North American Union? Is this all for real?

[owequitit]

so if it is true, why hasnt it happened yet?

Because a lot of people are working very hard to ensure that it doesn't.

[ACC0RD22]

Sorry about that,...here are some stage6 videos...much better quality.

1

2

3a

3b

3c

4

5

*for more information about my previous posts, please refer to this LINK

Oh, well I was just wondering if you actually had your own opinions, or if you just presented youtube videos (or any videos that arent your own) instead of them.

Seems I got my answer.

[owequitit]

why do you presume that get everything from the net. I worked for the Department of Homeland security for 6 years, Tsa & CBP.

I also read those things called (books) and visit site's like congress.org

Off to bed.

You failed to answer my question.

Please do so.

I presume you get everything from the net, because that is what you post. When you are asked to cite further sources in an attempt to solidify your position, it goes unanswered. Repeatedly.

Also, what did you do for the TSA? And then what did you do for Homeland Security? Just because you worked there, doesn't make you an expert. I know a lot of baggage screeners that were $6 an hour employees prior to Sept 11th, and then suddenly they worked for Homeland Security. Not saying that was the case with you, but do qualify yourself, as a job with TSA/Homeland Security etc does not automatically put you in the "know."

[MikeW]

I'm moving to Australia with my girlfriend.

Amen to that!

/thread

[lil_dcb7]

Because a lot of people are working very hard to ensure that it doesn't.

Good.

[lokuputha]

1) You are not part of WE so don't pretend to be. You may be a neighbor to the north, but you are not an American.

I am not American; however, the Canadian government surely doesn't think so, policy-wise I mean. Just yesterday, I was watching huge road side bill boards go up advertising "Fight with the Canadian Forces." Yeap, apparently we are at war; who knew. So subtle has Canada's Peacekeeping mission evolved into an offensive occupation of Afghanistan; we also have our elite JTF2 teams in Iraq although that is not big news. Canada is more than a neighbor to the north, we are a b*tch of the US sword. When it comes to the above, WE seems suitable. IMO.

2) They attacked us first in case you forgot that, or would you like a history lesson. Again?

I love history. Rather than a lesson, I would like to hear your interpretation of history.

here's mine, post WWII:

Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Iran 1987
Sri Lanka 1982
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 2002
Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
Iraq 2003-05
Afghanistan 2001-05

[MikeW]

I love history. Rather than a lesson, I would like to hear your interpretation of history.

I seriously would like to hear/see Scott lecture and spew his knowledge. Everytime he gets into a deep thread, i feel like a little kid watching an elder just spew all this knowledge and information. I know "spew" isnt a very nice word, but there not other way to put it. When he speaks, some is his own personal opinion, but alot of it is pure information. Scotts like a human computer. Ive said it before, and i'll say it again. He likes to fight his own thoughts and opinions, but he also likes to make sure that all parties involved are well-informed. Including those just standing by, watching.

to you good sir, Scott.

You got my vote for "Coolest Dude Ever"

[zack_odom]

Werd. War sucks. I dont think the NAU is a good thing...ihmo....
But whatever none of us here have the power to do anything about it.

[lokuputha]

Oh, well I was just wondering if you actually had your own opinions, or if you just presented youtube videos (or any videos that arent your own) instead of them.

Seems I got my answer.

^^just joking with all those videos btw

I don't have many opinions that are truly my own...maybe love and peace; but, most of my thoughts and opinions are derived from that which I tend to immerse myself. This I guess ultimately depends on my own opinions of love and peace. I would expect the same from anyone.

The reason why I post these videos instead of a video of myself rambling is as follows: I find that most of the time, the people on the videos are a lot more elegant and coherent in their message than I am. These presenters usually are more informed on their topics thus their message tends to have more value than any bs I can spit out. ...and I am not very photogenic.

I am going to end this now...lets agree to disagree; and lets agree to keep these disagreements to the levels of heated forum debates than have to result to guns and war. Now only if the Taliban, Sadam, and US were on CB7tuner....imagine the threads...sigh. gnight.

[zack_odom]

And one more thing, Dont be so quick to judge this stuff...
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/...."Truth is Realized not learned."
I dont know your political opinions, but this stuff is merely stating FACT.
These facts are all readily available for research. I used wikipedia every time he said something I didnt know or understand. And guess what? It was right there.

