# Canada, U.S. ARCADE WARS



## ArcadeFire (26 Feb 2008)

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d&k=14984

I am not in the military and am new to Canadian Army Forums but was wondering what you guys think of this? I couldn't find a thread already started so I just made a new one. Do you think this a threat to Canadian Sovereignty? Since it would legally allow US Forces to come to Canada in the event of a "civil emergency" of some unspecified kind. They're calling it the civil assistance plan and saying that it would only be enacted with consent from the civilian leadership on either side. However, what if there is an ongoing threat of some kind to US interests here- like oil or water supply? The reason I'm asking you guys is you are the ones charged with defending our sovereignty so your opinions on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Could we end up with a permanent US presence on Canadian soil, and if so is that in our National interests? How about a North American Army? Would that make things easier for the defence of North America? I'm not saying that either is a bad idea, just askin for input.


----------



## TCBF (26 Feb 2008)

- Agreements like this are commonplace, they just get updated now and then.  If Dion was PM right now, the media would not even have reported it.


----------



## ArcadeFire (26 Feb 2008)

ahh, no one seems to have responded to the other posting of this topic. 

Okay, the agreement may be commonplace, however, it still has implications. I don't think that because the agreement is not discussed by our politicians and enacted without much oversight means it has no consequences. I mean the scenario I outline that a time could come when the "threat" of a crisis is enough for our politicians to ask for help. What if there is some kind of ongoing threat that our leadership decides requires greater forces than our military  can provide? Maybe some new cold war type scenario since Russia is getting a bit nutty again. And what if the Americans just decide to stay? All we could really do is say, "please don't stay" because although man for man we are probably equal or better than US troops...they still have more men and firepower. We're just taking their word that they won't stay for as long as it takes them to decide the "emergency" is over. In a perfect world where politicians don't lie and foreign governments are our best friends maybe it would make sense but I'm not so sure from a Canadian perspective that this is in anyone's interests but theirs. Now if we are talking about establishing an actual North American Army then that's different. I mean really if you think about it if anything happened in the world requiring the US and Canada to join forces again we would basically be turned into NA Army anyway. Why not just join the forces under one umbrella? The sovereignty of Canada is pretty much non-existant anyways given the size of our neighbor. They could just take us by force at any time that they chose. So why not join forces? They "allow" us to maintain the impression of sovereignty as it is just so the Canadian people are happy, but really all our resources go south and if that were to stop for some reason, or be diverted to China, they would quickly have something to say about it. Playing devil's advocate (not totally seriously) I say why not just admit we have no sovereignty and make one NA Army? Would that be a bad idea? If so, why?


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d&k=14984
> 
> Do you think this a threat to Canadian Sovereignty?
> 
> Could we end up with a permanent US presence on Canadian soil, and if so is that in our National interests?



No, don't be silly.


----------



## JBG (27 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> The sovereignty of Canada is pretty much non-existant anyways given the size of our neighbor. They could just take us by force at any time that they chose. So why not join forces? They "allow" us to maintain the impression of sovereignty as it is just so the Canadian people are happy, but really all our resources go south and if that were to stop for some reason, or be diverted to China, they would quickly have something to say about it. Playing devil's advocate (not totally seriously) I say why not just admit we have no sovereignty and make one NA Army? Would that be a bad idea? If so, why?


I don't know where Canadians come to these kind of conclusions. Has Trudeau's fable of the elephant and the mouse permeated your media, schools and/or country?

The US is only a very reluctant occupier and empire builder. Perhaps, that's the problem in Iraq. The US has a revolutionary heritage and that does not mix well with being an occupying power.


----------



## ArcadeFire (27 Feb 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> I don't know where Canadians come to these kind of conclusions. Has Trudeau's fable of the elephant and the mouse permeated your media, schools and/or country?
> 
> The US is only a very reluctant occupier and empire builder. Perhaps, that's the problem in Iraq. The US has a revolutionary heritage and that does not mix well with being an occupying power.



Um...only because we give up our resources without a fight...sad but true. They have no need to take us over and Canada provides a lovely vacation spot after they messed up their own country so why not live and let live...for now. Just turn off the oil tap or the water and see how long we're best buds.....

Saddam and that Iranian guy tried that one....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2008)

Any of you people worried about a US takeover need to pull out your credit card and visit this site:

http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (27 Feb 2008)

As the Honourable Mr. McKay told a member of the liberal party yesterday when this very subject was brought up during question period. I quote "Sir, your tin foil hats are getting really tight over there" Unquote. That pretty well ended the debate on the subject.

If the EU can do it why can't we? It just makes sense.

And to those who fear the great Satan from the south invading us for our resources. why? As long as there's mega money to be made from our resources, we will will keep on selling them and they will continue to buy them.  They already invaded us years ago. Most of the major corporations in Canada are already American owned and operated.


----------



## ArcadeFire (27 Feb 2008)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> As the Honourable Mr. McKay told a member of the liberal party yesterday when this very subject was brought up during question period. I quote "Sir, your tin foil hats are getting really tight over there" Unquote. That pretty well ended the debate on the subject.
> 
> If the EU can do it why can't we? It just makes sense.
> 
> And to those who fear the great Satan from the south invading us for our resources. why? As long as there's mega money to be made from our resources, we will will keep on selling them and they will continue to buy them.  They already invaded us years ago. Most of the major corporations in Canada are already American owned and operated.



Exactly. So why not join "forces" as well. One North American Army consisting of primarily Mexicans.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Exactly. So why not join "forces" as well. One North American Army consisting of primarily Mexicans.



Do you have a point or just out to make stupid comments ?


----------



## JBG (28 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Um...only because we give up our resources without a fight...sad but true. They have no need to take us over and Canada provides a lovely vacation spot after they messed up their own country so why not live and let live...for now. Just turn off the oil tap or the water and see how long we're best buds.....
> 
> Saddam and that Iranian guy tried that one....


Is it most Canadians or only some that enjoy taking gratuitous potshots at the United States. How'd you like to have a neighbor like Syria or Lebanon over a 5000 Trudeau Unit border?


----------



## ArcadeFire (28 Feb 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> Is it most Canadians or only some that enjoy taking gratuitous potshots at the United States. How'd you like to have a neighbor like Syria or Lebanon over a 5000 Trudeau Unit border?



I'm just not naive. I believe that the US looks out for the US- not Canada. Anyone who believes otherwise has no business having anything to do with our National Security. IMO


----------



## TCBF (28 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Exactly. So why not join "forces" as well. One North American Army consisting of primarily Mexicans.



- I have the greatest respect and admiration for Mexicans, as do many other posters here.  Would you care to explain your comment?


----------



## ArcadeFire (28 Feb 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - I have the greatest respect and admiration for Mexicans, as do many other posters here.  Would you care to explain your comment?



If you haven't been reading the news lately approximately 10% of the population of Mexico now resides in the US. If there were a North Amecian Army under some kind of NA union then it would be largely staffed by Mexicans. I have the greatest respect for them as well- I don't remember saying otherwise? They take the jobs that most americans don't want, and that includes military jobs. The North American army could be massive and those in charge could lower the pay due to cheap labor from the South. One step at a time, that's where we're headed. Don't think so? Look at the European Union.  It worked for them!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (28 Feb 2008)

Arcadefire,

The Internet is a flat medium, so it is hard to tell when you are trying to be sarcastic/clever and when you are actually suggesting something that you mean.  Comparing Europe to North America in terms of a "union" is a stretch to say the least. 

Collective security is just that and it is something that pragmatic Allies do to protect themselves against real threats to their sovereignty.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Anyone who believes otherwise has no business having anything to do with our National Security. IMO



And what have you done for our national security lately ?


----------



## FascistLibertarian (29 Feb 2008)

What % of Canadians live in America?


