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.

 

The US-Canada Perimeter Security and an Integrated North American Command

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Lol, yeah I base my claims on nothing. Refusing to play YOUR stupid game is not basing my claims on nothing. Anyone else on ATS who wants to discuss the matter I will gladly build an argument for. You, no way. Not going to happen. And you can try to pretend I cant build a case all you want.

Wont is not the same as cant.

Im sure anyone who wants to look can go back and notice all you do in your posts is just ask every other person to prove something to you, question, question, question, attack attack attack. You offer NOTHING, you ask for everything, and you are highly unpleasant to top it all off.

Edit to add, and I just die rolling when YOU accuse me, (or anyone) of name calling.

I even incorporated one of my favorite name calling events by you into my siggy. Its hilarious. Because if someone DOES support their argument, you accuse them of "claiming public knowledge as their own" or something else ridiculous.

You are pointless. Just here to stir things up, and stump for the party line. Whatever that happens to be.


edit on 7-6-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Lol, yeah I base my claims on nothing. Refusing to play YOUR stupid game is not basing my claims on nothing. Anyone else on ATS who wants to discuss the matter I will gladly build an argument for. You, no way. Not going to happen. And you can try to pretend I cant build a case all you want.


All I have done is ask you to supply the PROOF you claim to be basing your opinion on. I would think such a simple request to PROVE M WRONG would be quite easy, and very much in your interest.

And yet here you are, spending several posts calling me names.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by ionsoul

Why should we strive for aggressive defense when we are not aggressors. Isn't the middle east, north Korea,
Afghanistan including Russia and China enough?


Not aggressors? Are you unfamiliar with Canada's roll in Afghanistan?

In addition, 'defense' is not only needed for aggressors. Canada has an ENORMOUS amount of wealth opening up in the arctic that will be TAKEN AWAY by Russia without US military might. That is why Canada has an interest in this agreement.

Some Canadians do love to pretend they are peaceful, and dont need the US. It's easy to pretend to be 'peaceful' while standing behind the worlds only superpower..



Are you for real?

You think Russia is taking OUR arctic territory?

You think we depend on the US to protect us?

This is the drivel that they want you to believe. It has always been Harper's plan to downgrade our capable military to a specialized reaction force operating under NORCOM. It is Harper's interest to allow the American navy, army, and airforce joint access to our territory to supplement our security gaps created by neocon military reforms in the first place!

And you don't see the connection between integrated security and assimilation of sovereignty? Giving up our security IS giving up sovereignty!

"Those who give up freedom for security, deserve neither" -- Benjamin Franklin



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
All I have done is ask you to supply the PROOF you claim to be basing your opinion on.


If anyone could prove anything to your standards we wouldn't be talking about a conspiracy.


More like who should head the impeachment commission.

The think that if the US and Canada do integrate their sovereignty it will be under a new flag and probably due to the collapse of the dollar. Just a hunch



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
again..its the New world order. the powers to be, dotn want the middle clas, and NO borders* mexico and canada to be merged into a union* that is old and as traditional as its supposed to go. its all about control* looks like thier doing it finally. we are too be the beggers unless we fight back. that means NOW, march by the millions to congress, and demand for fairness and change..or eventually become a begger being ruled over.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
As far as ive been taught..the merge of canada is important..incase any of us so caleld 'free' americans want too, need to flee, escape, thier will be border patrols too arrrest you, trapping you in the mess when and IF the system here finally fails, on that dreaded day. canada is loked at for NWO belivers, as an escape route, a place to hang out for a bit till things die down here, incase it ever got ungly. mexico i wouldnt...yuor not going to be accepted or treated the same thier, and wilth all the drug crime shooting n murder stuff going on its not safe, especially if your a woman with young kids.
thats my belife n take on it.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Lol most canadians I know would never want to integrate with the USA because it has too many blacks and other minorities.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacroVisio

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
All I have done is ask you to supply the PROOF you claim to be basing your opinion on.


If anyone could prove anything to your standards we wouldn't be talking about a conspiracy.



No one has even attempted to prove their assertions in regards to this or any other proposed legislation.

I guess you think something is a 'conspiracy' if there is no proof?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


You think Russia is taking OUR arctic territory?