[deevergote]

They attacked us, NOT the other way around. If they didn't want our shit in their face, then they should not have done what they did.

My only issue there is that "they" wasn't Iraq. In fact, I don't believe any of "them" came from Iraq. We didn't attack the other countries that provided the terrorist bodies. Iraq was an easy, acceptable target. Iraq was an opportunity to gain a military foothold in the Middle East... which perhaps we DO need to hunt the terrorists.

It sucks, but waging a war on terror is like battling a bear... with your hands tied... with a wooden spoon. They can blow up anything and anyone they want. They know where we are, because well... army guys... they're gonna be looking for army guys! (Family Guy reference... gotta inject some humor!) On the other hand, they can be anyone... man, woman, child...

Do we have an option? I suppose we don't. As you said, inaction did nothing. Our mere existence is enough for them to hate us, so we can't really fix that. If we don't hunt them actively, even if it is futile, they're going to continue to come here.

Still, this isn't a war with another country. This isn't a war with borders. The war itself is almost a precursor to the "Global Government". The war we're fighting knows no borders... so why should the governing body know any? In almost all futuristic movies, games, etc... people are fighting terrorist organizations, because there are no warlike countries left to pick on. Sometimes fiction is a good indicator of the future!




Overall, educate yourself. Properly. Internet videos may or may not (usually not) have a significant factual basis. They're interesting, sure. That's the point. They're intended to grab you and make you tell the world their message.


Also, when it comes to "fact" in such a thing... sure...

Hell, I can give you "facts" that support every ethnic stereotype in the world. Does that make it true? Is the fact that every "black" neighborhood in a 30 mile radius has a successful KFC, Church's Chicken, AND Popeyes in a fairly central location? Or that they all seem to have at least one outdoor BBQ restaurant (a guy, a trailer, and a grill... with a sign). Does that go with the stereotype that black people like BBQ and fried chicken? Sure it does. Do these places exist? Sure. Lawnside, NJ and Paulsboro, NJ... just as I say. Does that mean that the stereotypes are true? Does this mean that every black person likes that stuff, and that every neighborhood that is primarily populated by black people will have successful fried chicken and BBQ spots? I mean, it's fact, right? The information I gave about those areas was FACT.
What does it prove? Nothing, really. Those areas have a successful Taco Bell, McDonalds, and plenty of other restaurants as well... Also, every time I go into one of the chicken places, there are more white people in line than black people. But I don't need to tell you those facts... because they don't support my argument!

[lokuputha]

everything Deev just said.

Good stuff Deev.
I agree with everything you said.

Regarding internet videos...just anything should not do.
Most of the videos I have posted, on this thread at least, have been aired on respected TV News Shows.

Here is an example of eloquence and coherence: John Pilger. 1 2 3

[owequitit]

So subtle has Canada's Peacekeeping mission evolved into an offensive occupation of Afghanistan; we also have our elite JTF2 teams in Iraq although that is not big news. Canada is more than a neighbor to the north, we are a b*tch of the US sword. When it comes to the above, WE seems suitable. IMO.

Then perhaps instead of playing armchair quaterback, you might consider getting involved in your countries politics, although I can assure you that you would find a much more symbiotic relationship than you expect.

As far as your views of Canadian involvement, you should have known it wouldn't be a peacekeeping mission in the first place. There was never ANY intention of going to Afghanistan for peace keeping.

Of course, had the attack occurred on Canadian soil, say in the downtown heart of Toronto, I am sure you views would probably be altered slightly by that as well.

post WWII:

What a nice anti-American slanted list! I notice that you included anything military, as though we are ALWAYS agressors. A small % of those actually included real invasion and force.

Anything that involved an actual "occupation" or invasion has been highlighted in red. Although we were not the "bad guy" in all of them.

Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War) - A "police action" taken on behalf of South Korea, who could not defend themselves from the onslaught of Russian trained troops, hardware, or supplies. How selfish of us.

Guatemala 1954 - Which action is this?

Indonesia 1958 - same here.

Cuba 1959-1961 - Invasion (failed I might add) in response to increasingly hostile activity against the US. It ultimately culminated in Nukes being parked less than 90 miles off of our coast. Sorry, but in a game of us or them, I choose us.