----------



## ArcadeFire (29 Feb 2008)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> What % of Canadians live in America?



Hey you're also a Libertarian. Have you heard of Ron Paul? I'm not sure about the percentage of Canadians living in the US. In any case though, Canadians would likely be taking higher paying tech jobs and such and not signing up for Service there, since they have a higher education level. So if there was a North American Army then as a percentage there would be alot more people from Mexico signing up. Although it's tough to say what would happen once it's a NA free for all for jobs and once we have a common currency.


----------



## ArcadeFire (29 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And what have you done for our national security lately ?



I can't claim to have done much literally but I follow National Defence news and known what the government is up to as far as funding the Military goes, which is more than a lot of Canadians. Most just take it for granted. I just don't believe that someone concerned with our National Sercurity should ever trust any foreign power absolutely, that includes the US. Don't you agree?  Or do you think that they will and do always have our best interests, and not their own, at heart? Hear the expression "trust but verify"?


----------



## George Wallace (29 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> If you haven't been reading the news lately approximately 10% of the population of Mexico now resides in the US. If there were a North Amecian Army under some kind of NA union then it would be largely staffed by Mexicans. I have the greatest respect for them as well- I don't remember saying otherwise? They take the jobs that most americans don't want, and that includes military jobs. The North American army could be massive and those in charge could lower the pay due to cheap labor from the South. One step at a time, that's where we're headed. Don't think so? Look at the European Union.  It worked for them!



 ???

Where in the world did you come up with this idea?

Mexican citizens, ( not naturalized US Citizens) are not likely to serve in any capacity in the US military.  Puerto Rican and Mexican descendants who are all American citizens do serve in the US military.   The US does not have a Foreign Legion.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (29 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> In any case though, Canadians would likely be taking higher paying tech jobs and such and not signing up for Service there, since they have a higher education level. So if there was a North American Army then as a percentage there would be alot more people from Mexico signing up.



While volunteer armies do have people that join for social/economic upward mobility due to enrollment and promotion based on merit, are you saying that volunteer armies have a low-level of education?  The US and Canadian militaries have minimum education requirements for enrollment.


----------



## GAP (29 Feb 2008)

I think he's bouncing off the walls.............bad meds maybe?


----------



## ArcadeFire (29 Feb 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Arcadefire,
> Comparing Europe to North America in terms of a "union" is a stretch to say the least.
> 
> Collective security is just that and it is something that pragmatic Allies do to protect themselves against real threats to their sovereignty.



I have to disagree with you there. 

Evidence points towards some kind of Union similar to the one in Europe. The EU didn't happen overnight either. Right now the transnational corridor is being built to facilitate transfer of goods between the three countries Mexico Canada and the US; it  begins in Texas and will be ending in Manitoba of all places with an inland port.... And with the US dollar taking a nose dive it's all the more likely for some kind of union of currencies to occur (or at least be suggested by the US). There are already deals like NAFTA and the SPP (security and prosperity partnership) underway. The SPP stated goals are "cooperation and information sharing, improving productivity, reducing the costs of trade, enhancing the joint stewardship of the environment, facilitating agricultural trade while creating a safer and more reliable food supply, and protecting people from disease". Then there's this group of Corporate heads from all over NA that advise the SPP called the NACC (North American Competitiveness Council).  I'm not sure about large corporations deciding our future but I guess that's always the way it will be.

The world IMO is being divided up into larger and larger trading blocks. There's talk of an Asian union as well and it makes sense to harmonize military and economics in some ways. I'm not totally sure it's a good thing though since less diversity is bad in almost every other sphere. If you think about it though, we're not that much different from Americans...this is North America after all. Maybe a bit different from Mexico but they may be the last to join the Union too. Treaties between our Militaries and  building common economic standards are just paving the way. 

It's going to happen.

That is assuming the public buys in- or assuming that they just do it without public consent- one step and one "agreement" at a time.


----------



## ArcadeFire (29 Feb 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> While volunteer armies do have people that join for social/economic upward mobility due to enrollment and promotion based on merit, are you saying that volunteer armies have a low-level of education?  The US and Canadian militaries have minimum education requirements for enrollment.



Don't they offer to pay for your education if you join in the US? That being the case, they must not have a high education level to begin with right? That's a big carrot for someone from a poor neighborhood. Standards for officers may be higher but I'm pretty sure your average highschool dropout could get in one way or another as enlisted. It's a big complaint I believe in the US that standards are lowering for recruits. I don't think it's the same in Canada yet but i'm not sure.


----------



## ArcadeFire (29 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Where in the world did you come up with this idea?
> 
> Mexican citizens, ( not naturalized US Citizens) are not likely to serve in any capacity in the US military.  Puerto Rican and Mexican descendants who are all American citizens do serve in the US military.   The US does not have a Foreign Legion.



actually they are...."There are 60,000 immigrants in the U.S. military. They represent two percent of the total service personnel on active duty. About half are noncitizens, with 15,880 in the navy; of those, 5,046 are from the Philippines. More than 6,000 Marines are noncitizens, with the largest group, 1,452, from Mexico". About .com. Don't ask me how a non citizen gets in...... I was referring, however, to a North American Army should one occur. If it did it would likely be staffed by a majority of Mexicans just given the economics and the fact that they will do jobs others with higher education might try to avoid.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Feb 2008)

Looks like a good place to throw this in 8)

http://www.break.com/index/psychorogue.html


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> I can't claim to have done much literally but I follow National Defence news and known what the government is up to as far as funding the Military goes, which is more than a lot of Canadians. Most just take it for granted. I just don't believe that someone concerned with our National Sercurity should ever trust any foreign power absolutely, that includes the US. Don't you agree?  Or do you think that they will and do always have our best interests, and not their own, at heart? Hear the expression "trust but verify"?



Just keep stepping on your dick Arcade, you'll go far in life  :


----------



## karl28 (29 Feb 2008)

recceguy  
  
Oh my god that was too funny , Damn near spit my diet coke over the keybored .


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (29 Feb 2008)

There is a big difference between reducing/removing trade barriers (economic integration) with a political union.  Canada, the US and Mexico already form a trading block and I do not see an underlying consensus for a political union in North America.  There may be more of a basis for that in Europe (they have gone a bit beyond economic integration) but note that Europe still has national armies and political integration has faced certain limits in reality.

Turning to collective defence and security, consider a French citizen in 1917 living in German-occupied terrirority and one living in that much greater part of France being defended by a coalition of allied troops.  Who do you think felt a loss of "sovereignty?" 

Finally, you may find that entrance requirements in terms of education are higher in both the US and Canadian militaries than you think.  I beleive that certain elements are desperate to equate benefits given to volunteer soldiers to the draft/conscription.  I have seen some rather twisted and convoluted arguments trying to make education benefits be seen as compulsory service, but they were quite a stretch.

Pay and other benefits may make military service more attractive, to be sure, but at the end of the day I believe that we are volunteers who have a sense of what we are getting into.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Feb 2008)

I am sure that the Bush administration has taken this step as an insurance policy should Hillary or Obama are elected to the White House we may need to be rescued. ;D


----------



## aesop081 (29 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> I can't claim to have done much literally but I follow National Defence news and known what the government is up to as far as funding the Military goes, which is more than a lot of Canadians. Most just take it for granted. I just don't believe that someone concerned with our National Sercurity should ever trust any foreign power absolutely, that includes the US. Don't you agree?  Or do you think that they will and do always have our best interests, and not their own, at heart? Hear the expression "trust but verify"?



The you are far from being in a position to tell serving CF members who should / shouldnt be in the national security buisness.


----------



## helpup (29 Feb 2008)

My God, something simple like this agreement has brought out the insecure ones hasn't it.  It is not like there is not precedence at all with any of the other treaties we share with the US.  Yet there are those who have to start wondering ( or was that worrying ) about being invaded by the self intrested demigod that is the States ( ummm sarcasm is here for those who are missing it)  They start to wonder, Oh My God what if they come in and don't want to leave.  Have any of them thought just what the world would take on that.  And oh I suppose major markets might even react to that as well. hmmm lets see top of my head what else.  Oh there would be the American people who although are divided on the issues allot of the time and OK ambivalent in general to countries such as ours.  Just might get a tad freaking upset if the US wanted to help us in a "Emergency" and decided to stay permanently.  I would love to hear a believable scenario for that one.  Oh and I think there is a few dozen more reasons but will stick with this one.  Do you realize how big Canada is, and even with the majority of the population concentrated in a relatively narrow belt along its border or if they only went after key areas to control ( and they probably would be able to easily enough ) Do the people who come up with the bogeyman scenario's have any idea as to what the manpower would be to maintain that situation.  Holy Crap batman my aluminum hat is in the microwave what can I do.  

