In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Bush Invites Canuk Army To Patrol Us Streets
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Bush Invites Canuk Army To Patrol Us Streets
By Daniel Leblanc
~Foreward~
Originally Published As: Canada, U.S. Near Troop Deal
OTTAWA - Washington and Ottawa are close to a deal allowing U.S. soldiers to cross the border and operate on Canadian soil in the event of a terrorist attack.
The proposal, revealed by Defense Minister John McCallum yesterday, would likewise let Canadian troops take part in anti-terror operations south of the border.
The plan, which is in the final stages of negotiation, would for the first time allow U.S. and Canadians ground troops to serve under the other forces' command in North America - but only under strict guidelines on a case-by-case basis.
There has been widespread speculation over the possible integration of some Canadian troops under U.S. command to protect the North American perimeter. But this plan, Mr. McCallum said, contains essential elements to protect Canada's sovereignty.
"What we are proposing is a planning group that would set up protocols whereby we could have, conceivably, U.S. troops moving across the border or Canadian troops moving across their border, but only on a case-by-case basis with the approval of each government," he said.
"In no way does this reduce Canadian sovereignty, because this is a planning group that will have no control over troops."
Mr. McCallum said any deal is likely to build on current collaboration between the Canadian and U.S. air forces, and will include land and sea troops.
Since Sept. 11, the issue has prompted a heated debate over sovereignty.
The Americans responded to the terrorist attacks by creating Northcom, a body overseeing the U.S. military response to security threats against North America. At one point, the U.S. ambassador to Ottawa encouraged Canadians to join Northcom to gain "a louder voice in the defense of North America."
However, Mr. McCallum said yesterday that joining Northcom would be impossible because the structure involves only the deployment of American troops.
"Our bottom line is that we are a sovereign nation, and we are going to stay a sovereign nation. We don't want to integrate, we don't want our soldiers to be under [permanent] command of the Americans."
Mr. McCallum said the Canadian government instead favors the creation of a planning group that would co-ordinate efforts to prevent terrorism in North America, and react in the event of a strike.
The planning group will look at scenarios such as a bacterial attack or the use of a ship to bring explosives into places like Montreal and Vancouver, and determine the appropriate Canadian and American responses.
Mr. McCallum said it is the Canadian government's responsibility to save lives, and that he had no problems persuading the federal cabinet to agree to the negotiations. He said that once a final agreement is reached, it will be returned to cabinet for approval.
"I don't know what the odds of such a [terrorist] attack are, but I know it's greater than zero. So if we do have [the planning group] and something happens, we will save lives. If we didn't do it and something happened, can you imagine the anger of Canadian citizens?"
An agreement might take the form of an amendment to NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command), involving 50 to 100 people working at the air force base in Colorado.
"It would be lodged in NORAD, but it would not be the same as the aerospace agreement, in the sense that it would not have troops under its command," Mr. McCallum said yesterday.
He has adopted a more nationalistic stand than his predecessor, Art Eggleton, in his relationship with the Americans.
He has clearly opposed Canadian involvement in possible U.S. attacks against Iraq. However, he said that should not have an impact on future co-operation with U.S. forces.
"If we disagree with the U.S. over, for example, softwood lumber or Iraq, just to take two examples, that does not mean that either side does not want to plan together- The fact that we disagree on point X doesn't deter us from agreeing on point Y when it's for the good of both," Mr. McCallum said.
The federal government is in the middle of consultations with industry groups to update its defense policy. Mr. McCallum admitted that he would need more money to achieve his goals as Defense Minister.
"I, too, think we need more resources, but I have no guarantee that I will get more resources. I will make a case to cabinet for more resources quite soon, and we'll see what happens in the budget."
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3801
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Daniel Leblanc
~Foreward~
Originally Published As: Canada, U.S. Near Troop Deal
OTTAWA - Washington and Ottawa are close to a deal allowing U.S. soldiers to cross the border and operate on Canadian soil in the event of a terrorist attack.
The proposal, revealed by Defense Minister John McCallum yesterday, would likewise let Canadian troops take part in anti-terror operations south of the border.