While that isnt exactly what I claimed, essentailly yes.

ever read the news?:

news.bbc.co.uk...


You think we depend on the US to protect us?


Yes. You do. And have since ww2. Ever wonder why the US controls Alaska?

www.sharenews.com...

edit on 9-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
All of the countries bordering the Arctic are positioning themselves strategically for the anticipated land/resource grab. Russia has been quite belligerent in their attempts to lay claim to as much of the Arctic as they can. There was a story not too long ago where a group of Russians were sent on an expedition, and put a Russian flag in territory I believe currently claimed by Norway. Norway's PM responded with something along the lines of "This isn't the middle ages, you can't just put a flag on the ground to claim territory, but I would like to thank Vladimir Putin for making it so easy to convince Parliament to approve an order of 72 new fighter planes".

Regardless of any push for a NAU, given US and Canadian interests in the Arctic this seems like an obvious move.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Why does the US control Alaska? Because of manifest destiny.

Ever study BC history? BC was united together (including Vancouver Island Colony) and joined confederation because the US was obsessed with annexing my province. Why? Because the entire West coast under American control would be a major strategic asset to acquiring the rest of Rupertsland/the other provinces.

Also at this time, gold rushes were occurring around Alaska and BC and the US wanted to control all of it.

As for the arctic situation, I am quite aware of what is going on. We don't control all of the arctic and Russia has not intruded on our territory yet. I'm sure that they realize that by doing so, it would further the US-CAN security integration plans, which would be an obstacle to Russia ambitions.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DuceizBack
Lol most canadians I know would never want to integrate with the USA because it has too many blacks and other minorities.




Have you heard about the melting pot we call Canada? Too many minorities, that's just funny. We're not just black or white up here, we're every country in the world mixed together. Somehow it works well.

The reasons Canadians don't want anything to do with integrating to deeply with the USA, is we don't want to lose our freedoms, and at this stage, we seem to have way more freedoms than US citizens.

Our governments handle things very differently, and Canadians don't like the way the US government does things. :shk:



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Ooh, another armchair general. I'm sure TPTB are shaking in their boots.


Come to think of it, I don't think that Ottawa will mind too much. They already resemble the American midwest.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit

Originally posted by DuceizBack
Lol most canadians I know would never want to integrate with the USA because it has too many blacks and other minorities.




Have you heard about the melting pot we call Canada? Too many minorities, that's just funny. We're not just black or white up here, we're every country in the world mixed together. Somehow it works well.


Yep. Star. Canadian cities are some of the most culturally diverse places ive been in N. America.


The reasons Canadians don't want anything to do with integrating to deeply with the USA, is we don't want to lose our freedoms, and at this stage, we seem to have way more freedoms than US citizens.


How would you lose your freedoms?


Our governments handle things very differently,


Do they? how 'differently'?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi




As for the arctic situation, I am quite aware of what is going on. We don't control all of the arctic and Russia has not intruded on our territory yet. I'm sure that they realize that by doing so, it would further the US-CAN security integration plans, which would be an obstacle to Russia ambitions.


So you DO admit that Canada benefits from American military superiority in their relationship with russia, because without the US's cozy relationship with Canada, Russia would take over the arctic. Glad you can see that now.
edit on 9-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Don't put words in my mouth.

I said that if Russia explicitly threatened our sovereignty at this point, the Harper government and the Pentagon would use it as justification for their security integration plans (specifically for Pentagon control over all NORCOM territory).

I never said that we need American help, though American forces would probably have advantages considering they've mapped under our arctic waters without our permission for decades, while Harper has cut back on patrol planes and boats (despite an older election promise where he said he would build more).



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


though American forces would probably have advantages considering they've mapped under our arctic waters without our permission for decades, while Harper has cut back on patrol planes and boats (despite an older election promise where he said he would build more).


Do you have a source for that statement? I'd like to see it.


So, tell me, if Russia encroaches on Canadian territory in the arctic, who will canada turn to?

To deny that Canada benefits from their relationship with the US is to not look objectively at the facts. It's easy to be 'anit-america'. Heck, even americans are. It's harder to analyze a situation without your emotional blinders.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 



How would you lose your freedoms?