Sorry for the rant


----------



## JBG (29 Feb 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think he's bouncing off the walls.............bad meds maybe?


We're troll-feeding, big time.


----------



## JBG (29 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with you there.
> Right now the transnational corridor is being built to facilitate transfer of goods between the three countries Mexico Canada and the US; it  begins in Texas and will be ending in Manitoba of all places with an inland port...


OK, I give up. How does one build a major highway without it being noticed? Show me the pictures of it on Google Earth.


----------



## JBG (29 Feb 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Don't they offer to pay for your education if you join in the US?


High school education is always free in this country. It's higher education or skills education that is the draw.


----------



## Meridian (29 Feb 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> OK, I give up. How does one build a major highway without it being noticed? Show me the pictures of it on Google Earth.



I'm sure the GOVERNMENT removed those images from Google Earth & public consumption.  Geez.






 :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Feb 2008)

Someone doesn't have time to wait for mail order. Here's directions to make your own. It's obviously needed immediately.

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html

and why you need it

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Feb 2008)

Meridian said:
			
		

> I'm sure the GOVERNMENT removed those images from Google Earth & public consumption.  Geez.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, I can't see Chaney's house, either.... 8)


----------



## ArcadeFire (1 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The you are far from being in a position to tell serving CF members who should / shouldnt be in the national security buisness.



Well. You forget that I pay your salary and as a taxpayer and as your employer I think otherwise. ....


----------



## ArcadeFire (1 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Someone doesn't have time to wait for mail order. Here's directions to make your own. It's obviously needed immediately.
> 
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb/build.html
> 
> ...



How creative and original! You must have been a bright one in school.


----------



## ArcadeFire (1 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> OK, I give up. How does one build a major highway without it being noticed? Show me the pictures of it on Google Earth.



JBG....please explain this speech from the throne to me? I don't understand why does the Lieutenant Governor says quote: "Manitoba is also taking a major role in the development of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor, connecting our northern Port of Churchill with trade markets throughout the central United States and Mexico. To advance the concept, an alliance has been built with business leaders and state and city governments spanning the entire length of the Corridor. When fully developed, the trade route will incorporate an “in-land port” in Winnipeg with pre-clearance for international shipping. "

http://www.gov.mb.ca/throne.html

Is this dude lying or is it a conspiracy amongst those crazy Manitobers.


----------



## ArcadeFire (1 Mar 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> My God, something simple like this agreement has brought out the insecure ones hasn't it.  It is not like there is not precedence at all with any of the other treaties we share with the US.  Yet there are those who have to start wondering ( or was that worrying ) about being invaded by the self intrested demigod that is the States ( ummm sarcasm is here for those who are missing it)  They start to wonder, Oh My God what if they come in and don't want to leave.  Have any of them thought just what the world would take on that.  And oh I suppose major markets might even react to that as well. hmmm lets see top of my head what else.  Oh there would be the American people who although are divided on the issues allot of the time and OK ambivalent in general to countries such as ours.  Just might get a tad freaking upset if the US wanted to help us in a "Emergency" and decided to stay permanently.  I would love to hear a believable scenario for that one.  Oh and I think there is a few dozen more reasons but will stick with this one.  Do you realize how big Canada is, and even with the majority of the population concentrated in a relatively narrow belt along its border or if they only went after key areas to control ( and they probably would be able to easily enough ) Do the people who come up with the bogeyman scenario's have any idea as to what the manpower would be to maintain that situation.  Holy Crap batman my aluminum hat is in the microwave what can I do.
> 
> Sorry for the rant



If you think any foreign power has the interests of Canadians at heart I have some oceanfront in Arizona for you. It scares me to hear such naivety from a Military member charged with the defence of Canada.


----------



## ArcadeFire (1 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Just keep stepping on your dick Arcade, you'll go far in life  :



Well hey it is pretty long- sometimes it's hard not to.  :


----------



## ArcadeFire (1 Mar 2008)

Meridian said:
			
		

> I'm sure the GOVERNMENT removed those images from Google Earth & public consumption.  Geez.




And this as well....damn conspiracy tinfoil hat Manitobans....

"North America’s Superhighway Coalition teams federal and state authorities with private business to promote the establishment of a network of "international trade corridors" that will facilitate the movement of people and goods throughout the nations of Canada, US, and Mexico. NASCO consists of the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba, Northern Great Plains Inc., five member US states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa and Missouri), private businesses, and the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, which carries more international truck traffic than any other border crossing in America. "

http://www.destinationwinnipeg.ca/98


----------



## Yrys (1 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Well. You forget that I pay your salary and as a taxpayer and as your employer I think otherwise. ....




There is a thread here that address this subject a bit ...
I've even taking the liberty to make the link work from the first post that refer to it..

Ignorant Civies


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> How creative and original! You must have been a bright one in school.



Someone is trolling. :

Mods, sort this idiot out please!


----------



## Sig_Des (1 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Well. You forget that I pay your salary and as a taxpayer and as your employer I think otherwise. ....



HA!

You my employer....If that were so, I think I'd quit. You seem too far removed from reality to employ anything but useless drivel.


----------



## ArcadeFire (1 Mar 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> There is a thread here that address this subject a bit ...
> I've even taking the liberty to make the link work from the first post that refer to it..
> 
> Ignorant Civies



Well what about our right to Security as Canadians? If I believe we don't have the right equipment, or type of people in the Military that's my right as a Canadian citizen and I vote for a new Government that will sort that out. If I hear a bunch of Canadian soldiers saying "trust the US Government, they are and will always be our friends and Allies" that worries me from a security standpoint. I can see trust between US soldiers and Canadian soldiers, since they often work together, but not between the Canadian soldiers and a foreign government. Do you think they trust us? I highly doubt that since we're seen as Liberal and close to Communist by many Conservatives there.


----------



## JBG (1 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> JBG....please explain this speech from the throne to me? I don't understand why does the Lieutenant Governor says quote: "Manitoba is also taking a major role in the development of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor, connecting our northern Port of Churchill with trade markets throughout the central United States and Mexico. To advance the concept, an alliance has been built with business leaders and state and city governments spanning the entire length of the Corridor. When fully developed, the trade route will incorporate an “in-land port” in Winnipeg with pre-clearance for international shipping. "
> 
> http://www.gov.mb.ca/throne.html
> 
> Is this dude lying or is it a conspiracy amongst those crazy Manitobers.


It probably doesn't mean literally any one route, but means an effort to exploit Churchill's geographical benefits if the climate ever allows. That is doubtful


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Well. You forget that I pay your salary and as a taxpayer and as your employer I think otherwise. ....



Jeez, buddy, I pay taxes too, so I guess I'm self-employed.   ;D

Edit to add:  You, most certainly, are not my employer.


----------



## Meridian (1 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Well. You forget that I pay your salary and as a taxpayer and as your employer I think otherwise. ....



Well, consider that all military members are taxpayers as well, I suppose by your logic that would mean that they are all self-employed?  If they only knew!

I should also add that as a taxpayer, I don't think otherwise, and if you'd like, we could probably get into a pissing contest about who pays more taxes to figure out who has the controlling interest,  but I suppose in the end its that big bad government that will tell us both to go to hell.


----------



## Drummy (1 Mar 2008)

Well, I'm retired now and drawing a reasonable pension for my time and trouble.

And I pay taxes on that.

Does that mean that I help pay for your pogey?

