I'm not the one advocating a revolution with a band of internet dorks, Praxius.
I have heard all your crap too Praxious, yawn.
Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies
- Thread starter givpeaceachance
- Start date
I'm not the one advocating a revolution with a band of internet dorks, Praxius.
I have heard all your crap too Praxious, yawn.
The Army is here to Protect the Canadian People, and do what is best for them....I think especailly with the Leader we have in Gen.Hillier he wold give the government the fingure if he felt he was being told some bull ****. It also depends on what the Revolutions aims are. I may be a Soldier. I am still a Canadian.....as are all other soldiers. Not that this theroy is a real one, but if it were to happen...Soldiers would more than likly see attacking Our people as a Unlawful Order.....I can give a real awnser because I dont know the circumstance of this revalution you talk about. Give me something to play with.
Oooo... notching up the personals are we, Buddy Ol' Pal of Mine with the Moon Shine?
No, you are creating fiction around what I am saying because you don't know how to read.
I didn't claim anywhere that the US could just waltz in here.... use some brain power, learn to read who posted what, and get your sh*t together next time.
Deeerrrrrr..... I already said this, holy hell get some education. How about you stop wasting my time and tell me what they mean by "Civil Emergency" then we can go from there?
See, now you're starting to get what I'm saying about saying things without evidence to back it up.....
I am not the only one here who thinks similarlly and if you don't like it, go suck an egg, cuz I really don't care otherwise. You can be just like the last generation where you're just happy to have some crap ass job somewhere in butt fok nowhere, so long as you can raise your family and food on the tables for them. I will not go through that crap for another generation. People constantly getting married because they got knocked up before marriage, so it's the thing to do, then they get whatever job they can do and work at it for most of their lives, all the while just scraping by..... then the fighting over bills, education, money, clothes, who's doing what with who, then losing trust and love, if there ever was any, and then divorces ramp up across the nation, people look back with their petty retirement packages and wonder wtf they did with their lives and they missed out on all their dreams, all for the sake of doing what everybody else says you should be doing?
Sorry, you can live in your clouded illusion of a perfect life, I will continue to seek better for myself and others who wish the same.
Perhaps it is.
Don't worry, I have plenty to spare. I'd try something more original if you showed a little effort on your part. Until then, why should I waste my time?
Next time, try and not attempt to put words in my mouth or claim I said something in which I didn't and perhaps we won't have this little Kufuffle in the first place.
Do you even remember what thread we're in and what the topic of discussion is? To recap, incase you forgot, Both countries can do the same thing with each other's troops..... exactly how is this just a US problem? Nor was I even referring to the wars in regards to Bush..... they're a part of it, but that's not all of it. Think a little bigger next time.
The case in point about that was the level in which they will lie to the public.... and if you think it was an honest mistake, then I truly feel sorry for you.
I already provided the actual bill in which he signed himself into law which gives him these powers. Of course that all depends on how you interpret how the bill was written. Since it was written pretty vauguely, it can and most likely would be interpreted as such. Don't believe me, I still don't care. If it happens, I told ya so.... if it doesn't.... good, I was wrong. (I'd much rather be wrong)
Pot busts rise after decriminalization bill killed
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070709/pot_arrests_070709/20070709?hub=TopStories
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]".....[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]As a result thousands of people were charged with a criminal offence that just recently was within a whisker of extinction.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Every party in the House of Commons except the Conservatives supported a bill to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, but the Liberal government that sponsored it never brought it to a final vote."[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The bill was opposed by law enforcement you say? The same article claims that many departments just stopped arrested and charging for posession during the whole thing, because they couldn't see why they should clog their jails with people they'd probably have to release if the bill was passed. In fact, many police departments oppose the existing marijuana laws because they waste tax money and their own jobs from more important matters.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Oh And why else was it discontinued before it even started?[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0433-e.htm[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]".....the decriminalization of marijuana could have an indirect effect on foreign programs and initiatives to the extent that Canada’s approach might be viewed unfavourably by another country. The most obvious example is in the context of Canada-U.S. relations, and border control in particular......