The Oil Drum

5 comments on The Round-Up: November 24th 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Syntec on November 24, 2006 - 3:28pm

North American Union or NAU is indeed being very discreetly implemented under SPP and it remains to be seen on which side of the 49th a more vocal opposition will emerge, however, now that construction of the NAFTA Super Highway -a 10-lane monstrosity linking Monterrey to Winnipeg- has begun on the TCC or 'Trans-Texas Corridor', I suspect that American nationalists will be the first to protest.

Here's a map: http://www.nascocorridor.com/

In Canada, NAU was originally supported by the Liberals (John Manley) and is now being fostered by the Conservatives (Stockwell Day). Recently, officials from all three countries (Mexico/Canada/US) met in Banff this past September albeit in secrecy. Why? Because there's A LOT MORE on the table than just transportation or trade issues. Allow me to illuminate.

For those of you who 'missed it', NORAD no longer exists.

Control of what was once sovereign Canadian airspace under a bi-national and 'shared' command was effectively dissolved in October 02' by the creation of USNORTHCOM. Under this new command, Cheyenne mountain is being mothballed and operations of what used to be NORAD have been transferred to what is refered to as N2C2.

Asisde from North American aerospace, USNORTHCOM also fully intends to take control of all North American sea lanes and approaches out to 500 miles which may seem a little confusing for a command structure based in Colorado, however, once one notices that the commander of USNORTHCOM is an Admiral, the strategy makes sense.

Ahh but what about the land component you ask?

Meet America's newest command - USARNORTH: http://www.arnorth.army.mil established to 'protect the American people and their way of life'.

And where might we find USARNORTH? How about Ft. Sam Houston where low and behold... construction of the NAFTA Superhighway has begun.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Stoneleigh on November 24, 2006 - 6:03pm

Syntec, if this is your view of Canadian sovereignty (or lack thereof), why do you think we could extract ourselves easily from NAFTA in 6 months if the need arose? Surely those two positions are inconsistent.

I agree that Canadian sovereignty is being undermined, which is why I think we would not be able to leave NAFTA at the drop of a hat. IMO NAFTA is a huge issue for Canada that needs to be looked at in greater detail.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Syntec on November 26, 2006 - 4:25pm

My assertion re: abrogation, was in reponse to the supposition that Canadians would choose freezing in the dark as opposed to abrogating a commercial agreement.

As for the former re: sovereignity, the citizenry is not yet aware.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Stoneleigh on November 26, 2006 - 7:28pm

Isn't the point that if Canadian sovereignty has been fatally undermined by deep integration, then Canadians may, in fact, not be given a choice at all? If Canadians were able to choose, there is little doubt that the population would elect to abrogate NAFTA if domestic supplies were insufficient. However, that option would be expected to be fraught with complications at the very least and may not be available at all. That which is de jure possible may not be de facto possible, and the de facto situation is the more interesting one to debate in my opinion. What would your position on this issue be?