Drummy


----------



## ArcadeFire (1 Mar 2008)

Meridian said:
			
		

> Well, consider that all military members are taxpayers as well, I suppose by your logic that would mean that they are all self-employed?  If they only knew!
> 
> I should also add that as a taxpayer, I don't think otherwise, and if you'd like, we could probably get into a pissing contest about who pays more taxes to figure out who has the controlling interest,  but I suppose in the end its that big bad government that will tell us both to go to hell.



Alright you win this round. But you, or I both have the right to be protected by paying taxes and the right to decide what form that protection takes. This is a really a side issue. I can sill argue that it's my right as a Canadian to have input into how our canadian forces are used and what kind of philosophy they have. The government is suppost to represent the people and that means both of us. When I hear soldiers say "trust the US government" they're not protecting me and then I feel my government is mis-managing them in some way. So maybe I should be sending letters to Stephen Harper instead, I dunno. 

How did this become Arcade wars anyway? I thought it was about another step being taken in the plans for a North American Union?


----------



## ArcadeFire (1 Mar 2008)

Drummy said:
			
		

> Well, I'm retired now and drawing a reasonable pension for my time and trouble.
> 
> And I pay taxes on that.
> 
> ...



Is that some kind of British meat on a stick?


----------



## ArcadeFire (1 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> It probably doesn't mean literally any one route, but means an effort to exploit Churchill's geographical benefits if the climate ever allows. That is doubtful



It says "a Mid continental trade corridor" ...you can't get more specific...


----------



## Drummy (1 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Is that some kind of British meat on a stick?



If that's what turns you on.


----------



## Meridian (1 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Is that some kind of British meat on a stick?



Pogey is a commonly used word for EI.


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Mar 2008)

Meridian said:
			
		

> Pogey is a commonly used word for EI.



Everyone in Canada now this!

Goes to show you how out of touch this Arcade poster is with his own country.

Ya, and another empty profile to boot.

The troll's days are numbered.


----------



## PMedMoe (2 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> How did this become Arcade wars anyway?



Anyone want to take a stab at this one?  :


----------



## George Wallace (2 Mar 2008)

Meridian said:
			
		

> Pogey is a commonly used word for EI.





			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Everyone in Canada now this!
> 
> Goes to show you how out of touch this Arcade poster is with his own country.
> 
> ...



Now Wes........We can anticipate the next question to be:  "What is EI?" after which we can come to the conclusion that this is a youngster who has joined an adult conversation which is way over his/her head, or the habitual Troll who likes to come to various sites and put on airs, or even a foreigner who has little to no knowledge of North American politics.  As they question the title name, we can see that quite a few things are going right over their head.  

I am still curious about this Mexican Military/Protection Consortium that will protect North Am and the Trading Conduit that is supposed to be built between Winnipeg and Mexico.


----------



## helpup (2 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> If you think any foreign power has the interests of Canadians at heart I have some oceanfront in Arizona for you. It scares me to hear such naivety from a Military member charged with the defence of Canada.



Arcade now where in my post did I mention anything about "foreign power has the interest of Canadians".  I was just making some observations that people are taking this agreement and blowing it out of proportion.  We already have numerous deals with the US and other countries for security, trade, information sharing, power sharing, and so on.  If what I am saying comes across as a generalization it is my attempt at letting people understand it in the simplest terms.  

As for other countries eyeing what we have in Canada and wanting it.  Sure I have no doubt there is.  Are we loosing things to these "foreign powers", I have no doubt that we are loosing more then we are gaining in some aspects.  It is called a Global Market for a reason.  

As for being naive, that is a laugh that you are making that assumption about me or anyone in general.  But lets look at that.  How does someone who is in the military being naive scare you?  We are at the lowest levels responsible to be trained to carry out our job, apply our skills in direction of our Superiors who take their marching orders from Ottawa.  At the higher levels ( as in regional and National ) they can and do plan for differant scenarios.  In order to anticipate the direction that the CF may have to take.  Still all that depends on marching orders from Civilian leaders.  So if your scared hearing about "naivety" from rank and file serving/ retired CF members then you really do need to invest in some counseling, although I am not sure there is a Phobia that would label it accurately.  

And not supprising you missed the point of my post/ rant.  Please show me where in history the US or any other Democracy has invaded another Democracy to gain that nations wealth, mineral, resources.  And do you not think there would be major repercussions to any country that tried.  The closest example I can come up with off the top of my head is the Turbot war.  and in the end that was settled through established diplomacy/trade talks/world courts.  I will grant that at times we can and do "give" our resources in a way it may bite us in the butt at some point.  Yet that can and will be a changing situation that will depend on the market and political reality that can and will evolve with time.  

In the end we are the US's largest trading partner.  We are apart of a North American trade partnership for the most part those things are beneficial to all involved.  Being a "hyperpower" the US tends to be viewed at this mad man playing a real life game of Risk with the resources instead of points for each country.  I just don't buy into that line of thought.  Is some of their dealings self serving.  Sure they are that is the nature of the beast of being Human.  But please show me the last time the US went to war with another Democracy to further their goals.  ( and no I don't think CIA, big business involvement counts ) I want to hear about the boots on the ground.  And could you also please tie that in to the Agreement that started this whole topic.  really this naive service member wants to know.


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now Wes........We can anticipate the next question to be:  "What is EI?" after which we can come to the conclusion that this is a youngster who has joined an adult conversation which is way over his/her head, or the habitual Troll who likes to come to various sites and put on airs, or even a foreigner who has little to no knowledge of North American politics.  As they question the title name, we can see that quite a few things are going right over their head.
> 
> I am still curious about this Mexican Military/Protection Consortium that will protect North Am and the Trading Conduit that is supposed to be built between Winnipeg and Mexico.



UI


----------



## TCBF (2 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> It says "a Mid continental trade corridor" ...you can't get more specific...



- Maybe they mean Highway 61 that runs from Thunder Bay Ontaio to New Orleans Louisianna.  Not a bad movie, either!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_61_(film)

- Or, there is always Bob Dylan's take on it:

"Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?" God says, "Out on Highway 61."

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/highway61.html

- Whatever.  I know Thunder Bay could sure use the jobs.


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Mar 2008)

A segment of the lunatic fringe have convinced themselves there is a giant plot by Canada and Mexico to take over the US and a major part is a super corridor running north-south. One of the Republican presidential hopefuls, Ron Paul, more or less subscribes to this theory, or at least he claims to.

I couldn't make something like this up.


----------



## Meridian (2 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> UI



Shhhh, now you're just confusing people.


----------



## helpup (2 Mar 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> A segment of the lunatic fringe have convinced themselves there is a giant plot by Canada and Mexico to take over the US and a major part is a super corridor running north-south. One of the Republican presidential hopefuls, Ron Paul, more or less subscribes to this theory, or at least he claims to.
> 
> I couldn't make something like this up.



 You could make it up but it is sadly all too real.  I am not normally a fan of using the lunatic fringe as a description but there are groups that can easily fit that label.  I would like to think though that most are just misinformed or ignorant.


----------



## ArcadeFire (3 Mar 2008)

> As for being naive, that is a laugh that you are making that assumption about me or anyone in general.  But lets look at that.  How does someone who is in the military being naive scare you?  We are at the lowest levels responsible to be trained to carry out our job, apply our skills in direction of our Superiors who take their marching orders from Ottawa.  At the higher levels ( as in regional and National ) they can and do plan for differant scenarios.  In order to anticipate the direction that the CF may have to take.  Still all that depends on marching orders from Civilian leaders.  So if your scared hearing about "naivety" from rank and file serving/ retired CF members then you really do need to invest in some counseling, although I am not sure there is a Phobia that would label it accurately.



You're right I should be more scared that our politicians think the US can do no wrong. 

