Us Troops In Canada...

[Guest habguy]

While I was listenin to the drive on the score, the host was mentioning the fact that Canada and the US have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency. Now like most of you reading now my reaction was a shocked,disturbed, and scared "WHAT!?"

This agreement was signed FEB. 14 in Texas, yet I had yet to hear of this. Instead of thurally covering breaking news such as this, the media chooses to report instead whenever Jack Layton pulls a hissy fit in front of congress, honestly WHERE WAS THE COVERAGE ON THIS STORY??

For the full article visit: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.ht...79d&k=14984

[Guest FlHabsFan]

I cant think of 1 reason for US troops in Canada. If they were worried about Russia, then we have Alaska.

[franck5890]

You said it yourself; it's for emergency measures. Why that would make you scared is beyond me; I'm actually glad that that U.S. can freely come to our aid if someone pulls anything stupid. It's not like they're putting military posts in our country.

And, directly from the article, "Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn't been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added." That would be why you haven't heard of it.

[tmash]

I doubt there is anything more to it than what it says. Also it sounds like this works both ways. No ones invading anyone, no ones setting up permanent posts, just make things easier in the chaos following an emergency to help each other out.

[Guest JL]

Makes you wonder if the fact that the USA are said to be in dire need of water for the future could constitute an "emergency measure" in the future...

[Guest Greek Hab]

Well this definatly benifits both sides...More us than them.

Maybe from the US's view, eg: If an indicent like the fires in California happen again. That's pretty much the only emergency I can think of...or any other enviromental situation.

[Guest FlHabsFan]

As long as Georgie is at the helm and the word "troops" is used, I get just a bit skittish.

But of course you do have WMD. People call it beer, and its been destroying brain cells for years.

[fourtrax]

This is nonsense IMO. Only for emergency measures sounds innocuous enough ... until the 'emergency' happens and one country disagrees on what constitutes an emergency. US troops have no business on Canadian soil.

[tmash]

As long as Georgie is at the helm and the word "troops" is used, I get just a bit skittish.But of course you do have WMD. People call it beer, and its been destroying brain cells for years.

True, at least the next president, whether Hilary, Obama, or Mccain, should be better in that regard (although Mccain's hawkishness scares the crap out of me).

This is nonsense IMO. Only for emergency measures sounds innocuous enough ... until the 'emergency' happens and one country disagrees on what constitutes an emergency. US troops have no business on Canadian soil.

I'd just like to hear what sort of situation they are thinking of here. I've been thinking of this some more and am having a bit of trouble understanding it.

Makes you wonder if the fact that the USA are said to be in dire need of water for the future could constitute an "emergency measure" in the future...

Never know, but the only problem with that theory is the parts of the USA in need of water are mostly in the southwest USA, not close to Canada, or at least the parts with ample water (The Great Lakes, Manitoba, etc.)

[fourtrax]

I'd just like to hear what sort of situation they are thinking of here. I've been thinking of this some more and am having a bit of trouble understanding it.

There is no legitimate situation, which is why you'll never get the White House to actually cop to why these emergency measures are being put into place.

From a constitutional point of view, I'm extremely leery of any measures that grant governments 'emergency' powers, as historically the emergency has usually been an excuse to curtail civil liberties to suit the agendas of the rich and powerful.

[Guest FlHabsFan]

There is no legitimate situation, which is why you'll never get the White House to actually cop to why these emergency measures are being put into place.

From a constitutional point of view, I'm extremely leery of any measures that grant governments 'emergency' powers, as historically the emergency has usually been an excuse to curtail civil liberties to suit the agendas of the rich and powerful.

Pretty much. And as I was joking about the beer part in my last post, I was dead serious about being skittish about George and his troop usage.

Wasnt there a little horn locking over waterways and to which country they belong to, about a year or 2 ago?

The only time I would support the deployment of troops to another country under times of peace is:

1) Natural Disaster

2) That country has power over those troops. Not absolute, for obvious reasons. But they have a degree of control over those troops.

