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.

 

Towards a North American Security Perimeter

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Towards a North American Security Perimeter


www.globalresearch.ca

There are numerous reports circulating that Canada and the U.S. are secretly negotiating a security and trade deal which could be signed as early as January 2011. The proposed agreement would establish a security perimeter as a means to better secure North America and stimulate trade. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), along with other U.S.-Canada initiatives have allowed the two countries to incrementally move towards creating a common security perimeter.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
creekside1.blogspot.com
nauresistance.org




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Is this the final push for a North American Union that many people believer is nothing more than a conspiracy theory? I think after some thought the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) died, they assumed that the agenda of deep integration would go away. The NAU has went from the back to the front burner. It was the CFR paper- Building a North American Community that called for a common security perimeter by 2010.

www.globalresearch.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 11-12-2010 by NWMA2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NWMA2012
 


Haiti tops agenda at North American foreign ministers' meeting
By Juliet O'Neill, Postmedia News December 10, 2010

Haiti will fall into an overarching theme at the meeting of continental and regional security.

A planned Canada-U.S. security perimeter agreement will likely come up during bilateral discussions; since it's not a matter for the three ministers together, it's not high on the agenda for all three.

Cannon played down that agreement in the House of Commons' daily question period Friday, dismissing reports about it as rumour and speculation.

He repeatedly noted, however, that Canada obviously wants to maximize trade with the United States while ensuring borders are secure from terrorist threat.

Read more: www.canada.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Why aren't they concerned with security on the southern border? Many more threats of "terrorists" coming across there than at the northern border IMO.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kennylee
 


According to the above mentioned article, the U.S. and Mexico announced plans for a New Border Vision in March. Not sure if this will really do anything to secure the Southern Border,

United States-Mexico Partnership: A New Border Vision
www.state.gov...



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by kennylee
 
kennylee,

They won't secure the southern border because the US wants them, not the people, and Canada knows it and so wants to keep them from getting up there. They vote for the agenda American people don't want, and they the ruling elite want them votes.

Truthiron.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
When they "security perimeter", they are referring to the fences around the FEMA camps. They will need a security perimeter around us peasants.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 



When they "security perimeter", they are referring to the fences around the FEMA camps. They will need a security perimeter around us peasants.


And I always envisioned the NAU coin before the NWO...yikes..scary plans here...



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by truthiron
 


That totally makes sense. I don't blame Canada at all for not wanting them. At least Canada will be secure.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kennylee
reply to post by truthiron
 


That totally makes sense. I don't blame Canada at all for not wanting them. At least Canada will be secure.


Through our high morals, Canada is already secure. For us to put up an American security perimeter around our country is to invite war and terror to our country. Why should we become more involved with the Yanks? We are a sovereign country with our own values, culture and global standing.

Even though our country has pleased the American warmongers by fighting alongside them in Afghanistan, we still have the ability to say F YOU and go back to advocating peace, not war. We need to get Harper and his neo-conservative agenda out of power soon or we will fall deeper into the American net that they have laid out for us for hundreds of years (it is called "Manifest Destiny").
edit on 11-12-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


And perhaps *some* of the Americans would be happy to go along with your vision.

As long as it doesn't include the NAU or your Queen's coins....



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonjah1
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


And perhaps *some* of the Americans would be happy to go along with your vision.

As long as it doesn't include the NAU or your Queen's coins....


Then lets create a new country, in the new lands opened up in the Arctic. We will bring intellectuals, engineers, musicians, philosophers, and anyone else worthy of unifying the world under a vision that will benefit us all, and not the people at the top of the pyramid (because this is what the NAU is all about).



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by sonjah1
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


And perhaps *some* of the Americans would be happy to go along with your vision.

As long as it doesn't include the NAU or your Queen's coins....


Then lets create a new country, in the new lands opened up in the Arctic. We will bring intellectuals, engineers, musicians, philosophers, and anyone else worthy of unifying the world under a vision that will benefit us all, and not the people at the top of the pyramid (because this is what the NAU is all about).