That's why little treaties like the one just signed without much in the way of publicity draw my attention. The reason there's no publicity is because they know how Canadians would react. Good deeds are done in the light of day and it makes me wonder why all of these deals are done in secrecy. Lets face it if it's not on the 6pm news no one will know it happened. Take the SPP for example, it was signed with litle to no publicity between Martin, Fox and Bush and the working groups/think tanks coming up with these ideas are not even our Government officials- they're the heads of various high powered multi national firms. The events and documents are hidden in plain sight- but the fact that they're not publicized means that no one ever finds out about them. Why are these guys deciding our future? The multi nationals? I'm just asking questions. Yes everything looks fine and dandy from the outside...another agreement made between good "friends and neighbors" but when put in context, and when we look at the other things going on something starts to smell. Many people these days can see it happening right in front of them and not notice. Our leaders, if you haven't figured this one out, respond to large corporate lobbyists...that's who they really represent in both Canada and the US. We as the people are just in the way of someone else's big plan for the world- hence they give us Hockey night in Canada and America's next top model. If you've noticed TV is declining in intellectual content by the second....Nobody wants a well informed mass of people able to think about things critically.
 The world would be a better place, for the corporations, if there was a North American Union. Think about it from their point of view. Cheaper labor, less trading laws getting in the way and basically more control over the masses. They call it globalization but that's just the euphamism for domination over people by a Corporate elite. Don't think it's happening? Look at wallmart taking over all the mom and pop operations in almost every category. What is Wallmart? Chinese labor. While the Government's (ie. Corporate puppets) would have you believe that "Globalization" is good for you, it doesn't take the most intelligent one of us to realize that in fact it is not good for us and that in fact we will lose jobs, have lower minimum wages and more environmental problems. Some people take this corporate control to extremes that I will not get into for fear of losing what attention you've given my arguments, but suffice it to say things could be much worse than just less jobs. So if agreements like this are not good for us, who are they good for?

 Someone earlier mentioned Ron Paul as somewhat of a kook....? Nothing could be further from the truth. I dare you to look him up on youtube and listen to him speak. He's the only one running for President in the US worthy of even a second glance. But he's not just worthy he's ideal. He's got military experience, as a former Vietnam flight surgeon, he's a Dr. having delivered 4000 babies and also he's never voted , even once, for any kind of pork spending or to raise taxes. he's the only one that voted against the Iraq war from the outset and unlike Obama, he even prophetically predicted the mess that such a war would bring about both in the Middle East and domestically.....no one listened of course. They probably still call him a kook although he's never wrong and never quits fighting for the truth. The media there has completely ignored him, even during the debates...it's sad really. All you have to do is watch the censorship of Paul to see who owns them. Due to the MSM in the US the people there are missing their best and maybe last, chance for a real leader. Americans aren't dumb as many in Canada like to portray them, they're just misinformed by a hostile media controlled by big corporations. 

Anyways...rambling.... check out ron paul speaking before the iraq war and tell me he's a kook....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY

also...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Mar 2008)

Put a cork in it Arcade, you're wasting enough bandwidth as it is.


----------



## ArcadeFire (3 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Put a cork in it Arcade, you're wasting enough bandwidth as it is.



...and yet your tagline is so openminded 

"This War, right or wrong, well thats your opinion, but always support the troops!"

I support the troops.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Mar 2008)

I might be openminded, did my time in Shyteland, but I have no time for onesided biased trolls.

I have earned my right to an opinion on a war which many decide from their armcharis, and listen to the one sided media reports.

Ya, and you can discuss that with your like minded friends over a warm stale beer and a bong or two.


----------



## helpup (3 Mar 2008)

Wow Arcade what can I say you just bowled me over with your diatribe.  It was everything that I expected and so much more.  

Thanks for supporting the troops Arcade.  Just know they are doing their job for you


----------



## helpup (3 Mar 2008)

And Arcade I did ask a couple of specific questions that you havnt answered.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Mar 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> And Arcade I did ask a couple of specific questions that you havnt answered.



Thats the sure giveaway that you have a troll on your hands. Look around the site for all the s**tdisturbers we have had and see what they all have in common.


----------



## helpup (3 Mar 2008)

Thanks Aviator,  caught that about him with out looking for his previous posts outside of this forum.  Too bad though sometimes I get suprised by fact based arguements that some can come up with.  Ahh well enough fishing with him


----------



## TCBF (3 Mar 2008)

I do, however, respect Arcade's admiration for Ron Paul.  Usually, on this site, we get bombarded by trolls who are slightly to the left of Karl Marx.  A change is better than a rest, I say.


----------



## Red 6 (3 Mar 2008)

I just discovered this thread and want to weigh in as a American. There's a lot of ground that's been covered here, so I'll focus on a few core areas.

Ron Paul: This guy is a wack job. His opinions about foreign affairs, economics, the role of the Federal government (pretty much everything else, too) couldn't be more off base. None of the serious candidates even come close to his radical views. Not only doesn't he have a real constituency here in the US, but he hasn't gotten any air time either. Only a very small segment of the population seems to embrace him, and I honestly think they don't know his true views. I see a handful of his supporters standing now and then on the main street bridge here in Eugene holding election signs. (you know: "Honk if you support Ron Paul") Those folks always look, to me anyway, as slightly lonely and deluded. 

The supposed "North American confederation": Who dreams this stuff up? We have three different sovereign countries here. There are plenty of trade agreements all over the world where nations work together for the betterment of all. There's no mystery or secret agenda to it. In regards to the illegal alien problems in the United States, it's not about illegal aliens doing work that Americans won't do. The question should really be: Why won't business pay a wage that Americans will work for? 

Cheers, Mark


----------



## helpup (3 Mar 2008)

Red 6 I would apologise about this guys belief if I thought they held any water.  Nah strike that I wouldn't apologise at all as a nut is a nut no mater what its shell is made from.  Besides no one country holds the Monopoly on "fringe belief" folks, best thing to do is grab some popcorn and be entertained by them until they become annoying then just ignore.  

Thanks for an American input we might see you up here when you come to help, ( using that devious super Continental highway but want to stay to grab our stuff )


----------



## ArcadeFire (3 Mar 2008)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> I just discovered this thread and want to weigh in as a American. There's a lot of ground that's been covered here, so I'll focus on a few core areas.
> 
> Ron Paul: This guy is a wack job. His opinions about foreign affairs, economics, the role of the Federal government (pretty much everything else, too) couldn't be more off base. None of the serious candidates even come close to his radical views. Not only doesn't he have a real constituency here in the US, but he hasn't gotten any air time either. Only a very small segment of the population seems to embrace him, and I honestly think they don't know his true views. I see a handful of his supporters standing now and then on the main street bridge here in Eugene holding election signs. (you know: "Honk if you support Ron Paul") Those folks always look, to me anyway, as slightly lonely and deluded.
> 
> ...



Where to begin...

Ron Paul a whack job? You're argument for him being a whack job includes all the reasons he is not and some of the reasons why American's are going to get "fooled again" by the electoral process and socialist controlling media there. Firstly, you say he is radical. Radical? Everyone in the US, and every political candidate says they represent "change". Well what is change if it's not radical? In any case the funny thing is that he's not radical at all. He wants to return to a sound monetary system- that's all. Every position that he maintains comes directly from this document known as the "Constitution of the United States of America" ...something I believe you're sworn to upohold- if you're in the Military. He is even the self-styled "defender of the constitution" and thus, he recieves more donations from the Military there than any other candidate as a proportion of his total. He's raised millions of dollars, not from corporations, as the others do, but from everyday people; enough money for him to remain in the race long after those other numbwits have left. He knows he's not going to win but he fights anyway. You can't respect that? The "serious" candidates as you label them are those presented to you by your media as "serious". I find it funny that you say as a negative implication that Paul hasn't received any air time. I lol'd at that. If you were a thinking person you would come to your own conclusions and not be led by what CNN and Fox tells you are your choices. You're right, only a small segment of the population supports him; although that small segment is highly vocal, growing and not planning on stopping with the elections in November. It is always a highly vocal few that brings about real change- this is due to the mass of sheep that find it easier to live a contented life going with the flow. You will always find that the "herd" are the ones taking us all of the cliff...