Guatemala 1960 - Not finding anything for this either.

Congo 1964 - We sent 4 TRANSPORT airplanes to help airlift troops and aid the Belgians in rescuing civilians. What a HORRIBLE misuse of military force...

Laos 1964-73/Vietnam 1961-73/Cambodia 1969-70 - Can't disagree with you here. Again in response to increasing communism. This war is the reason the US will come apart sooner rather than later. The rules of engagement made the conflict ineffective from an objective standpoint, and it served to create nothing but hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. Not because they died, but the deaths become in vain when nothing is being fought for, or accomplished. We achieved neither due to our political bullshit, therefore, they died in vain.

Let us not forget which political side of the fence started and perpetuated this non-sense.

It should also be noted that this conflict was started by the French, and we originally were there to help them maintain order. Of course, it escalated from there.

It also served to create the modern ultra-disillusioned with reality hippie generation, that is opposed to war (not necessarily a bad thing) under ALL circumstances (very likely a bad thing). I will touch on this later.

Guatemala 1967-69 Not finding anything here either.

Grenada 1983 - This was an invasion to stop an overthrow attempt for a parlimentary government that was supported by Cuba and Russia, who were looking to install a militaristic regime. The country even has a holiday for this event. Of course, I am sure it was all bad there too. P.S. It should be mentioned that the US did NOT act alone, and that Canada has an anti-US view on this one. It is highlighted in red because we played a lead role, and we did land on the ground. Of course restoring the rightful government is such a bad thing to do.

Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets) - Response to terrorist activity against the US, including, but not limited to the hijacking of a US airliner, and the captivity of hostages on that airliner. We didn't attack first.

Libya 1986 - This was in direct response to Muammar al-Gadaffi sponsored terrorism against US civilians in a club. We neither attacked first, nor disporportionately. He tried to make a stand, and disobey orders to cease and desist, and he did not. He tried to target military assets. We made a couple of strategic strikes. No occupation. No aggression. He stopped. We stopped.

El Salvador 1980s - Here, we didn't even send military force. We sent ADVISORS to help the El Salvadorian government train forces for counter insurgency work. They took over the country and occupied the people against their will using briefcases! OMG, the horror!

Nicaragua 1980s - We provided a mode of transport for Honduran troops to repel Nicaraguan troops. We didn't fire a shot.

Iran 1987 - Exactly what action are you speaking of here?

Sri Lanka 1982 - Haven't found much on this either, but given the context of the time, my guess would be it might have something to do with the Marxist revolutionaries and the impending election. Maintaining order is not necessarily invading or occupying.

Panama 1989 - These troops were sent to ensure the safety of the canal zone and American interests among rising tensions. Of course, that would have NO impact on Canada eh? This also had a lot to do with Noriega's involvement in the drug trade. We weren't completely clean on this one, but then again, it is almost impossible to be clean on everything. Not even Canada qualifies for that one.

Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)/Kuwait 1991 - This war did involve people on the ground. Were we the aggressors? Considering that we were ASKED to intervene by the Kuwati and Saudi governments, and we achieved our objectives, and then vacated Iraq AND Kuwait, I would say no. It is also hard to point the blame on us when were not responsible for the original invasion, nor did we go in without permission and acceptance. So this one doesn't hold water very well does it? It is also likely that this is where our problem with Bin Laden started. In his mind, Mujahideen forces should have been the ones to liberate Kuwait. The Kuwaiti government turned him down, in favor of us. His ego became bruised, he began to seek us as a target.

Somalia 1993/Bosnia 1994, 1995 - These were BOTH UN sponsored actions to restore order, and prevent famine and genocide. Not only was the US there based on UN resolution, which I highly doubt you would fault, but we were NOT the only aggressors, but we did however lend the single largest amount of resources and hardware. Had we not gotten involved, they would probably still by dying and starving. In fact they still are, because the rules of engagement allowed us to put men in harm's way, but not fix the REAL problem. How selfish of us to send men to die for pointless cause (if you aren't going to see it through to the REAL end, then it IS pointless), to promote an international agenda. Such bastards we are.

