I'm really not sure what to think about this but, it just doesn't sound good to me

LouPran

New member
What reason would we have to want or need Canadian forces in the USA ? And why would they want us there? What emergency would warrant foreign troops , even if only from Canada ?

Is Lou Dobbs right about the changes happening that are blurring the lines between the USA and Canada (And Mexico where the next President is sure to open up that NAFTA superhighway , opening our southern border and most likely grant some form of Amnesty to illegals) Is this a step towards a union like the European Union ?

I'm trying to figure out what the good is in this. Anyone have any thoughts on it ?
---------------------
en_head_canadacom.gif


Saturday » February 23 » 2008
Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies
David Pugliese
Canwest News Service

Friday, February 22, 2008


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.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military's Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites," said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.

Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.

"Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?" he asked.

Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. "We don't know the answers because the government doesn't want to even announce the plan," he said.

But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on 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."

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a "North American union" where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

"Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!" notes one website. "The next time your town has a 'national emergency,' don't be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember - Canadian military aren't bound by posse comitatus."

Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.

Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.

Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn't been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.

© Ottawa Citizen 2008
 
Is Lou Dobbs right about the changes happening that are blurring the lines between the USA and Canada (And Mexico where the next President is sure to open up that NAFTA superhighway , opening our southern border and most likely grant some form of Amnesty to illegals) Is this a step towards a union like the European Union ?
While the US and Canada have had some sort of mutual defense agreements for a long time (Canadian aircraft regularly fly into and out of US Air Force bases), this sounds much more involved.

It bears looking at in great detail.
 
Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn't been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.

Don't you love "benign" secrets.
 
I don't know what to make of it other than it doesn't sit right to me.

It's not that I look at Canada as the enemy , but I wouldn't want in any kind of emergency , Canadian Troops telling me what to do or where to go , any more than I'd like NATO troops.
 
If Canadians appear at my house trying to collect weapons in a Katrina type scenario - it would be a sad development. That is my fear. On the other hand when there is an emergency and one needs help. my experience is that help is appreciated. Seems like we have enough troops here to help though.
 
It's the disconnect I don't like.

It would be kind of like getting pulled over in your home town , from a trooper of another state. Only worse.

Then it says in the article for use in "Civil Emergencies". Again, what kind of civil emergency would provide the need for disconnected foreign troops? Are they worried our own troops won't want to do the job handed them against their fellow CIVILians ?

I'd love to hear the justification for this move that I admit , I am assuming is true based on this article.
 
Sinister plot at work. (refer to Hitler-Stalin pact of non-aggression ala 1939 soon to be followed by Operation Barbarossa) Look out Canada, here we come, eh (they do have oil, wheat and baby harp seals). :D

Or is anyone here really worried about the Canadian Armed Forces marching across the border, eh? :rolleyes:

We've already got all their best hockey players.
 
Sounds to me an inevitable idea. As one talented American said 'the Times they are a changing...'

Traditional boundaries of the world are changing. I think it would be strategically valueable for countries of like interest (and who have similar economies) to enter into relationships, we in Australia have recently entered into a free trade agreement with the US and it works to both our advantages.

I would rather see us become part of a Pacific Rim amalgamation than see us absorbed into South East Asia, and I think you would prefer an US/Canadian/Aust pacific rim group than for you to be absorbed into one involving South America which may pull your economy down.

There are a few conditions, I think your Federal Bill of Rights (in its entirety) should form part of any union.

start absorbing this idea the better.

It is a foregone conclusion- leading American industrialists and Politicians (inc your past few Presidents have been driving this.

I know this sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory but it is happening and what we need to do is ensure we as people cut the best deal we can as far as rights and liberties are concerned. If we seek to ignore it, I think that is where our biggest problems lie.
 
The issues are far more complex than that. A few years ago the state of California decided to remove MTBE, a dangerous and persistent additive in so-called oxygenated fuels, from it's gasolines.

Canada sued the state of California for interference with international trade under NAFTA.

That just one example of hundreds of reasons that for us, it's a bad idea as configured.

