area of influence is not the same as implied control or sovereignty; they are simply what they imply, "areas of influence."

In any event, I am not seeing an issue here other than some simply trying to seemingly distort what is mentioned as something it is not. As with anything else, I suppose time will tell, cause argueing it, over-hyping it, and distorting it from its intended meaning and application is merely political play in regards to the intended original purpose of this topic.




seekerof

[edit on 27-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   
since you want to take all the air space. canada has decided to jump in our canoes and take all of the north american waters as a our own.you dont mine do you.oh wait the u.s ambassator might get mad lol and maybe the fox network lol.here usa have a beer and stay peaceful flukemol.........


[edit on 28-2-2005 by flukemol]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join