[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]...... While the decriminalization of marijuana has not been formally addressed by the CBCF, concerns have been expressed by others that Canada’s proposed decriminalization of marijuana would cause congestion at the borders. As a result of perceptions that marijuana would be more easily obtained in Canada, U.S. customs officials might increase their efforts to prevent drug trafficking, thereby creating delays at the border that would affect both personal travel and commercial trade. Whether or not any other aspects of Canada-U.S. relations might be affected by the proposed decriminalization of marijuana remains unclear.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Although Canada would likely not be acting counter to any programs or policies that it has with the United States, the United States may nonetheless view Canada’s proposed drug approach in a manner that compromises the two countries’ foreign relations in an indirect fashion. For example, the media have suggested that the decriminalization of marijuana in Canada would further affect Canada-U.S. diplomatic relations already strained by differing views of the war in Iraq, refugee rules, trade matters and environmental policy......"[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Direct from the government's web site..... Hmmmm..... Did I lie? If memory serves correctly, the above was the Liberal's main reason why they pulled the bill.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]
It does if you don't know what you're talking about. Oh and if you think making little puns with my username is going to bug me in anyways, how about you also try PixiDust or Prickius-Dickius, or Pickle while you're at it.... cuz you know, they're so intelligent. :roll:
A very dangerous and deceptive agreement. Since only a fool would think the U.S. would ever allow the Ameirican military to be put under Canadian command. It simply means that the Canadian military will be at beck and call of the U.S. command structure.. for anything they define as an 'emergency'.. which will allow them to come across our border under any pretense. It's an agreement that would only be accepted by weaklings and post nationalists as the Harper government has become. They are reckless economic globalists and panderers to American imperial ambitions. it's an insult to Canada's founding principles and fathers.
Wow... you're so worldly.... seeing's how you must have heard all my crap and I've only been here less then a year. I've got plenty more.
And what I am doing is getting people to think, they can do whatever the hell they want, just like you are now. Like I seriously care one way or another. Attempting to insult people you never met face to face by calling them "Internet Dorks?" because you think they're going on about conspiracies? ~ Pssh, now who's the real internet dork, honestly?
If it's all just conspiracy talk and we're all just "Internet Dorks" then why did you even bother to express any attention to any of it to begin with? Couldn't help it? Wanted to sound like you know more and know best?
Well you already screwed up on the details in here already, including accusing me of saying things in which I didn't say.... not to mention the various names you try to think up to try and insult me.
Praxious?
Paxil?
Praxis?
At least you're consistent with your inconsistency, bravo.
You must have one huge frigging ego if you think anyone gives a crap what you think, Precious. You are not the first one to post material like you do, it has been posted here many times before you, at least they could present in a fashion that they doesn't come off sounding like a failed Mensa applicant.
I don't claim to know what's best, never have, unlike your self. Look back at your threads and your replies to thread, if you didn't know that poster, wouldn't you think he's an obnoxious prick?
Have fun rounding up your legion of limp wristed, social outcasts for the coming revolution, enemies will tremble before you undoubtedly.
Well that's pretty well all I asked, valid and sounds about right from my perspective, thanks for the reply.
But hypothetically, if a new government (Leaning towards a Direct Dem./Digital Dem. Process) was brought about, and was used via cell/web informational updating to everyone to see, read, understand, revise and approve themselves..... then the registered voters/adult citizens of Canada collectively voted on whether or not they wanted the new government or the old.... and if the new one was approved by the majority of Canadian citizens, that would in turn be what I would consider grounds for a revolution against the current government.
The existing government would then have a peaceful yet clear declaration by the people of Canada to remove themselves from power and to either help assist in the creation of the new government, or get out of the way for new and fresh minds which are not corrupted by money and personal greed (The new system prevents this from happening in the future.... explain later when I get home and I can find the document.)
If those in the government refuse to leave power and not conform to what the majority of Canadians want, then we remove them by force.
In this situation, would you side with the government or the people?
Granted and keep in mind that I am not thinking of one of those blood thirsty takeovers, hanging or beheading the leaders or something silly like that. With the system I have laid out, it sorta prevents the necessity for that to occur.
ha ha.... you're responding to me are you not? :roll:
Please, if you want this "I'm the elder of the forums" pissing contest, I've been in various other forums like this one over the last 10+ years or so, talking about all the other same things you're complaining about.... you boasting about reading all this before not only doesn't impress me, but considdering this paticular thread alone is very recent, you clearly didn't hear about this paticular situation before I, as we are all learning about it now.... Oh! but you still claim it's all a conspiracy? You don't read much do you? Or do you bother to apply thinking along with your reading as well?