Your final question. "Why don't businesses pay a wage that Americans will work for?" Because they own Obama, and Hillary, and McCain and Bush and the Media and they have no need to pay more, since those handpicked politicians do all their dirty work for them. They introduce hairbrained ideas like "amnesty" for illegal immigrants (when did the illegal part lose its authority?) and free trade with China, ensuring that American workers are always undercut. A real government representative of the people would do everything in its power to prevent the integration of illegal immigrants into society in order to maintain the quality of life for Americans (and Canadians by default). Unfortunately there is no such thing as real reprasentative government anywhere in the world today. Money corrupts those that want it and for those with money, power is just as strong an addiction. Ron Paul, somehow, has remained uncorruptible for 30 years as a Texas congressman. I can't think of another person like him, let alone someone running for President. For many there he is the real Commander in Chief regardless of who is elected in November. I have a different idea of a whack job than you do. For me a whack job is someone that mindlessly obeys orders and never questions their most firmly held positions even in the light of evidence...

here's some evidence for you. Look at this money webb. It shows from where all the candidates for President in the US get their donations and how much they receive. Basically the chart shows who "owns" each contender. Note that McCain, Obama and Hillary are all sponsored by THE SAME BANKS. It's like aliens versus predator- whoever wins, we lose. So who has the real power in the US? Hint: not the individual. Also note that Ron Paul recieves most donations from active Army, Navy and Airforce. Think about it.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/moneyweb.asp


----------



## ArcadeFire (3 Mar 2008)

"His opinions about foreign affairs, economics, the role of the Federal government (pretty much everything else, too) couldn't be more off base. None of the serious candidates even come close to his radical views"

Oh I forgot to ask about that one too. Please elaborate on how Ron Paul is off base....

Which one of these arguments do you think is off base? If you're a conservative this will be tough for you.

- lower taxes
- no more wellfare
- a strong national defense
- right to life (you can't protect liberty without protecting life, and he's a Dr. he knows)
- sound money
- abolish the illegal federal reserve and income tax
- return to the gold standard for US currency
- no pre-emptive wars
- President MUST seek congressional approval for wars
- defend Habeus Corpus which is under attack

*end motorcycle helment laws...a personal favorite.

Paul would rather have too much freedom than deal with the consequences of too little...a someone once said. 

Makes sense to me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> How creative and original! You must have been a bright one in school.



Well, seeing as you want to take this to a personal level. I could be a burnt out light bulb and still be brighter than you.

Your exhibiting all the classic troll traits, as has been mentioned previously. I'm envisioning that you may not be here much longer, unless you do a radical turnaround. Perhaps you can start by answering the questions posed to you. Most feel they've already wasted enough time humouring you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire,

This thread isn't about Ron Paul. Put it back on track and answer the questions.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> "*end motorcycle helment laws...a personal favorite.
> 
> Makes sense to me.



  What a load of crap that statement is.

Helmets save lives PERIOD! 

 :


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Mar 2008)

Wes,

Maybe it explains a lot.


----------



## TCBF (3 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> What a load of crap that statement is.
> 
> Helmets save lives PERIOD!
> 
> :



- I see this as a form of social darwinism.  Maybe, we just spend too much time and effort trying to save people from themselves.


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - I see this as a form of social darwinism.  Maybe, we just spend too much time and effort trying to save people from themselves.



Yep.  It's no longer survival of the fittest but survival of the smartest.  Of course, I'm all for anything that takes stupidity out of the gene pool.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (3 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Where to begin...
> 
> 
> Your final question. "Why don't businesses pay a wage that Americans will work for?" Because they own Obama, and Hillary, and McCain and Bush and the Media and they have no need to pay more, since those handpicked politicians do all their dirty work for them. They introduce hairbrained ideas like "amnesty" for illegal immigrants (when did the illegal part lose its authority?) and free trade with China, ensuring that American workers are always undercut. A real government representative of the people would do everything in its power to prevent the integration of illegal immigrants into society in order to maintain the quality of life for Americans (and Canadians by default). Unfortunately there is no such thing as real reprasentative government anywhere in the world today. Money corrupts those that want it and for those with money, power is just as strong an addiction. Ron Paul, somehow, has remained uncorruptible for 30 years as a Texas congressman. I can't think of another person like him, let alone someone running for President. For many there he is the real Commander in Chief regardless of who is elected in November. I have a different idea of a whack job than you do. For me a whack job is someone that mindlessly obeys orders and never questions their most firmly held positions even in the light of evidence...
> ...



I'll turn your question around.  Why won't people work for a wage that business can pay for?  Consumers will not pay higher prices to subsidize others when they can pay less for the same product.  Capital and people are mobile, athough of course there are barriers.  For me, the greatest error of Marx was that he believed that labour had an intrinsic value.  Labour is as valuable as the people not providing the labour are prepared to pay for it.  

I'm not a fan of party politics, but it is better than the alternative.  Banks and big corporations pay to the major players on both sides to hedge their bets.  While it seems two-faced it also helps balance things out. 

I'm not sure how somebody can be "the real commander in chief" in the US system who is not in a legal position to be that.  Anybody in uniform that believes otherwise had better read some of their fundamental documents.  

p.s. 

Still, I like when people use science fiction movies to argue their points and we should try to do more of that.  That being said, I recognize no Alien movies past "Aliens" and Predator without Arnie seemed empty somehow.


----------



## TCBF (3 Mar 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> ..." and Predator without Arnie seemed empty somehow.



- Concur.


----------



## ArcadeFire (3 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ArcadeFire,
> 
> This thread isn't about Ron Paul. Put it back on track and answer the questions.



I thought this was a discussion...I didn't realize it was an inquisition...

I swear I'm not a heretic!


----------



## aesop081 (3 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> I thought this was a discussion...



It is and people have asked you questions, why dont you try answering them ?


----------



## ArcadeFire (3 Mar 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yep.  It's no longer survival of the fittest but survival of the smartest.  Of course, I'm all for anything that takes stupidity out of the gene pool.



Yes, and Ron Paul wants to do just that. If you feel the need to smoke, go ahead...if you wanna ride without a helmet-it's your risk- same goes for drugs....you do them you pay the price. I don't see where there's a problem with this? It's called individual freedom. We don't have much of that in Canada, since our Governmental "Mother" looks out for us and says that riding a motorcycles without a helmet is dangerous. Of course they still send you guys to Afghanistan and that's dangerous too.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> If you feel the need to smoke, go ahead...if you wanna ride without a helmet-it's your risk- same goes for drugs....you do them you pay the price. I don't see where there's a problem with this?



It becomes my problem when my tax dollars have to be spent repairing some moron's head who was too stupid to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. It becomes my problem when i get affected by second-hand smoke. It becomes my problem when the local ER is clogged because of people who are too stupid to protect themselves and it takes 10 hours for me to get seen by a doctor.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> I thought this was a discussion...I didn't realize it was an inquisition...
> 
> I swear I'm not a heretic!



You're on the ramp bub. Keep being a smart ass, you'll be doing it somewhere else.

The thread was discussing, and I use the term loosely, the Can/US agreement. You refused to answer questions proving your POV and obsfucating by changing the subject and derailing the conversation when it got hot. We're not going to allow you to run hither and nigh, with no sense of direction, spewing your propoganda without proof. Get back and answer the questions you were asked pages ago that you have conveniently ignored.


----------



## ArcadeFire (3 Mar 2008)

" But please show me the last time the US went to war with another Democracy to further their goals.  ( and no I don't think CIA, big business involvement counts ) I want to hear about the boots on the ground.  And could you also please tie that in to the Agreement that started this whole topic.  really this naive service member wants to know"

LOL. How can you separate information warfare with "boots on the  ground" ? War is war whether conducted covertly or overtly. 

Here are some lists for you....starting with Democracies the US directly subverted.....

- Syria Hosni Al-Zaim coup sponsored by the US in 1949 
- The shah of Iran's coup in 1953
- Supporting the Bathists in Iraq in 1963

And how about the other side of the coin? Is it not the same thing morally to support a Dictator as to overthrow a Democracy?That one would be a big list.....shall we begin...

