Topaz Posted February 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 I went searching online to find any news about the Harper/Obama meeting and I did find Foxs News with one point of view. It seems that some US congressmen and women think that terrorists could come into the US through Canada. Well, anybody could get into ANY country if they really wanted to. Just ask the CIA, but its seem now, they are more worried about the northern border than the southern border where hundreds of illegals are coming through the border everyday. 2012 election in the US is all what this is about. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/05/northern-border-not-secure-enough#comments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) I digress, I think it is more about rolling out Afghanistan war technologies into Canada with as much legitimization as possible - and vice versa. The US is going to be leaving Afghanistan in 2017 if the current timeline goes ahead, they'll need to deploy all their excess war equipment somewhere. It'll be old by then, so maybe it'd make sense to give it to DHS. I'm not aware of the border issues. I do recall hearing 4 or so years about about the sensor system they planned on rolling out along the border, that fell off the map. I also don't believe that ony 100 or so km of the border are "protected". I know they have minuteman patrols in the west. I know they are flying drones along the border. I know they set up "speed traps" sometimes along the border. I'm also not convinced that this is a bilateral issues. 6000 some arrests occured from trafficing originating in Canada to the US. 6000 arrests is substantial. We know the technologies are being ramped up. Also I got hit with electrical problems in my car whenever I came within a few KM of the border - so I tend to think they have early scanning points already. Systems that can interfere with sensitive automotive electronics such as radar/xray etc.. The line now is that they want access to even more police files (that require freedom of information requests, and notification to the person they pertain to under privacy laws) and other "legal hurdles". They are attempting to side step these protections. Is Canada withholding information on terrorists? Is Canada even harbouring terrorists? This is absurd. If Canada was aware of terrorists, then you think maybe it would arrest them? The angles on this are absurd. What Canada must protect against is buying a lot of expensive US technology to do things that it is already doing, or doesn't need to do. Also 1. Depending on US technlogy 2. Having the US Navy and Army deployed to Canada - without a war.. are issues. Canada is not Japan, Korea or Germany. They should learn to keep their soilders in thier own country, not other peoples http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ifOoDNxos3wJ:www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101212-canada-us-defining-north-american-defense-perimeter+US+navy+perimeter+security+canada&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&source=www.google.ca Edited February 6, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 (edited) How so? The government can do a lot of things without needing to pass legislation. Unfortunately. Privileges can be taken away by governments. Rights cannot. The Liberals and Conservatives have been whittling away at our nation for a hundred years, changing "rights" into "privileges" and then taking them away from us. - - - Dave A. Tomlinson, NFA If there is a report of someone dangerous apporaching the border, our "guards" flee. Because unlike US border guards our "guards" are unarmed. Their main focus should be securing our border from guns..... not searching my vehicle How do the guns try to get through?? And why? Edited February 6, 2011 by Saipan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 ....Canada is not Japan, Korea or Germany. They should learn to keep their soilders in thier own country, not other peoples ...and Fort Irwin, California is not Canada: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4113 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 I went searching online to find any news about the Harper/Obama meeting and I did find Foxs News with one point of view. It seems that some US congressmen and women think that terrorists could come into the US through Canada. Well, anybody could get into ANY country if they really wanted to. Just ask the CIA, but its seem now, they are more worried about the northern border than the southern border where hundreds of illegals are coming through the border everyday. 2012 election in the US is all what this is about. http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/05/northern-border-not-secure-enough#comments It seems no one wants to admit WHY the Americans worry more about their northern border. The reason is US! Many Americans have an impression of Canada as a country that is very liberal. To these Americans that means soft, gullible and a little lazy about making hard decisions. They view Canada as about as effective as Ellen DeGeneres at running border security systems. This makes it very hard to gain their confidence. Even when we catch a terrorist redhanded it seems we want to let him out of jail early, depending on "anger-management classes" to reform him! Until and unless we start to look a bit more hard-headed and practical I think we will always have problems with the USA over border security issues. They just don't think we can be trusted to keep them safe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) ...and Fort Irwin, California is not Canada: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4113 Maybe it is a ploy to convince US forces training there that they are a special group of the american army. It might reduce the chance of friendly fire in combat conditions. Canada has a desert too. I don't want to say it, but training is not the same as deployment and I think we both know this. "I would have thought the mohave was better defended than that.. maybe america is getting old." http://static.gotsmile.net/images/2010/12/29/gamersmafia-its-a-trap.jpg_1293607996.jpg Also this training operation is a little redundant at this point.. lets see if they are still training there... Training is a little different from deployment though. Canada has a NATO airbase that is quite heavily used for training. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_Goose_Bay Also the British have been known to train in Alberta, including Prince Harry's unit. If I recall Edited February 7, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 ....en francais premierment je suis tres concerne je pense c'est toute agreable... de tout l'agrement. Kocka leze dirou pes oknem, nebude-li prset nezmoknem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Maybe it is a ploy to convince US forces training there that they are a special group of the american army. It might reduce the chance of friendly fire in combat conditions. ....or not. Canada has a desert too. ...then use it. I don't want to say it, but training is not the same as deployment and I think we both know this. ...then maybe you will be more careful next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) ....or not. ...then use it. why? It's probably undefended for the same reason as the mohave. take a look man. http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/BC/deserts.htm Edited February 7, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 why? It's probably undefended for the same reason as the mohave. Then use it...just sayin' if you want all those "foreign troops" to stay home. take a look man. http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/BC/deserts.htm Looks nice...build a base and train on it. But there will be no liberties in Las Vegas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Then use it...just sayin' if you want all those "foreign troops" to stay home. Looks nice...build a base and train on it. But there will be no liberties in Las Vegas. http://www.traveldrumheller.com/images/maps/canadian-badlands-map.jpg http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/bases/Suffield-eng.asp I think you may be missing the point that there is no reason to train on a desert as Canada would never be faced with that type of scenario. Plus the British are training there - where would they train if it weren't for Canada's sacrifices? What are the Canuks making your us troops look bad? This deal doesn't seem so bad. You mean Canadians stop training in the mojave desert and the US won't deploy US forces to Canada - it sounds pretty simple to me. Yes this sounds very good. Keep these great ideas coming bushcheney2004 Edited February 7, 2011 by Esq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) I think you may be missing the point that there is no reason to train on a desert as Canada would never be faced with that type of scenario. But clearly Canada's DND feels otherwise....lot cheaper to use an existing facility. Cheaper is very popular in Canada. Plus the British are training there - where would they train if it weren't for Canada's sacrifices? Kuwait. What are the Canuks making your us troops look bad? No, they are doing their job and making your statement look bad. This deal doesn't seem so bad. You mean Canadians stop training in the mojave desert and the US won't deploy US forces to Canada - it sounds pretty simple to me. OK...but that would also apply to NORAD and NATO...better get ready to spend a lot more money. Edited February 7, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Many Americans have an impression of Canada as a country that is very liberal. To these Americans that means soft, gullible and a little lazy about making hard decisions. If they think that they're better at making hard decisions, they'd better spend a long time looking in the mirror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 If they think that they're better at making hard decisions, they'd better spend a long time looking in the mirror. Why? Better use the time to make those decisions. Same as in business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Yes we have paranoid nieghbours to the south, we will just have to learn to live with it. But I would not want anyone else as a nieghbour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 All this is not for our protection, it is all set up to monitor us, not terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esq Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 But clearly Canada's DND feels otherwise....lot cheaper to use an existing facility. Cheaper is very popular in Canada. bushcheeny, your brilliance strikes again - you should move to Canada and pitch policy to me. Kuwait. But how would the British Defend the Alberta badlands from Kuwait? No, they are doing their job and making your statement look bad. Are you implying Afghanistan is all about defence of the mohave? OK...but that would also apply to NORAD and NATO...better get ready to spend a lot more money. I'm always self representative in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/cana-f19.shtml Here is more info on what is ongoing so said. anyone heard anything in your local areas? (pun?) if people don't like the world socialist link here is macleans http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/04/u-s-ambassador-david-jacobson-explains-the-border-deal/ I wonder if Gene will show up in this or a sub perhaps from the office for foreing relations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sperling spoiled? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers anyone know anyone from here that might actually show up? Janice Charette Stephen Rigby Claude Carrière Rennie Marcoux Christine Hogan Isabelle Mondou Paul Aterman <---- this looks very possible Rick Stewart Andrew Marsland Ward P.D. Elcock ????????/ Ann Wesch --- any of these likely? James L. Jones (Assistant to the President for National Security) Ron Kirk (United States Trade Representative) Austan Goolsbee (Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers) Lisa P. Jackson (Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency) Ray LaHood (Secretary of Transportation) Diana Farrell (Deputy Assistants to the President for Economic Policy) Jason Furman (Deputy Assistants to the President for Economic Policy) Edited February 21, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 All this is not for our protection, it is all set up to monitor us, not terrorists. Hmmm, could be, yup, definitely could be... Harper selling out Canadian FREEDOMS to the US (like Lyin' Brian did)? Naaaaa..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.