Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies

[kuzadd]

If for some reason we do someday require US troops on Canadian soil, wouldn't you rather it was done according to protocals established by mutual agreement in advance, rather than making it up on the fly according to god knows what?

wilber: do we know what the agreement entails?

no

what are the protocols?

dunno

did the government sign it in the open or in secret?

back to square one.

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe both countries won't agree to it and it won't end up going through.

[M.Dancer]

wilber: do we know what the agreement entails?

no

Do you read your own links or read them, forget them and hope no one else does?

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

did the government sign it in the open or in secret?

back to square one.

Must be secret....otherwise we would be talking about it.

[Dog]

It would seem common sence and reason presented by Dancer , Wilbur and others has done little to alleviate the paranoia of Un-American Woman , Kudzu and their ilk . I doubt pointing out that Canadian and American soldiers worked cheek by jowell for over 4 decades in the Canadian arctic on the dew line would make them put their tin foil hats away either . I would ask why Jack Layton and his wife Tokyo Rose who hate all things American and all things military have had nothing to say on this topic ?

[DogOnPorch]

It would seem common sence and reason presented by Dancer , Wilbur and others has done little to alleviate the paranoia of Un-American Woman , Kudzu and their ilk . I doubt pointing out that Canadian and American soldiers worked cheek by jowell for over 4 decades in the Canadian arctic on the dew line would make them put their tin foil hats away either . I would ask why Jack Layton and his wife Tokyo Rose who hate all things American and all things military have had nothing to say on this topic ?

Or an entire division of US Combat Engineers building the Alcan (Alaska) Highway and all those airports we enjoy to this day.

------------------------------------

Courage is fear holding on a minute longer.

---General George S. Patton

[Topaz]

Over on www.worldnetdaily.com they have the story and its title is"North American Army created without OK by CONGRESS!" It's half way down their page but today the NDP brought this up and Mckay just said it was for the purpose an emergency from natural disasters. The NDP came back and wanted to know who gives the permission to enter either country and how did this come about. My understanding of this it was all done by the military, someone else who should be watched in the future.

[Dog]

LOL worldnetdaily is sort of a National Inquire it seems , first time i have been there but it does have some good stories like this one....

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Top shrink concludes liberals clinically nuts

Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder

--WND

[bush_cheney2004]

....The NDP came back and wanted to know who gives the permission to enter either country and how did this come about. My understanding of this it was all done by the military, someone else who should be watched in the future.

Too late to ask....Canada's military ignored the PMO and went on alert anyway during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And the NDP is a long way from the PMO!

Edited February 27, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

LOL worldnetdaily is sort of a National Inquire it seems , first time i have been there but it does have some good stories like this one....

WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Top shrink concludes liberals clinically nuts

Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder

--WND

Just had a look at it. If this is where they get their news it explains a lot.

[Guest American Woman]

Quote: I doubt pointing out that Canadian and American soldiers worked cheek by jowell for over 4 decades in the Canadian arctic on the dew line would make them put their tin foil hats away either .

Or an entire division of US Combat Engineers building the Alcan (Alaska) Highway and all those airports we enjoy to this day.

Since it's already been pointed out that our troops are already used by the other in "civil emergencies," bringing up yet more examples does nothing to answer the question as to why this agreement is necessary since we are already using each others' troops.

Just had a look at it. If this is where they get their news it explains a lot.

Who's this "they" you speak of?

Seriously. I read such an oh-so-clever variation of my name as "un-American woman" and comments about tin foil hats and I just know I'm dealing with a real Einstein. Yet unbelievably, the comments draws responses as if it's an intelligent post; comments cutting down others.

What a waste of time it is to hope for intelligent discussion.

[Wilber]

Since it's already been pointed out that our troops are already used by the other in "civil emergencies," bringing up yet more examples does nothing to answer the question as to why this agreement is necessary since we are already using each others' troops.

Since this has been so, the people responsible for such things decided that maybe we should have some planning and guidelines on how to co-ordinate these operations rather than making it up as we go along. In addition, if at some time foreign troops are to be used on my country's soil, I for one would like to know under what conditions in advance, not after the fact. Wouldn't you?

Who's this "they" you speak of?

They who use WorldNetDaily as their source of news on which to base their arguments. I thought that was pretty clear.

[Topaz]

Perhaps that explains why Harper has given the military an extra .05% over the already 1.5% which adds up to 18 Bil and starting in 2011, 90 Mil more the first year and every year for the next ten years. So how is Harper going to boost the miltary to the standards of the US and not go into a debt?

[Wilber]

Perhaps that explains why Harper has given the military an extra .05% over the already 1.5% which adds up to 18 Bil and starting in 2011, 90 Mil more the first year and every year for the next ten years. So how is Harper going to boost the miltary to the standards of the US and not go into a debt?