Just because I just broke 1000 posts (whoopie do, small change) doesn't mean I haven't come across your kind as well. Tit for tat.... don't give a rat. I imagine if I decided to tally up my posts from the various other forums I used to goto, I've probably got aprox. 25,000 posts in total.
But post counts mean nothing, just as you claiming you've hear it all before means nothing.
heh.... see the thing is I never denied that I'm an obnoxious prick.... but at least I tell it how I see it. Don't like it... well I guess I got an obnoxious Pr*ck you can suck if you so wish. I usually don't claim to know what's best.... but I can bet on the most logical outcome and state what that may be. Don't like it? Don't care.
I'm sorry, am I not a polite enough Canadian for you? Welcome to Nova Scotia/Irish hybred Attitude. Blame it on the salt in the air.
Right.... cuz that's what I'm going for... oh and....
Ooh, your powers of deduction are exceptional. I
can't allow you to waste them here when there are
so many crimes going unsolved at this very moment.
Go, go, for the good of the city!!
Seemed suiting... since you know.. I'm some internet nerd linger who's going to start the next great world order in an internet forum? Get serious.
Do you really have a new system of government? Are you serious? So outside of concocting "what ifs" you've actually laid out a new system of government for Canada?
Several years ago, honestly, yes I did.
With the trend of threads here recently, I was going to post it today, but I do not have the file saved here on this computer and have to dig it up at home.
To be perfectly honest about it.... it's not very "Capitalism" friendly (No, it's not Communism either) But I will post it next chance I get, and you guys can feel free to rip it apart, add to it, or change a few things as you see fit.
But it isn't just a system for Canada. It's independant so that a country can substain itself without having to rely on just one or two countries. It also has a process of dealing/trading with other countries which do not have the same form of government. This could be used by any country wanting to be truly democratic and have more control over the actual direction you wish your personal life to go.
Added:
It's so simple it actually boggles the mind. The transition is also not that complicated either, as it just basically entails waking up the very next day and going to your normal job.... the catch is that you no longer have to worry about expenses and bills/collections.... no more doing the job you are working just because you need the money.
No more people being left behind because they can not afford something over another. Instead of having doctors who are just doctors to be rich, you will have doctors who want to be doctors because they actually care and want to help people (Which do you think is better?)
Those who are currently rich can still keep their riches that they earned over time, and continue to build on top of it, just as equally as everyone else.
A little far fetched at the moment, which is why I don't want to get too far into it yet until I find my file.
I spent plenty of time working on it to make sure each structure supports the other, that most angles and issues have been covered, I have collaberated with a few other people to see what else they could add on or improve apon.
The only concern about making it happen, is that people must want change first. And I feel that eventually in the not too distant future, people will want to seek something else then this life we live today.
And no.... it doesn't involve me as some grand ruler, so we'll squash that reponse right now. There will be no one grand ruler or authority, except the collective of the country.
Last edited:
And how would your system of government deal with the US. If I remember correctly you once said you wished Canada had nukes to aim at the US.
I don't know if my original post is gonna well, post so i'll just leave this revised version of my earlier message.
Go to this link the ledger.com and see what the Americans are saying. They don't like this either. But they bring up some interesting stuff like for example the deal being a way to circumvent Posse Comitatus. I had to look this up. You would have to be an American to think of this.
http://forums.theledger.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4521043365/m/2911009896
There are some other interesting things that they are saying. Things like this -
". . . the American right-wing blogs are going berserk over this agreement. Canadian right-wingers are silent in their usual sycophantic way as regards the Harper government in Ottawa.
American right-wing blog writers are just plain paranoid wack-jobs about this, when it is the Canadians who should be truly worried about foreign (i.e., American) soldiers on their soil. Canada has two resources that the US needs - oil (Canada already being the largest supplier of oil to the States) and water.
With American regulations that do not allow American soldiers to operate under the command of any other nation, Canadians have a legitimate fear of the US taking over the Alberta oilfields in the event of a "terrorist" attack on the oilfields.
Water is another issue - Canada has the largest supply of fresh water in the world."
And they're not afraid of us at all. In fact they make fun of our Canadian military saying stuff like - "Why bother with Canadian troops - who have a great record (no sarcasm) as peacekeepers on UN operations around the world - . . " Or " Yeah!!! Will we get all 20 of them at once or will they rotate? "
Anyway, i think the Posse Comitatus comment made is an interesting perspective. And you've got to wonder when both the Americans and the Canadians are both thinking the same thing and are both quite suspicious of the actions of our governments.