It depends on the state I'm sure, but I've heard news stories from the US about people getting fined for sharing or selling extra garden produce, some areas not even allowed gardens, fined for water collections, lemonade stands shut down, banks foreclosing on homes that should not be in foreclosure, laws and bills getting passed for silly little things (sorry, cannot remember specifics). I even heard of some forced vaccinations for the flu a couple of years ago, here they didn't bug us about it - our choice unless you worked in the healthcare industry. They did recommend we take our Vitamin D.
I hear of much of the stuff on here, some on CNN. Lots of little things, but they add up. The FDA, the TSA.........

**Although, it would be nice sometimes to have the right to bear arms, I have dogs instead out here on the acreage. My husband is a truck driver, away lots, and he wishes I could legally protect myself with deadly force if needed.

With the governments handling things differently

Our banking system is set up with checks and balances, rules the bankers must live by. No foreclosures until 4 months of payments are missed, and the bank would rather help than have your house. The bank is NOT allowed to sell your mortgage to another lender.
Our unemployment insurance is set by the rate of unemployment in the country. The more people unemployed, the more weeks you can collect, to a maximum of 1 year. Never more than 1 year, and you must prove that you're looking for work. It's fair, and it works.
We have medical.

Our recent disasters - Manitoba flooding - the Manitoba government is talking about buying the rural houses that flooded too badly to be fixed when the had to divert water to save the larger towns. Full value. Slave Lake town in Alberta that just had half of it burn, the Alberta government is handing over millions to help rebuild the town (small town 7000 people). Quebec had the army in to help sandbag with their flooding, same with flooding in the eastern part of Canada. We call in army help for most of our disasters, they come armed with shovels often.
The recent disasters in the states, like in Joplin, it was on the news that the people were having a very hard time finding out who was missing, the cops were short tempered with victims. The fires down in Texas, the news was stating they were having a hard time getting any government help putting lives back together. Katrina was a nightmare. BP should have never had so much power in the Gulf of Mexico. :shk:

They're almost ignoring the problems at the Mexican border, and some of the politicians think the Canada border needs more monitoring. More than Mexico. Crazy.

Too much of the US money is going to countries that do not need it, Middle East/North Africa. That money should be going to help US citizens first, to help with disasters, to get back the jobs, infrastructure fixing means some jobs. High corporate taxes and the fiasco of Obamacare are not helping to get manufacturing back into the US. That medical thing really needs to be figured out better.

Sure we have our problems too, things go wrong, but things get fixed faster when they do go wrong. Less bureaucratic red tape. More government help for our tax dollars. I know, our smaller population helps lots too.

I think it helps that we can get rid of our government if they misbehave too much, or don't get things done for the people. Even with Harper in with a majority vote, I think if he behaves badly, he still has to answer to the Governor General, the Queen's guy in Canada.

Maybe I'm just very used to how things work up here, they generally go smoothly, lately down there things don't seem to go as smooth as they used to.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


though American forces would probably have advantages considering they've mapped under our arctic waters without our permission for decades, while Harper has cut back on patrol planes and boats (despite an older election promise where he said he would build more).


Do you have a source for that statement? I'd like to see it.


Intent for a Nation -- Michael Byers
Who Owns the Arctic -- Michael Byers

Try reading these books and you might learn something about my country.


So, tell me, if Russia encroaches on Canadian territory in the arctic, who will canada turn to?

To deny that Canada benefits from their relationship with the US is to not look objectively at the facts. It's easy to be 'anit-america'. Heck, even americans are. It's harder to analyze a situation without your emotional blinders


You need to get a few things through your head because you just can't seem to comprehend my position, which is important since I am a Canadian who strongly believes in sovereignty and these are things that I have put a lot of effort into understanding. This isn't something that I just get huffy about a few minutes per day- this is my life.

First off, Canada is part of NATO. NATO is a military alliance. If ANY country attacks a NATO state, other NATO countries are more than obligated to support us with force.

Secondly, even if we were not a part of NATO, the US would not sit idly while Russia moves in on North American territory, even if it's on our site of the North Pole. This is key to understanding the reality of what is going on with the SPP.