The plan, which is in the final stages of negotiation, would for the first time allow U.S. and Canadians ground troops to serve under the other forces' command in North America - but only under strict guidelines on a case-by-case basis.
There has been widespread speculation over the possible integration of some Canadian troops under U.S. command to protect the North American perimeter. But this plan, Mr. McCallum said, contains essential elements to protect Canada's sovereignty.
"What we are proposing is a planning group that would set up protocols whereby we could have, conceivably, U.S. troops moving across the border or Canadian troops moving across their border, but only on a case-by-case basis with the approval of each government," he said.
"In no way does this reduce Canadian sovereignty, because this is a planning group that will have no control over troops."
Mr. McCallum said any deal is likely to build on current collaboration between the Canadian and U.S. air forces, and will include land and sea troops.
Since Sept. 11, the issue has prompted a heated debate over sovereignty.
The Americans responded to the terrorist attacks by creating Northcom, a body overseeing the U.S. military response to security threats against North America. At one point, the U.S. ambassador to Ottawa encouraged Canadians to join Northcom to gain "a louder voice in the defense of North America."
However, Mr. McCallum said yesterday that joining Northcom would be impossible because the structure involves only the deployment of American troops.
"Our bottom line is that we are a sovereign nation, and we are going to stay a sovereign nation. We don't want to integrate, we don't want our soldiers to be under [permanent] command of the Americans."
Mr. McCallum said the Canadian government instead favors the creation of a planning group that would co-ordinate efforts to prevent terrorism in North America, and react in the event of a strike.
The planning group will look at scenarios such as a bacterial attack or the use of a ship to bring explosives into places like Montreal and Vancouver, and determine the appropriate Canadian and American responses.
Mr. McCallum said it is the Canadian government's responsibility to save lives, and that he had no problems persuading the federal cabinet to agree to the negotiations. He said that once a final agreement is reached, it will be returned to cabinet for approval.
"I don't know what the odds of such a [terrorist] attack are, but I know it's greater than zero. So if we do have [the planning group] and something happens, we will save lives. If we didn't do it and something happened, can you imagine the anger of Canadian citizens?"
An agreement might take the form of an amendment to NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command), involving 50 to 100 people working at the air force base in Colorado.
"It would be lodged in NORAD, but it would not be the same as the aerospace agreement, in the sense that it would not have troops under its command," Mr. McCallum said yesterday.
He has adopted a more nationalistic stand than his predecessor, Art Eggleton, in his relationship with the Americans.
He has clearly opposed Canadian involvement in possible U.S. attacks against Iraq. However, he said that should not have an impact on future co-operation with U.S. forces.
"If we disagree with the U.S. over, for example, softwood lumber or Iraq, just to take two examples, that does not mean that either side does not want to plan together- The fact that we disagree on point X doesn't deter us from agreeing on point Y when it's for the good of both," Mr. McCallum said.
The federal government is in the middle of consultations with industry groups to update its defense policy. Mr. McCallum admitted that he would need more money to achieve his goals as Defense Minister.
"I, too, think we need more resources, but I have no guarantee that I will get more resources. I will make a case to cabinet for more resources quite soon, and we'll see what happens in the budget."
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3801
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Call it the south-park conspiracy HEHEHE HARRR HARRR HARRR !
I am just going to vomit ......braggggggggggttttt drip! driP !
JD
400 million cows can't be wrong ( EAT GRASS !!! )
With Canadas liberal immigration policy,god only knows who they have in their army-Al Qaeda maybe?
I always wanted several VC to patrol down my street.
www.waveformwear.com
The new wave in free expression.
In the world of politics, at least the appearance of compromise must be part of a deal, in order that nobody loses face and the politicians can satisfy the people that the U.S. is not trampling all over Canadian sovereignty. So what we have here is an advance deal that makes things tidy in the event of a terrorist attack originating from the north. Of course, the potential for misuse is there, but all this case-by-case basis stuff sounds like they are trying to signal that this won't happen unless we have a 9/11 style attack and have to chase the buggers into Canada. I wouldn't be surprised to find there is a deal with Mexico, although I don't think it will look like this deal.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a364bffc03722.htm
just read and get informed .....
400 million cows can't be wrong ( EAT GRASS !!! )