- China and Chinese torture
- Pakistan Musharraf
- Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s 
- Egypt Sadat Mubarak 1978-today 
- Iraq Saddam Hussein 
- Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979 
- Paraguay Stroessner. US supported throughout 
- Bolivia Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970-   
- Saudi Arabia Saud family  
- Kuwait a monarchy  
- Morocco   
- Tunisia   
- Algeria   
- Jordan   
- Panama Noriega was US-supported for years  before they grew tired of him  
- Nepal monarchy since 1948 
- Cuba Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro 
- Brazil Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support  1965-67 

They must have been "bad democracies". The fact is the US does what the US wants to increase its power regardless of whether it's dealing with a Democracy or not. If it's a democracy, then they do so covertly without boots on the ground since that would be too obviously hypocritical. People need to stop being so Naive about the nature of the US Foreign policy.


----------



## ArcadeFire (3 Mar 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It becomes my problem when my tax dollars have to be spent repairing some moron's head who was too stupid to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. It becomes my problem when i get affected by second-hand smoke. It becomes my problem when the local ER is clogged because of people who are too stupid to protect themselves and it takes 10 hours for me to get seen by a doctor.



It is not your problem if:

1) people smoke outside (should we ban cars because some carbon monoxide might mingle with your sweet air?)
2) people who crash on motorcycles without helmets foot their own bills...

These are two of the fundamental aspects of individual freedom. There is no longer any socialized healthcare and you have to keep yourself healthy instead. With freedom comes responsability. Right now we're all about avoiding personal responsibility in Canada.


----------



## ArcadeFire (3 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're on the ramp bub. Keep being a smart ***, you'll be doing it somewhere else.
> 
> The thread was discussing, and I use the term loosely, the Can/US agreement. You refused to answer questions proving your POV and obsfucating by changing the subject and derailing the conversation when it got hot. We're not going to allow you to run hither and nigh, with no sense of direction, spewing your propoganda without proof. Get back and answer the questions you were asked pages ago that you have conveniently ignored.



Oh boo hoo. How scared I am that I might be kicked off an intenet "chat" room for discussing topical issues. I have answered every question directed at me- where have you been? 

Now answer mine. 

What have you contributed to this conversation? I can even answer that for you if you'd like since I doubt that you're much of a conversationalist. Are you ready?. ..... NOTHING.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2008)

Well!  I think you are on the wrong forum then.  Perhaps you should have tried this one instead of coming here.


----------



## ArcadeFire (3 Mar 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well!  I think you are on the wrong forum then.  Perhaps you should have tried this one instead of coming here.



I highlight this in your tagline referring to comments that you make....

"Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, A RIGHT I ENJOY ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER CANADIAN CITIZEN"

So every other Canadian has no freedom of speech on Mil.net. Hypocracy much?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Oh boo hoo. How scared I am that I might be kicked off an intenet "chat" room for discussing topical issues. I have answered every question directed at me- where have you been?
> 
> Now answer mine.
> 
> What have you contributed to this conversation? I can even answer that for you if you'd like since I doubt that you're much of a conversationalist. Are you ready?. ..... NOTHING.



I don't have to contribute. My job is to moderate and keep the red headed, short bus window lickers away from the sane people that spend time here. You're no different than a lot of the 'radical' thinkers : we get here. Before you continue you're little tirade, I suggest yo go read the forum guidelines. No more freebies.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Yes, and Ron Paul wants to do just that. If you feel the need to smoke, go ahead...if you wanna ride without a helmet-it's your risk- same goes for drugs....you do them you pay the price. I don't see where there's a problem with this? It's called individual freedom. We don't have much of that in Canada, since our Governmental "Mother" looks out for us and says that riding a motorcycles without a helmet is dangerous. Of course they still send you guys to Afghanistan and that's dangerous too.



You're way out of line posting CRAP like this.

I beleive you are doing this for shock value to get a reaction.

Now you seem to be promoting drug use, and claiming driving a m'bike without a helmet is NOT dangerous. There is something called common sense, and you seem to be lacking it.

A good argument is based on being realistic, backing up facts with references, having some manners and respect. When a troll mentailty comes into it, thats the end of story.

Mods, time for the ramp for this wanker!

Wes


----------



## ArcadeFire (4 Mar 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> You're way out of line posting CRAP like this.
> 
> I beleive you are doing this for shock value to get a reaction.
> 
> ...



Honestly...how are any of those statements radical? People smoke everyday...I believe there are still states in the US where you don't need a helmet to ride. If it was up to me,  I would only wear a helmet for long rides or city riding and that would be my own risk. People go skydiving, are they radicals too? Don't they have an airborne unit? Taking risks should be up to the individual not the Government Nanny state. Do you think the Governemnt should be invading every aspect of our lives? I don't.


----------



## ArcadeFire (4 Mar 2008)

> A good argument is based on being realistic, backing up facts with references, having some manners and respect. When a troll mentailty comes into it, thats the end of story.



I have given facts and links to websites for people do do their own research to see if my claims are true. If you'd like to discuss those then maybe READ THEM. As for manners I will treat people as they treat me and if you call me a wanker I'll call you one too.


----------



## Yrys (4 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> for people do do their own research to see if my claims are true



It's *not what's has been asking of you*. Your refusal to conform to demand will have you banned from this website
one day.  A web site that you seem to like enough to pass a lot of time on...

As from your links in this thread, they aren't going to prouve anything FOR you. YOU have to prouve it with more valids one...

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d&k=14984
http://www.gov.mb.ca/throne.html
http://www.destinationwinnipeg.ca/98
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/moneyweb.asp

Édith : I took the links out of quotations marks, they are more visible that way...


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Yes, and Ron Paul wants to do just that. If you feel the need to smoke, go ahead...if you wanna ride without a helmet-it's your risk- same goes for drugs....you do them you pay the price. I don't see where there's a problem with this? It's called individual freedom.



But as an Ob/Gyn he's a pro-lifer?  What about pro-choice?  Isn't that individual "freedom" too?



			
				ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Of course they still send you guys to Afghanistan and that's dangerous too.



So is breathing...... :


----------



## helpup (4 Mar 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> Arcade now where in my post did I mention anything about "foreign power has the interest of Canadians".  I was just making some observations that people are taking this agreement and blowing it out of proportion.  We already have numerous deals with the US and other countries for security, trade, information sharing, power sharing, and so on.  If what I am saying comes across as a generalization it is my attempt at letting people understand it in the simplest terms.
> 
> As for other countries eyeing what we have in Canada and wanting it.  Sure I have no doubt there is.  Are we loosing things to these "foreign powers", I have no doubt that we are loosing more then we are gaining in some aspects.  It is called a Global Market for a reason.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> same goes for drugs....you do them you pay the price.



Wow, you just proved that you do not have a clue about the real world.................I don't know who you are, or what you do, but if you think the above statement is even remotely true then you must still be in Mommy's basement.

I know I thought like that while I was......


----------



## helpup (4 Mar 2008)

Well this thread has been a tad off topic and no Arcade you didn't answer any of my questions.  I will forget the rest but bring back the big one that was asked in response to your thoughts on the original topic.

Question:  "But please show me the last time the US went to war with another Democracy to further their goals.  ( and no I don't think CIA, big business involvement counts ) I want to hear about the boots on the ground.  And could you also please tie that in to the Agreement that started this whole topic?"


----------



## George Wallace (4 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> Honestly...how are any of those statements radical? People smoke everyday...I believe there are still states in the US where you don't need a helmet to ride. If it was up to me,  I would only wear a helmet for long rides or city riding and that would be my own risk. People go skydiving, are they radicals too? Don't they have an airborne unit? Taking risks should be up to the individual not the Government Nanny state. Do you think the Governemnt should be invading every aspect of our lives? I don't.