The SPP and its proponents claim it is to provide enhanced North American security. The only threat that Canada has ever faced is full-scale invasion. Ever since the Americans formed their own country, they have been a serious threat to us with actual invasion attempts and assimilation attempts. The only other viable threat that we've ever faced was the USSR, because if the USSR ever invaded the US, they would have to come through us (most likely in the early stages of invasion through Alaska).

So therefore, at this point in time, we really have no real threats to our sovereignty (excluding the US, of course, but this is only because we keep caving into their economic and strategic goals).

If Canada was ever invaded, the US would intercept the incoming force because they wouldn't allow any hostile threat on North American soil (and we would obviously allow them to help us in the event of war). This is important to understand because all of these security integration plans are absolutely redundant because of this fact.

The truth about integration is that there is far more to it, hidden in the fine print and only understood by those writing these plans up, that lead us down a road that only the corporate elite will benefit from. It is exactly like NAFTA: NAFTA was not a free-trade agreement, it was an "investor's rights" agreement meaning that it protects transnational corporations from governments (specifically, it was aimed for Americans corporations to be protected from the Canadian government).

Do you understand where my concern is coming from yet? You can call me "anti-American" all you want. If caring about my homeland and understanding its issues, from an academic standpoint even, is "anti-American", then I guess you assume that the US already owns me and my thoughts.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Advancing U.S.-Canada Economic, Energy and Security Integration

Much has been made about the secretive nature and lack of transparency surrounding efforts by the U.S. and Canada to create a North American security perimeter. With several high-level meetings in the last month, not to mention all the behind the scenes negotiations, it is expected that an action plan will be unveiled at some point in September. From a U.S. perspective, it is security which is driving the agenda, while on the Canadian side, facilitating trade and easing the flow of goods across the border is the focal point. Any deal reached will build off of past initiatives and be used to advance economic, energy and security integration between the two countries.

During a bilateral meeting in early August, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird discussed issues pertaining to the Middle East and the Western Hemisphere. Also high on the agenda was U.S.- Canada relations. This included the declaration, Beyond the Border: Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness issued by U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper back in February of this year. At a news conference following her meeting with Minister Baird, Secretary Clinton stressed that, “it’s critical that we ensure our border remains a safe, vibrant connector of people, trade, and energy. And today, the minister and I discussed other ways to expand trade and investment; for example, by reducing unnecessary regulations.” It is interesting that Clinton brought up energy as this is also an intrical part of North American integration which is being further advanced through the U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue, as well as other initiatives.

Another issue that came up during Clinton and Baird’s meeting was the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. If approved, it would carry oil sands crude from the province of Alberta and pass through the U.S. states of Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas to delivery points in Oklahoma and Texas, at the Gulf of Mexico. While addressing a question at a joint news conference about delays on coming to a decision on the pipeline, Secretary Clinton said, “We are leaving no stone unturned in this process and we expect to make a decision on the permit before the end of this year.” Several months back, the Environmental Protection Agency expressed concerns about environmental impacts associated with the project, as well as the level of analysis and information being provided. With the State Department’s recent release of its Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Keystone XL pipeline has moved one step closer to a final decision. The review period will now go, “beyond environmental impact, taking into account economic, energy security, (and) foreign policy.” While there continues to be vocal opposition to the project, it is being touted as important for future U.S. energy security.

In May of this year, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a series of hearings which among other things, examined legislation concerning the North American-Made Energy Security Act. The bill called on, “the President to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.” With regards to oil consumption, it acknowledged that, “While a significant portion of imports are derived from allies such as Canada and Mexico, the United States remains vulnerable to substantial supply disruptions created by geopolitical tumult in major producing nations.” It goes on to say. “The development and delivery of oil and gas from Canada to the United States is in the national interest of the United States.” The bill also stated, “Continued development of North American energy resources, including Canadian oil, increases domestic refiners’ access to stable and reliable sources of crude and improves certainty of fuel supply for the Department of Defense.” In other words, more Canadian oil is needed to fuel the U.S. war machine. This all ties in with the perimeter security deal and further removing trade barriers. It is part of U.S. efforts to secure more access and control of Canadian resources.

Read full article @ beyourownleader.blogspot.com...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join