But in all honesty, I see no reason to have troops in Canada. Neither you nor the US is under imminent attack from anyone. We have no reason to go through Canada for any military objective, unless Santa has been linked to Alqueda. And even if he was, we would still use Alaska. And I cant of a reason Canada would need to move troops through the US. All this makes me believe its all 1 sided by Georgie.

[franck5890]

This is nonsense IMO. Only for emergency measures sounds innocuous enough ... until the 'emergency' happens and one country disagrees on what constitutes an emergency. US troops have no business on Canadian soil.

The thing is though, it says in the article that it doesn't allow free passage of troops for no reason. The government still ultimately has to give the go-ahead for anything to go through.

""But there's no agreement to allow troops to come in," he said. "It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The 'allow' piece is entirely up to the two governments."

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added."

[fourtrax]

The thing is though, it says in the article that it doesn't allow free passage of troops for no reason. The government still ultimately has to give the go-ahead for anything to go through.

""But there's no agreement to allow troops to come in," he said. "It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The 'allow' piece is entirely up to the two governments."

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added."

If there's one thing I've learned about the U.S. government, and the Bush government in particular, it's that what's written on paper is largely meaningless when the U.S. is decided on pursuing a course of action. This is the same regime whose president called the U.S. constitution a 'quaint' document when discussing the legitimacy of torturing terrorist 'suspects' in Guantanamo.

[Guest Bobineau]

Pretty much. And as I was joking about the beer part in my last post, I was dead serious about being skittish about George and his troop usage.

Wasnt there a little horn locking over waterways and to which country they belong to, about a year or 2 ago?

The only time I would support the deployment of troops to another country under times of peace is:

1) Natural Disaster

2) That country has power over those troops. Not absolute, for obvious reasons. But they have a degree of control over those troops.

But in all honesty, I see no reason to have troops in Canada. Neither you nor the US is under imminent attack from anyone. We have no reason to go through Canada for any military objective, unless Santa has been linked to Alqueda. And even if he was, we would still use Alaska. And I cant of a reason Canada would need to move troops through the US. All this makes me believe its all 1 sided by Georgie.

The article claims that the country in need of assistance would have tactical oversight of the "invading" army...but I just don't see how could the Canadian military help the US in an emergency...WE DON'T EVEN HAVE HELICOPTERS!!

A treaty signed by the US, that on the surface, would only benefit Canada?? I call....SHENANIGANS

[Guest Greek Hab]

This is nonsense IMO. Only for emergency measures sounds innocuous enough ... until the 'emergency' happens and one country disagrees on what constitutes an emergency. US troops have no business on Canadian soil.

You know what else is nonsence...

US Air Force giving a jet tanker contract to Europe instead of making it themselve(Boeing).

Over 2000 jobs in the US...lost. Tax payer money going to a "foriegn country." Huge lol.

[tmash]

The article claims that the country in need of assistance would have tactical oversight of the "invading" army...but I just don't see how could the Canadian military help the US in an emergency...WE DON'T EVEN HAVE HELICOPTERS!!

A treaty signed by the US, that on the surface, would only benefit Canada?? I call....SHENANIGANS

Uh I know the military isn't in the greatest shape, but we have plenty of helicoptors.

[Guest Bobineau]

Uh I know the military isn't in the greatest shape, but we have plenty of helicoptors.

Helicoptors that can't be used in Afghanistan shouldn't be called helicoptors...Canadian troops have to use roads instead of airways to relieve thier outposts...and we all know how safe those roads are.

[tmash]

Helicoptors that can't be used in Afghanistan shouldn't be called helicoptors...Canadian troops have to use roads instead of airways to relieve thier outposts...and we all know how safe those roads are.

We don't have Chinooks, that doesn't quite mean we don't have helicoptors. For the record, the Griffins could be used in Afghanistan, and it was considered, but the risks outweighed the benefits.

[Guest FlHabsFan]

If there's one thing I've learned about the U.S. government, and the Bush government in particular, it's that what's written on paper is largely meaningless when the U.S. is decided on pursuing a course of action. This is the same regime whose president called the U.S. constitution a 'quaint' document when discussing the legitimacy of torturing terrorist 'suspects' in Guantanamo.