I think there is some validity in that. Any Americans on this thread that have any opinions?
EagleSmack - it's seems you are an American Marine. What do you think?
Posse Comitatus anyone?
Go to this link the ledger.com and see what the Americans are saying. They don't like this either. But they bring up some interesting stuff like for example the deal being a way to circumvent Posse Comitatus. I had to look this up. You would have to be an American to think of this.
http://forums.theledger.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4521043365/m/2911009896
There are some other interesting things that they are saying. Things like this -
". . . the American right-wing blogs are going berserk over this agreement. Canadian right-wingers are silent in their usual sycophantic way as regards the Harper government in Ottawa.
American right-wing blog writers are just plain paranoid wack-jobs about this, when it is the Canadians who should be truly worried about foreign (i.e., American) soldiers on their soil. Canada has two resources that the US needs - oil (Canada already being the largest supplier of oil to the States) and water.
With American regulations that do not allow American soldiers to operate under the command of any other nation, Canadians have a legitimate fear of the US taking over the Alberta oilfields in the event of a "terrorist" attack on the oilfields.
Water is another issue - Canada has the largest supply of fresh water in the world."
And they're not afraid of us at all. In fact they make fun of our Canadian military saying stuff like - "Why bother with Canadian troops - who have a great record (no sarcasm) as peacekeepers on UN operations around the world - . . " Or " Yeah!!! Will we get all 20 of them at once or will they rotate? "
Anyway, i think the Posse Comitatus comment made is an interesting perspective. And you've got to wonder when both the Americans and the Canadians are both thinking the same thing and are both quite suspicious of the actions of our governments.
I think there is some validity in that. Any Americans on this thread that have any opinions?
EagleSmack - it's seems you are an American Marine. What do you think?
Posse Comitatus anyone?
EagleSmack you might be the one to offer an opinion on this thought, being as you are from 'the other side'.
If Canada quashed it's proposed relaxing (not eliminating) pot possession laws out of consideration of US objections, is that a form of 'interfering' in the political process of another Soverign Nation?
Congestion at the border was one reason stated, didn't 911 cause the same congestion that not passing that bill was to avoid?
This next bit might seem like I'm bashing America but I'm just trying to point out that America always seems to want to get the best portion of any deal it makes with any Nation, not just Canada.
The first example, the Alberta Tar-sands. I admit without money from the American private sector developement would be much slower than it currently is. Where I start to raise my eye-brows is the details of how that investment is repaid. This is more or less where the scales tip quite a bit in America's favor. Say there is a $10B investment that is repaid through the sale of that refined product. A reduced purchase price. Shouldn't there be a cap on the 'profit' that can be made. Even if that return on investment came to $20B (or whatever) when that point was reached then the 'reduced purchase price' should be expired. The return to full purchase price would put that extra revenue into the pockets of Canadians (the ones who were actually picking up the payments for that investment). Say the amount of 'used raw material' to come to that 'payback target' was 2% of the total 'raw material' available. The way things now stand there never is a 'paid back in full' target, that reduced price is in place until the whole thing is used up. In the end that $10B investment ends up being a $200T profit, money. Is that a deal that is equally good for both parties?
One more example, say another country, like Venezuela, hires an American company to come down and install a telephone system. The American supplied hardware is paid for through user fees of the telephone system. Would the same thing that was used in the 1st example also apply here. After a certain price is reached on the return on investment should those profits go to the Citizens of Venezuela (some of which is used for upkeep of the hardware and the wages of those who run the system). Or should the installation company get the share of the profits for the entire life of the system. Now say the original deal required a nation-wide installed system but the actual installation only covered 10% of the country. The other 90% was not done at the discretion of the installers because those area would not bring in a high return should/could that contract be canceled?
A simple example, I own a piece of land that I know has some very tasty water under it. I can't afford to drill a well or buy the pump to bring it to the surface. Which would be the 'fair deal' for the 3 parties needed to make the water available for sale. Hire the driller to drill the hole for $X and pay him out over time at $X + 10%. At that point I stop sending him money. The same deal for the pump, buy it overtime for a price somewhat higher than if I could have bought it outright. That would seem to benefit everybody. When all is paid is when I would start to be the sole recipient of any profit. When the pump wore out I would already have the money to buy a new one outright. The supplier is making his profit on the sale because it is included in his asking price.