I'll all for real free trade, but militantly opposed to any transfer of sovereignty.
 
national disaster aide ... not out of the question

having driven across a lot of the US and Canadian areas these last few years I can see where there are definitely locations where either country has a larger population center and the other has a sparse population. Both within view of one another. How many of you realize that Point Roberts, Washington is so isolated that you have to drive into Canada and then back into the US to get there. A couple of hour drive in good conditions. I can see where the Canadians are far more readily available to respond at Point Roberts than any Americans. There are a few other locations that are in similar situations.

As I see it here are the most obvious scenarios: aircraft crashes, vessel incident on the Great Lakes, bad weather, tornadoes, blizzards strike some place along the border. One country has the ability to respond in hours the other in days. Which are you wanting to wait for when the lights are out and your isolated in your home?

Those who want to believe it is the start of a conspiracy for the government to use Canadian troops to take over the country are welcome to that opinion. You can probably find a counterpart in Canada who believe the US is going to help their government in a similar takeover. Perhaps the two groups of conspiracy believers can hold a meeting and share designs on how best to use the aluminum foil to keep the mind control from happening before the invasion.
 
I suspect LouPran's closest to the truth. US armed forces might sit on their hands if directed to break the necessary domestic eggs, but imported forces from a country with no bill of rights might have a more cooperative mindset.
 
having driven across a lot of the US and Canadian areas these last few years I can see where there are definitely locations where either country has a larger population center and the other has a sparse population. Both within view of one another. How many of you realize that Point Roberts, Washington is so isolated that you have to drive into Canada and then back into the US to get there. A couple of hour drive in good conditions. I can see where the Canadians are far more readily available to respond at Point Roberts than any Americans. There are a few other locations that are in similar situations.

As I see it here are the most obvious scenarios: aircraft crashes, vessel incident on the Great Lakes, bad weather, tornadoes, blizzards strike some place along the border. One country has the ability to respond in hours the other in days. Which are you wanting to wait for when the lights are out and your isolated in your home?

Those who want to believe it is the start of a conspiracy for the government to use Canadian troops to take over the country are welcome to that opinion. You can probably find a counterpart in Canada who believe the US is going to help their government in a similar takeover. Perhaps the two groups of conspiracy believers can hold a meeting and share designs on how best to use the aluminum foil to keep the mind control from happening before the invasion.
All of these civil and emergency issues were handled decades ago, many if not most more than 100 years ago.

There is absolutely no need for any kind of military assistance between the two countries; not for America because we already have at least 75% more military than we need; not for Canada because there are no natural enemies that have the slightest possibility of an invasion and conquest of Canada.
 
If one of our nations is ever in serious need of extra fire crews, paramedics, ect... because something went wrong in a big way, I think it's damn normal for the other side to help out. You don't want to send emergency crews over in the case of disaster?

I bet we would try to help if Canada were attacked by mobs rabid beavers or whatever your most pressing civil defense concern may be...

As for the military, Canada and the US have been joined at the hip for 100 years+. More recently in air defense. Anyone with who is familiar with aging Russian missile technology knows that Canada would catch hell if the rooskis ever launched in a big way. It's known as a "shortfall". The rooskis have been improving their missile forces since Putin came into power, but most of their gear is still quite elderly. Also, most air forces on the planet earth would have to flu over or close to Canada to bomb the US with aircraft, so it makes sense.
 
There is absolutely no need for any kind of military assistance between the two countries;

Well when the 8.5 hits Anchorage and it, along Elmendorf, Ft Rich and the Port are wiped out, I'll be glad to see the Canucks come up the highway with some vittles.

WildbutheysomefolksaresafewheretheyareAlaska TM
 
Given how thin our own military is stretched, we probably will need the Canadians in future Katrina type situations.
We've already had foreign troops helping out in Katrina. Elements of the Mexican Army crossed the border to help out.
 
If a Katrina happens and Canada shows up, what if that "Katrina" is when some fascist communists in office turn the US into New Russia and dissolve the constitution and the people are fighting for their rights? I know it's a SHTF scenario but at the rate we are going it's a possibility. Maybe an earthquake and San Fransisco falls into the ocean so take all Kalifornians guns away.
 
Oh! good it will be so nice to have those nice tienamin square soldiers come "help":rolleyes: in an emergency. foreign troops on us soil never a good thing:mad:
 
Back
Top