I think you need to give this a little more thought.  The Government, which you and I elect to run this country in our best interests, are being frugally responsible financial planners.  Unless your examples are all fatalities, these people put a strain on our Health Care System.  A Health Care System that is a financial strain on all us Taxpayers.  

If you think the Government plans to stop smoking and heavily tax cigarettes is an infringement on your freedoms, then ask yourself how many dollars we spend on treating Cancer victims of cigarette smoke.  Your freedoms are not infringed upon by "regulation".  Your freedoms are infringed upon by lack of "regulation" and chaos.

Now with this later comment:



			
				ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> I have given facts and links to websites for people do do their own research to see if my claims are true. If you'd like to discuss those then maybe READ THEM. As for manners I will treat people as they treat me and if you call me a wanker I'll call you one too.



Now I am positive that you have been here before, and BANNED.


----------



## ArcadeFire (4 Mar 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> Well this thread has been a tad off topic and no Arcade you didn't answer any of my questions.  I will forget the rest but bring back the big one that was asked in response to your thoughts on the original topic.
> 
> Question:  "But please show me the last time the US went to war with another Democracy to further their goals.  ( and no I don't think CIA, big business involvement counts ) I want to hear about the boots on the ground.  And could you also please tie that in to the Agreement that started this whole topic?"



LOL. How can you separate information warfare with "boots on the  ground" ? War is war whether conducted covertly or overtly. 

Here are some lists for you....starting with Democracies the US directly subverted.....

- Syria Hosni Al-Zaim coup sponsored by the US in 1949 
- The shah of Iran's coup in 1953
- Supporting the Bathists in Iraq in 1963

And how about the other side of the coin? Is it not the same thing morally to support a Dictator as to overthrow a Democracy?That one would be a big list.....shall we begin...

- China and Chinese torture
- Pakistan Musharraf
- Ayatollah Khomeini was on the CIA payroll in the 1970s 
- Egypt Sadat Mubarak 1978-today 
- Iraq Saddam Hussein 
- Nicaragua Anastasio Somoza & sons 1937-1979 
- Paraguay Stroessner. US supported throughout 
- Bolivia Col. Hugo Banzer overthrew elected leftist president Juan Jose Torres 1970-   
- Saudi Arabia Saud family  
- Kuwait a monarchy  
- Morocco   
- Tunisia   
- Algeria   
- Jordan   
- Panama Noriega was US-supported for years  before they grew tired of him  
- Nepal monarchy since 1948 
- Cuba Fulgencio Batista pre-Castro 
- Brazil Gen. Branco overthrew elected president Goulart with US support  1965-67 

They must have been "bad democracies". The fact is the US does what the US wants to increase its power regardless of whether it's dealing with a Democracy or not. If it's a democracy, then they do so covertly without boots on the ground since that would be too obviously hypocritical. People need to stop being so Naive about the nature of the US Foreign policy.


----------



## ArcadeFire (4 Mar 2008)

> If you think the Government plans to stop smoking and heavily tax cigarettes is an infringement on your freedoms, then ask yourself how many dollars we spend on treating Cancer victims of cigarette smoke.  Your freedoms are not infringed upon by "regulation".  Your freedoms are infringed upon by lack of "regulation" and chaos.



Yes it is an infringement on my freedoms. Taxation does nothing to stop smoking it only gives the Government more of my money to waste. See I'm a conservative and believe that more money to the Government leaves less for me to use wisely. The idea of higher taxes on cirgarettes is a joke like fuel tax and most other taxation. And how can you say that someone's freedoms are never infringed upon by legislation? Are you serious? What if they introduce something like they have in the US where I can be arrested on pure speculation and sent to a random site for "waterboarding" without habeus corpus? Oh yeah, harmless legislation....


----------



## helpup (4 Mar 2008)

ArcadeFire said:
			
		

> LOL. How can you separate information warfare with "boots on the ground" ? War is war whether conducted covertly or overtly.
> 
> Here are some lists for you....starting with Democracies the US directly subverted.....
> 
> ...



You CAN separate war from the actions you are talking about.  No strike that other people can you obviously cant.  Nor can you keep this on track.  The original question or thread direction had to deal with the problems about the treaty allowing both countries to have soldiers in a emergency to go and assist.  Your assertion if I followed it correctly was it would be scary to do as what if the US, invented a problem to come into Canada and did not want to leave.  This of course is to facilitate their take over of some Canadian resource through a military means.  Since that was the scenario this thread is suppose to follow I asked.  "But please show me the last time the US went to war with another Democracy to further their goals.  ( and no I don't think CIA, big business involvement counts ) I want to hear about the boots on the ground.  And could you also please tie that in to the Agreement that started this whole topic?"   Now of course even clarifying my question to leave out the " subversion " by America of other " Democracies" You predictably chose not to and listed the above. 

- Syria Hosni Al-Zaim coup sponsored by the US in 1949   
- The shah of Iran's coup in 1953
- Supporting the Bathists in Iraq in 1963

According to you these are Democracies???????
Nice to see the world you live in.


----------



## ArcadeFire (4 Mar 2008)

> - The shah of Iran's coup in 1953
> - Supporting the Bathists in Iraq in 1963
> 
> According to you these are Democracies???????
> Nice to see the world you live in.



Are you paying attention? 

These coups were sponsored by the US AGAINST democracies. Obviously the regime's that took over are not democratic- that's my point. 

Okay back to the topic now. You are taking a leap to say from my argument that the US is going to outright "attack" Canada- I never stated this you got that from your own head. Therefore your next question about boots on the ground and overthrowing democracies has nothing to do with my argument. I disagree with your statement that there is any difference between an open war with boots on the ground and one without. Please explain to me the difference since the goals are the same. What's the fuggin' difference? If I use US soldiers or Iranian revolutionaries what's the difference if I'm overthrowing a Democratic regime? There is no difference! I would really love to hear you argue your point here because I just don't see it. My idea was that the US could use this agreement to pre-emptively help us by "protecting" our (their) vital oil/water/mineral interests here with the use of some conjured up terrorist threat or false flag event. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Never happened; no shots fired and there you have it! Vietnam! Our lackluster US bum licking politicians would jump at the chance to have US troops on our soil in the event of any emergency or nominal threat. We already let them go unchallenged in the Artic through "our" northern backdoor and release our untold wealth to them via large multinational resource companies. They know they could have our resources anytime they want- our politicians know this; everyone knows this. Right now there is really no need for them to cause trouble because we sell them what they want and half the companies are US based anyway. But imagine we start selling more to China, or nationalize our Oil and resource companies for security reasons (something we really should do) or sell more elsewhere once oil is a bit tighter in supply and demand? The moment US politicians sense the flow going somewhere else you better believe that they'll come up with something. They have this new pre-emptive strike doctrine I'm sure you've heard of. Well it's not about who is a threat to them from a military or terrorist standpoint; but who threatens their resources. If you believe it's about liberation I have nice cabin on lake salt flats for you. 

This is all just an intellectual exercise of course. I don't know if it will happen- but it could. I expect people who are thinking about our security would also be thinking about alterior motives when signing  treaties with large, powerful and proven resource grabbing neighbors. My conclusion was that this agreement is just another step paving the way for the corporate elite of North America to envelop Mexico the US and Canada under a North American Union type affair like the European one to exploit, exploit, exploit. People as a resource and resources themselves; it's just one big game of exploitation for the benefit of a few. 

In a couple years from now we will know more as the plan is still unfolding but I reserve the right to come back and say "I told you so" should a North American Union become a topic of public discussion. Or, if you'd like, you can just make a mental note now that this guy Arcade Fire was talking about a North American Union years ago..and save me the trouble.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Mar 2008)

Now Anti US rhetoric. 

You are so predictable.

Good Gawd!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2008)

"Spinning wheel gotta go round" (apologies to BS&T). So here we are right back to the US bashing. That's what I've been waiting for.

After running the gambit of topic(s) so far off the thread topic, and back to the same. There's nothing else to add here. The potential was gone somewhere around page two. No more bandwith to this one.

Locked.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------