Is it still a 'fair deal' if the driller and the pump supplier say they are entitled to a share of the profits for as long as I can pump any water. If the well doesn't run dry until until each as made 100's of times the profit they 'normally would have' does that constitute a 'fair deal'?
If this example was applied to US investment the main purchaser of the water would be the ones who drilled the well and supplied the pump.
It's one thing for the US to 'offer their opinion' on things going on in other Countries (which isn't welcomed when it comes to their internal affairs) but threats of 'if you do this we will do this to punish you' is intervention, plain and simple.
If Canada quashed it's proposed relaxing (not eliminating) pot possession laws out of consideration of US objections, is that a form of 'interfering' in the political process of another Soverign Nation?
Congestion at the border was one reason stated, didn't 911 cause the same congestion that not passing that bill was to avoid?
This next bit might seem like I'm bashing America but I'm just trying to point out that America always seems to want to get the best portion of any deal it makes with any Nation, not just Canada.
The first example, the Alberta Tar-sands. I admit without money from the American private sector developement would be much slower than it currently is. Where I start to raise my eye-brows is the details of how that investment is repaid. This is more or less where the scales tip quite a bit in America's favor. Say there is a $10B investment that is repaid through the sale of that refined product. A reduced purchase price. Shouldn't there be a cap on the 'profit' that can be made. Even if that return on investment came to $20B (or whatever) when that point was reached then the 'reduced purchase price' should be expired. The return to full purchase price would put that extra revenue into the pockets of Canadians (the ones who were actually picking up the payments for that investment). Say the amount of 'used raw material' to come to that 'payback target' was 2% of the total 'raw material' available. The way things now stand there never is a 'paid back in full' target, that reduced price is in place until the whole thing is used up. In the end that $10B investment ends up being a $200T profit, money. Is that a deal that is equally good for both parties?
One more example, say another country, like Venezuela, hires an American company to come down and install a telephone system. The American supplied hardware is paid for through user fees of the telephone system. Would the same thing that was used in the 1st example also apply here. After a certain price is reached on the return on investment should those profits go to the Citizens of Venezuela (some of which is used for upkeep of the hardware and the wages of those who run the system). Or should the installation company get the share of the profits for the entire life of the system. Now say the original deal required a nation-wide installed system but the actual installation only covered 10% of the country. The other 90% was not done at the discretion of the installers because those area would not bring in a high return should/could that contract be canceled?
A simple example, I own a piece of land that I know has some very tasty water under it. I can't afford to drill a well or buy the pump to bring it to the surface. Which would be the 'fair deal' for the 3 parties needed to make the water available for sale. Hire the driller to drill the hole for $X and pay him out over time at $X + 10%. At that point I stop sending him money. The same deal for the pump, buy it overtime for a price somewhat higher than if I could have bought it outright. That would seem to benefit everybody. When all is paid is when I would start to be the sole recipient of any profit. When the pump wore out I would already have the money to buy a new one outright. The supplier is making his profit on the sale because it is included in his asking price.
Is it still a 'fair deal' if the driller and the pump supplier say they are entitled to a share of the profits for as long as I can pump any water. If the well doesn't run dry until until each as made 100's of times the profit they 'normally would have' does that constitute a 'fair deal'?
If this example was applied to US investment the main purchaser of the water would be the ones who drilled the well and supplied the pump.
It's one thing for the US to 'offer their opinion' on things going on in other Countries (which isn't welcomed when it comes to their internal affairs) but threats of 'if you do this we will do this to punish you' is intervention, plain and simple.
I hate that when that happens, ctrl+a (before posting)will keep a copy in your clipboard.
Seems like our only option is to invite them into the northern lands for some winter war games and the hope like hell it melts before they can make it back out.
If history is any indicator of the future, the last time there was a 'conflict' there were more people switching sides than anything. Any conflicts were canceled in the winter due the weather. Beer sales went through the roof on both sides of the border and the only thing in short supply on both sides were hookers.
Right but that was a long time ago. Alot of things have been corruptively changed since then. And the American government have completely fullfilled their bully role opinion that the world has held as true.
They're completely out of control. If they keep this up, the middle east is gonna look like a playground compared to what this administration has in mind for North America.
Which is WHY i have created this thread. Not only are they (gov) doing things that are twisted, they want to make sure they get away with it. So i figure, if they want to keep it quiet then i'm gonna blab about it!!