And that would be fine with me as most of my family are Canadian citizens living overseas.

But, I am perceptive, and I already notice your apprehension about the weather....the Arctic?

Other than that, sure...but we will not have the greatest of all if they must put up with conditions and they can sustain themselves well otherwise, elsewhere....3hlas?

edit on 11-12-2010 by sonjah1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonjah1

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by sonjah1
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


And perhaps *some* of the Americans would be happy to go along with your vision.

As long as it doesn't include the NAU or your Queen's coins....


Then lets create a new country, in the new lands opened up in the Arctic. We will bring intellectuals, engineers, musicians, philosophers, and anyone else worthy of unifying the world under a vision that will benefit us all, and not the people at the top of the pyramid (because this is what the NAU is all about).


And that would be fine with me as most of my family are Canadian citizens living overseas.

But, I am perceptive, and I already notice your apprehension about the weather....the Arctic?

Other than that, sure...but we will not have the greatest of all if they must put up with conditions if they can sustain themselves well otherwise, elsewhere....3hlas?


Indeed, it would be the most extreme of conditions.

But survivability is based solely on the human will. I don't have all the answers... But green technology can be incorporated (like solar panels) and structures can be constructed out of snow and ice. Digging under the surface could help against the exposure above. Supplies need to be brought in, so there is a need to build an airport and/or port.

Consider CFS Alert.

It's location beside Greenland (it is the northern-most Canadian outpost)


It even has an airport


In such an extreme environment, we've managed to place a permanently inhabited base. The idea of an arctic city is my solution to Canadian arctic sovereignty. Harper has portrayed to Canadians that it is vital to our northern security to bolster our military by poorly purchasing expensive American fighter jets (which aren't even viable interceptors like we require, and how will these complicated fighters fair in extreme northern conditions anyways?).

Instead, in the interests on Canadian sovereignty, we should be populating our northern territory. We need to find ways to create population centers that can survive extreme conditions, while providing some kind of industry to our nation. By industry, I think we should focus on developing green energy technology, not setting up oil production so we can continue to destroy our planet like the Americans did with the Gulf of Mexico. We need to create examples of a better, more productive and environmentally-friendly society, and the arctic is our place to do it.

And if our government won't populate the arctic, then its up to Canadians themselves to do it, or another country will populate it (like Russia or the US).



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Security from what? The consequences of having had a predatory policy of international domination in or to exploit other peoples and their resources for the enrichment of our already wealthy-as-it-is controlers?

Hrmph! I think that is more of an American problem. Let them built their own damn fence...

... and leave me out of it. I never could stand being fenced in anyway.

edit on 12/12/2010 by wayno because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 



Indeed, it would be the most extreme of conditions.

But survivability is based solely on the human will. I don't have all the answers... But green technology can be incorporated (like solar panels) and structures can be constructed out of snow and ice. Digging under the surface could help against the exposure above. Supplies need to be brought in, so there is a need to build an airport and/or port.


As I mentioned I would love to live with all my Canadian-Citizen family that doesn't live in Canadak but this sounds a bit Utopian to me. California is having a hard time utilizing solar panels and they have sunshine 300-plus days of the year in most central-southern locations. I am curious about the use of solar panels, and also, what kind of structures out of snow and ice, and digging under the surface? The CFS Alert besides Greenland is intriguing, but what kind of population exists there currently? What about depression? Would some form of light therapy be provided for the populace as I am prone to SAD.


And if our government won't populate the arctic, then its up to Canadians themselves to do it, or another country will populate it (like Russia or the US).


How would we go about doing this in Canada? I'm more comfortable in tropical surroundings, but my family is more important and I am afraid for them overseas. Do you petition the Canadian government, or just "stake your claim"? I have limited funds to provide, but if you think that Canadian law would allow this, then it just might be ideal.

