[OT] North American Union

Victor Martinez wrote:

Pat wrote:

No Victor unfortunately it's real. Check these sites for more info:


The document signed might be real, but that doesn't mean it's
enforceable. One of the provisions says that the US and Canada would
secure Mexico's southern border. Not gonna happen. Mexican law prohibits
foreigners from carrying guns in Mexico and it forbids foreign military
from operating in our country.

Well, the CIA isn't exactly "military" (although it has
managed to engage in numerous - usually ill-fated - military
operations, abroad). Who knows how many "covert" operations
it carries on within our own borders? Do you really TRUST
our government, anymore? (I'm not sure *I* do!)

Victor Martinez wrote:

Pat wrote:

This thing will probably override some Mexican laws, as well as make
some of the U.S. & Canadian laws obsolete. I think the direction is
toward a world


Well, no treaty can violate our Constitution.

You're assuming we have a government that ENFORCES it! (The
current administration certainly does not show much
inclination to do so - not the portions it finds
inconvenient, anyway.)

Cheryl Perkins wrote:

jmcquown wrote:


I personally don't see what's wrong with uniting the entire northern
continent in a common goal. Korea is testing weapons which are aimed just
off Hawaii and this doesn't sound like a good thing to me. I, for one, am
going to sit back, listen to some music, smoke some pot while it's still
available and drink some wine. Oh, did I mention hug my cat and urge her to
purr? And give my parrot a fresh slice of gala apple We're all going to
die, it's just a matter of when.


Canadians are not unanimous, but many of us do not want to give up our
sovereignty to anyone, not even the US. That includes things like border
control, and explains why free trade agreements have always been so
controversial here.

Those of us who remember our history know that we paid in blood in the
last time we allowed a superpower to control our international
relationships (the UK in WW I), and we aren't going to do that again.

Cooperation, sure, that implies all sides agree. A few treaties and trade
agreements - well, it depends on the terms. Anything more, like a North
American union - forget it.

And (referring to another post) that has nothing to do with world
government or anything like it.

Also, such a "union" would require force to maintain. If
you doubt that, look at the situation in many parts of the
former "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", since the
oppressive government that maintained it collapsed!

On 2006-07-08, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) penned:

You're assuming we have a government that ENFORCES it! (The current
administration certainly does not show much inclination to do so -
not the portions it finds inconvenient, anyway.)

Good news is, at least they'll be out on their ears soon.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Victor Martinez wrote:

Pat wrote:

No Victor unfortunately it's real. Check these sites for more info:


The document signed might be real, but that doesn't mean it's
enforceable. One of the provisions says that the US and Canada would
secure Mexico's southern border. Not gonna happen. Mexican law prohibits
foreigners from carrying guns in Mexico and it forbids foreign military
from operating in our country.

Well, the CIA isn't exactly "military" (although it has managed to engage
in numerous - usually ill-fated - military operations, abroad). Who knows
how many "covert" operations it carries on within our own borders? Do you
really TRUST our government, anymore? (I'm not sure *I* do!)



Just for the record, the only CIA operations you are going to hear about are
the ill-fated ones. So it isn't necessarily true that most of their
operations are ill fated.

Jo

Jo Firey wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message

Well, the CIA isn't exactly "military" (although it has managed to engage
in numerous - usually ill-fated - military operations, abroad).

Just for the record, the only CIA operations you are going to hear about are
the ill-fated ones. So it isn't necessarily true that most of their
operations are ill fated.

I'm not sure, but I think that by "ill-fated", Evelyn didn't exactly
mean "unsuccessful". Take the overthrow of Allende in 1973, for example.
That operation was quite successful, in terms of the CIA accomplishing
its goal. But from the point of view of the average Chilean, it was
certainly ill-fated. Or *they* were, anyway. We didn't hear about that
one until many years later.

Joyce

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 10:40:40 -0600, "Monique Y. Mudama"
wrote:

Signed a petition a few days ago outside a supermarket to put
legalizing pot to the vote. They spelled it "marihuana", which seemed
like a bad sign to me, but google seems to imply that it's a legit
alternate spelling.

It's in the dictionary.

Jo Firey wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message
...


Well, the CIA isn't exactly "military" (although it has managed to engage
in numerous - usually ill-fated - military operations, abroad). Who knows
how many "covert" operations it carries on within our own borders? Do you
really TRUST our government, anymore? (I'm not sure *I* do!)


Just for the record, the only CIA operations you are going to hear about are
the ill-fated ones. So it isn't necessarily true that most of their
operations are ill fated.

Why do I not find that reassuring?

wrote:

Jo Firey wrote:

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote in message

Well, the CIA isn't exactly "military" (although it has managed to engage
in numerous - usually ill-fated - military operations, abroad).

Just for the record, the only CIA operations you are going to hear about are
the ill-fated ones. So it isn't necessarily true that most of their
operations are ill fated.

I'm not sure, but I think that by "ill-fated", Evelyn didn't exactly
mean "unsuccessful". Take the overthrow of Allende in 1973, for example.
That operation was quite successful, in terms of the CIA accomplishing
its goal. But from the point of view of the average Chilean, it was
certainly ill-fated. Or *they* were, anyway. We didn't hear about that
one until many years later.

Yes, I meant more "ill-considered" than "unsuccessful" -
remember who supported Castro against the established Cuban
government, way back when? (And Saddam in Iraq, once upon a
time?) It might have been better for both our country and
the world, if some of the CIA's operations had been LESS
successful!

"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" wrote:

Yes, I meant more "ill-considered" than "unsuccessful" -
remember who supported Castro against the established Cuban
government, way back when?

Learn something new every day. The CIA supported Castro?? I thought
the USA had lots of interests in the old Havana, so why would we support
its overthrow?

Joyce