Wow 2% total, that's a whopping .4% more than the average rate of inflation the past two years to resurect a military that was left to rot for over 10 years. They have to stop this binge spending.

[AngusThermopyle]

Perhaps that explains why Harper has given the military an extra .05% over the already 1.5% which adds up to 18 Bil and starting in 2011, 90 Mil more the first year and every year for the next ten years. So how is Harper going to boost the miltary to the standards of the US and not go into a debt?

Adding a pittance to an already existent pittance won't drive us into debt. Our military has been starved for years now, of course there are those who would like to see that trend continue as they feel that militaie's are no longer a requirement of modern existence. Here's a news flash for ya. It would take far far more than that to bring us to U.S. military strength, as for standards, well our standards are already amongst the highest in the world.

I've worked with U.S. troops many times in the past and have nothing but praise for these people. Honestly, I do not believe that any sinister ulterior motives exist behind this agreement. I believe you'd have to go a very far country mile to convince Americans of the necessity to attack or occupy their neighbour and friends (at least, some of us are). The troops themselves would most likely question orders such as those, I know for sure that Canadian ones would if the situation were reversed. Here's an eye opener for you. Americans are very much the same as us. They are not some fearsome boogeyman that wishes only to devour us.

[kuzadd]

Since this has been so, the people responsible for such things decided that maybe we should have some planning and guidelines on how to co-ordinate these operations rather than making it up as we go along. In addition, if at some time foreign troops are to be used on my country's soil, I for one would like to know under what conditions in advance, not after the fact. Wouldn't you?

They who use WorldNetDaily as their source of news on which to base their arguments. I thought that was pretty clear.

wilber, can I ask how is it your privy to the agreement and it's machinations?

the people responsible for such things decided that maybe we should have some planning and guidelines on how to co-ordinate these operations

oh and one more thing and I'll quote from the article

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

the agreement hasn't been released. For that information to be released it requires approval by both nations.

So wilber how is it you know what has been decided???

then this

if at some time foreign troops are to be used on my country's soil, I for one would like to know under what conditions in advance, not after the fact.

but the fact is you don't know, what was agreed to , because, the agreement was signed 2 weeks ago and never announced, but it is going to be, (after the fact) in that far reaching mainstream source of news and information The Canadian Forces Newspaper, what are the circulation numbers for that?

target audience? oh but you'll not know anyway, unless both governments decide to release details.

lots of assumptions demonstrated , but little actual knowledge.

Unless you were at the signing?

Edited February 27, 2008 by kuzadd

[Wilber]

wilber, can I ask how is it your privy to the agreement and it's machinations?

I would ask the same of you. I've no doubt the media will get the details an pass them along.

the agreement hasn't been released. For that information to be released it requires approval by both nations.

So wilber how is it you know what has been decided???

It requires the approval by both nations. Should tell you something, don't you think?

but the fact is you don't know, what was agreed to , because, the agreement was signed 2 weeks ago and never announced, but it is going to be, (after the fact) in that far reaching mainstream source of news and information The Canadian Forces Newspaper, what are the circulation numbers for that?

target audience? oh but you'll not know anyway, unless both governments decide to release details.

The fact is, no government carries out public negotiations on anything. They get a deal and then try to sell it. In this respect it is no different from any other agreement any government has negotiated with another country in the past.

Requires the approval of both nations right? Not worth the paper it is written on till then.

If you really want to get paranoid about your rights and security being undermined by your governments, how about our so called Human Rights Tribunals which operate with the same impunity and within similar parameters to the Inquisition except for the powers of life and death or physical torture. They can persecute people who have broken no laws.

[sharkman]

Many thanks to kuzadd and Buffy for running around in circles crying," The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" every time the government makes a decision. You couldn't pay enough for the hard work these and lefties across the nation are doing to desensitize Canadians to such fears. What an enjoying irony.

[kuzadd]

I would ask the same of you. I've no doubt the media will get the details an pass them along.

It requires the approval by both nations. Should tell you something, don't you think?

The fact is, no government carries out public negotiations on anything. They get a deal and then try to sell it. In this respect it is no different from any other agreement any government has negotiated with another country in the past.

Requires the approval of both nations right? Not worth the paper it is written on till then.

If you really want to get paranoid about your rights and security being undermined by your governments, how about our so called Human Rights Tribunals which operate with the same impunity and within similar parameters to the Inquisition except for the powers of life and death or physical torture. They can persecute people who have broken no laws.

wilber, what I was quoting, was the details of the deal cannot be released without the approval of both nations. The deal was signed. Read the article signed Feb 14th.

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 approval required by both countries is for release of the details of the already signed agreement.