Further thoughts?


edit on 15-12-2010 by sonjah1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sonjah1
 


It is something to consider for the future. A Project for a New Canadian Century, if you will


I throw this idea out there because in Canada, there's not many people contributing much to our future. There's intellectuals on our side, who criticize the government for their inane actions (and rightly so) about sovereignty, our military future, and our response to climate change (such as ignoring the Kyoto Protocol); however, intellectual discussion in Canada doesn't really have a place among regular Canadians as it seems to be, which is sad to say...

So keep the idea in mind. I will continue to advocate for populating the northern Canadian lands, so maybe it might mean something to us one day, especially since most Canadians live close to the US border (which in itself, is a major security concern for Canadians).



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I'm just wondering if logistically, legally, how this would be handled now?

And could you please respond to the other issues I brought up as it might be crucial soon?

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by sonjah1
 


I am tasked with strategic thinking, the tactical aspects are better suited to other's more specialized in those fields but I'll give my opinion.


As I mentioned I would love to live with all my Canadian-Citizen family that doesn't live in Canadak but this sounds a bit Utopian to me. California is having a hard time utilizing solar panels and they have sunshine 300-plus days of the year in most central-southern locations. I am curious about the use of solar panels, and also, what kind of structures out of snow and ice, and digging under the surface? The CFS Alert besides Greenland is intriguing, but what kind of population exists there currently? What about depression? Would some form of light therapy be provided for the populace as I am prone to SAD.


Indeed, I guess I do make it sound utopian, but it will be a struggle to accomplish such a task but it will come with the reward of populated establishments in the Arctic.

Solar panels in the civilian market are a fairly new technology, but they become more advanced and drop in price every year. California seems to be the cheapest place to buy them too (at least according to my mechanical friends who are interested in solar technology for personal use).

Solar technology will be important to use in the arctic because energy supplies will be extremely limited. It is also important to note that the days are much different up there, from what I've heard sunlight can last at least 20 hours a day (or longer), but I do not know for sure. Also, such a project will prove to be a testing ground for new green technology, and the technology will be modified on a basis of necessity.

Snow and ice structures have been used by humans for thousands of years. Simply put, snow is a common, highly manipulative substance that can be shaped into a structure quite easily. It blocks out wind, while retaining warmth inside (like the igloo concept). Ice is the same, but more sturdy, and also bullet-resistant as proven by the Soviets in WWII (they also used ice to build makeshift bridges).

Digging under the surface can be achieved by bringing in heavy digging equipment, which is already a practice in use in arctic/antarctic bases anyways. Major problem with this would be exposure to equipment and maintenance since parts would be hard to come by.

Apparently at the peak of CFS Alert activities, it had 215 people working there. It pretty much relies on aircraft to resupply it.

After looking it up, it looks like the arctic sees 24 hours of darkness during the winter, and 24 hours of daylight during the summer (so it is an opposite situation of most people seeing every single day of being half dark and half light).

Mental conditions are a reality in this situation... BUT in my own opinion, SAD is our natural reaction to environmental changes. If we go to a place where it is 24 hours of sunlight/darkness every day, then it is inevitable that we will experience this change and it will affect our mental state. But humans are the most adaptable organisms on Earth, and we will find a way to adapt. Perhaps the generations born in an arctic environment will adapt, as it is their environment (and will probably encounter problems adapting to what we perceive as our regular day/night environment).


How would we go about doing this in Canada? I'm more comfortable in tropical surroundings, but my family is more important and I am afraid for them overseas. Do you petition the Canadian government, or just "stake your claim"? I have limited funds to provide, but if you think that Canadian law would allow this, then it just might be ideal.


Advocating to the Canadian government is the primary way that regular Canadians really communicate with our government (it is also considered "pluralism theory" in political science). If the advocacy can gain and organize enough Canadians and communicate our concern to the government, then they will probably respond and probably support us (Canadians populating the arctic is, of course, beneficial to our government too).



posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Question is, is the security perimeter to protect us or to keep us in? And if it is such a good thing why is it being done in secret and who is doing it without our knowledge or consent? I remember when you did not need a passport to visit Canada or Mexico from the U S. It seems we were much more open and free in north America the 3 of us back then, then we are now with all this security BS.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join