And listening in to its citizens, reading their mail or email, etc. He keeps trying to come up with things that circumvent our own Constitution, and says its all in the name of homeland security. And im fearful that McCain will be the winner this fall, and it will be status quo for another 4 or 8 years...

[Guest Bobineau]

We don't have Chinooks, that doesn't quite mean we don't have helicoptors. For the record, the Griffins could be used in Afghanistan, and it was considered, but the risks outweighed the benefits.

They don't have adequate AA counter-measures so ya, sending them in Afghanistan would be suicide. Canada were suppose to have brand new ultra modern helicoptors about 7,8 years ago but for whatever reason they cancelled the contract which ended up costing millions... Do you remember anything about that?

And listening in to its citizens, reading their mail or email, etc. He keeps trying to come up with things that circumvent our own Constitution, and says its all in the name of homeland security. And im fearful that McCain will be the winner this fall, and it will be status quo for another 4 or 8 years...

Don't expect a Clinton win to change that status quo either...

[tmash]

They don't have adequate AA counter-measures so ya, sending them in Afghanistan would be suicide. Canada were suppose to have brand new ultra modern helicoptors about 7,8 years ago but for whatever reason they cancelled the contract which ended up costing millions... Do you remember anything about that?Don't expect a Clinton win to change that status quo either...

Those helicoptors were to replace the Sea Kings though - they would also be useless in Afghanistan.

That "whatever reason" was stupid politics. Mulroney made the terrible decision to sell the Chinooks to the Dutch (who are ironically using them in Afghanistan today), then just to show he couldn't be outdone at ruining our military, Chretien made the even more stupid move to cancel the (Progressive Conservative signed) contract to replace the already ageing Sea Kings, and opting out of the contract costed us nearly as much as the new helicoptors would of.

And listening in to its citizens, reading their mail or email, etc. He keeps trying to come up with things that circumvent our own Constitution, and says its all in the name of homeland security. And im fearful that McCain will be the winner this fall, and it will be status quo for another 4 or 8 years...

Mccain is nothing like Bush. He is actually a moderate in most areas. The only area where he will be bad is in terms of foreign affairs, he is equally if not more hawkish. In most other areas he'd be pretty good. Clinton is actuall the one who scares me, it's like because she's a woman she needs to prove she can be "tough" or something.

[Guest Bobineau]

Those helicoptors were to replace the Sea Kings though - they would also be useless in Afghanistan.

That "whatever reason" was stupid politics. Mulroney made the terrible decision to sell the Chinooks to the Dutch (who are ironically using them in Afghanistan today), then just to show he couldn't be outdone at ruining our military, Chretien made the even more stupid move to cancel the (Progressive Conservative signed) contract to replace the already ageing Sea Kings, and opting out of the contract costed us nearly as much as the new helicoptors would of.

AAAAAHA!! I knew Canada had Chinooks, I didn't know they had sold them...unbelievable...

[fourtrax]

Don't expect a Clinton win to change that status quo either...

Agreed. Clinton is almost as hawkish as McCain.

The electoral process in the US is beyond messed up. At this point, candidates and parties are really irrelevant, and will continue to be so until electoral and campaign reforms are initiated (if ever).

[franck5890]

Don't expect a Clinton win to change that status quo either...

Exactly, change is a lot easier said than done, especially in North American politics. Off-topic, but what we can expect is the potential destruction of the free-trade agreement though!

Agreed. Clinton is almost as hawkish as McCain.The electoral process in the US is beyond messed up. At this point, candidates and parties are really irrelevant, and will continue to be so until electoral and campaign reforms are initiated (if ever).

True, but somehow it still trumps Canada's.

[tmash]

What we can expect is the potential destruction of the free-trade agreement though, something that will hurt Canadians a lot more.

That's just rhetoric to win over the blue collar workers in Ohio. Clinton (Bill) was the one who signed the thing. Neither her nor Obama is going to change it once elected.