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

Therefore, without approval of both governments the media will not report the details of the agreement, as the details of the agreement cannot be released without the approval of both countries involved.

therefore you can't possibly know, and I do not claim to know. I am not even assuming I know.

I've left that to posters such as yourself.

[Guest American Woman]

The approval required by both countries is for release of the details of the already signed agreement.

Therefore, without approval of both governments the media will not report the details of the agreement, as the details of the agreement cannot be released without the approval of both countries involved.

You're right. I was misreading that part of the article, thinking approval by both countries was needed before the deal was 'a done deal.'

I find it rather odd that there would be any question of releasing the details, and it makes me think there's more to this deal than 'helping in an emergency,' which we've already been doing all along.

In light of the details not being released, I can't understand those who claim to know what it's all about. I also can't understand people not wanting to know the details surrounding foreign troops being allowed on their nation's soil.

[kuzadd]

American Woman

You're right. I was misreading that part of the article, thinking approval by both countries was needed before the deal was 'a done deal.'

I think you weren't alone in that.

I find it rather odd that there would be any question of releasing the details, and it makes me think there's more to this deal than 'helping in an emergency,' which we've already been doing all along.

Agreed

In light of the details not being released, I can't understand those who claim to know what it's all about. I also can't understand people not wanting to know the details surrounding foreign troops being allowed on their nation's soil.

I cannot understand it either. That is the point I am making to Wilber who seems to assume all manner of arrangements made , and others who assume it is only related to rescue, as opposed to numerous other scenarios that are possible.

I also cannot understand the people not wanting to know the details surrounding the possible deployment of foreign troops on their nations soil.

Perhaps they don't question, because they assume they already know?

[Wilber]

I cannot understand it either. That is the point I am making to Wilber who seems to assume all manner of arrangements made , and others who assume it is only related to rescue, as opposed to numerous other scenarios that are possible.

No, it was you who started this thread by presenting the specter of jack booted Americans patrolling our streets imposing the will of the American government on Canadians, without any details of the agreement. That approach went a good way to causing the Liberals to lose the last election. "Soldiers in our streets. We're not making this up" remember? It seems you have learned nothing. I am merely presenting an alternate view and a more reasoned one based on the logical assumption that neither country is interested in compromising its sovereignty.

The idea of planning for mutual co-operation in the event of national emergencies is eminently sensible to me but of course the devil is in the details. If the details are too unpalatable to Parliament and the people, it will not happen. We have a minority government. If that government tries to force it through without popular and Parliamentary support it will likely be enough to trigger an election and the people will decide.

[kuzadd]

No, it was you who started this thread by presenting the specter of jack booted Americans patrolling our streets imposing the will of the American government on Canadians, without any details of the agreement.

wow, did I say that anywhere?

"spectre of jack booted americans"

I think not!

I think you assumed, or interpreted that, all on your own.

I started this thread with questions for both Canadians and Americans

Why didn't Harper or his gov announce it?

Why is this even necessary?

Gosh, did we in this democracy vote to have foreign troops on our soil?

Aren't foreign troops on someone else's soil generally invaders? occupiers?

Did the Americans vote for foreign troops to rule them?

North American Union here we come?!

The integration of the use of the two militaries on each others soil could indicate that?

Or is it simply that the american soldiers not being our countrymen would have less of a qualm about shooting a canadian and vise versa?

Or is it something else?

along with the posse comitatus issue and I noted some other Americans elsewhere were wondering about congressional approval???

no spectres of anything, legitimate questions.

Did the Liberals raise the suspicion that there could be troops on the streets?

I don't recall.

Interesting?did they happen to mention American troops?

Maybe they only got it half right then , or half-wrong??

We have a minority government. If that government tries to force it through without popular and Parliamentary support it will likely be enough to trigger an election and the people will decide.

Do you know anything about it coming up for parliamentary vote? On reading it seems it's a done deal!

two weeks ago.

Edited February 28, 2008 by kuzadd

[Wilber]

Aren't foreign troops on someone else's soil generally invaders? occupiers?

Did the Americans vote for foreign troops to rule them?

North American Union here we come?!

The integration of the use of the two militaries on each others soil could indicate that?

Or is it simply that the american soldiers not being our countrymen would have less of a qualm about shooting a canadian and vise versa?

Right back atcha.

[kuzadd]

Right back atcha.

what the heck is that?

Those were my questions wrt this agreement. You seemed to be the one with the 'answers'.

Or should I call them speculations or assumptions.

hell I just want to know, what the agreement entails.

[M.Dancer]

Or should I call them speculations or assumptions.

• North American Union here we come?!
  
• The integration of the use of the two militaries on each others soil could indicate that?
  
• Or is it simply that the american soldiers not being our countrymen would have less of a qualm about shooting a canadian and vise versa
  

?

I would call it paranoid fear mongering.