This is one of the ones where non-American "informed" people really piss me off. Had we not gone in, we would have been "self serving bastards" that only cared about ourselves. When we do go in, we are world thugs that just use our muscle to promote our agenda. We gained NOTHING from either Somolia or Bosnia except a few dead bodies, and some more debt. It is usually a no win situation for us. If we get involved, we are thugs. If we don't we are selfish. So fuck it. We will just do what is in our own best interest since we are going to be hated anyway. We may as well benefit from it.

Sudan 1998- Response to the terrorist bombing of the US Embassy. It was justified, and appropriate.

Afghanistan 1998 - Retaliatory bombing in response to not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, but 7, yes 7 embassy bombings. Again neither unjustified, nor unwarranted.

Yugoslavia 1999 - Another agreed upon NATO action to stop Yugoslavian military action in Kosovo. Even the Germans took place, in their first active engagement following WWII.

Yemen 2002 - This was hardly an invasion. It was 1 attack, on 1 man that was responsible for Al Qaida attack # 7 the USS Cole. That's right, 2 hotels, attempting to kill US servicemen (failed), WTC bombing #1, 3 US Embassies, and the USS Cole, all of which went unresponded to until the attack on September 11th. Considering we were attacked 7 times, prior to taking action, I am sure we were unjustified.

Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)Iraq 2003-05 - There was no ground occupation after the Iraqi surrender in 1991. Only enforcement of a no fly zone, and border protection for the Saudis and Kuwaitis, as well as some embargos. As for 2003, it was based on good intelligence. Deny it all you want, it was corroborated by 3 independent sources,2 of which were OUTSIDE the US, and 1 of which would NOT alter data based on our interests, and was deemed reliable. As far as WMD. According to at least one person on this site who has actually been there, the country wasn't nearly as clean as the left slanting media would have you believe. Of course, he actually has first hand information, so I am sure he is lying, because the media with an agenda has nothing to hide. As for Al Qaida in Iraq. It is there no? Of course, we probably inserted them in there so that we would have something to go in there for didn't we? Afterall, that IS the ONLY possibility. It may not have been the best decision strategically, but it was based on good info, and that info was not fully wrong.

Afghanistan 2001-05 - Stand there and tell me this one wasn't justified.

[owequitit]

Just a couple of notes.

1) Notice in the timeline there that the number and intensity of engagements that happened under Bill Clinton was quite a bit more significant that under George H.W. Bush. Yes, our total committment to Iraq was larger, however, we went in, we blew shit up, we took no exuses, and 28 days later, we were bringing everyone home with 100% of the objectives achieved.

Contrast that with Bosnia, Somolia, and the "War on Terror", which are now OVER 10 years old, and we are still dicking around with this shit because we want it to stop, but we are afraid to use the force necessary to end it. You either send people to die for a worthy cause, or you keep them at home. It is as simple as that. Vietnam is living proof, and these others are quickly reiterating history, that long term loss and suffering is much greater if you fuck around and play games. War is not a game. Fight it, kill the enemy, get it over with, and bring them home ASAP. Everything else is just a waste of time, energy and life.

I find it very odd that one of the "most beloved" Presidents in recent US history, because he leaned left and wasn't a "war monger", made more active war than most previous President's, including both Bush's, and didn't commit to the end, but is seen as a good guy, when some others are not. He made war, he accomplished nothing overall, and people died apparently for no reason, because all of the "wars" he fought are still going on. But hey, at least we feel all snuggly in our beds at night. Can't beat a false sense of accomplishment and security.

Back to the topic at hand, no war is ever 100% clean. However, that does not automatically make the US the bad guy. I personally feel that we should just pull everyone home, leave everyone hanging out to dry, and take an isolationist stance. Screw the economy. Screw world affairs, screw starving people and oppressive regimes. We will burn ethanol, and hydrogen. Even if we are seen as self serving bastards, at least the world won't be able to blame everything on us, even though they will anyway. We should also just let things be. When we are walking down the street shopping, and our wife and kids get blown up, then we will understand what the opportunity cost was for not fighting over there. The people we are dealing with, don't want peace, they don't want seperatism, they don't want their space. They want to make us dead. That is all.

Also, as a final note, I would like to add that the Canadian government was forward looking with their own best interests at heart when they decided to support the US in this endeavor. The reason is simple. If they snub us, who is going to back them up when it happens to you?

[Dv8]

JESUS H CHRIST INFORMATION OVERLOAD.




The sad thing is my brain likes it. Sonofabitch.