|
Donations |
|
 |
|
|
|
If you found this site helpful, please donate to help keep it online
Don't want to use PayPal? Try our physical address
|
|
|
Survey |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JackBenny
Sergeant
Joined: Jul 12, 2002
Posts: 140
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:18 pm Post subject: US, Canada make security pact |
|
|
| Quote: |
US, Canada make security pact
Agreement allows Washington to send troops over border
By Colin Nickerson, Globe Staff, 12/10/2002
MONTREAL - A pact signed by Ottawa and Washington yesterday may allow for the deployment of United States armed forces on Canadian soil in the event of a terrorist attack or other large-scale emergency.
Although billed by Canadian authorities as a sort of mutual assistance program between good neighbors, the agreement comes as this country's armed forces are teetering toward insolvency and so reduced in size and firepower that Canada, which played a heroic role in crushing Nazi Germany, is considered incapable today of fighting even a small conflict on its own behalf. Neither do most military analysts consider Canada any longer capable of contributing in an important way as a military ally of the United States or Britain in overseas operations.
The agreement created a joint planning group that will spell out standards for ''cross-border'' military operations in the event of a terrorist attack or other calamity. The pact means that for the first time Ottawa has agreed, in principle, that US troops could enter Canadian territory to assist police and firefighters in an emergency - a notion that would have been nearly unthinkable prior to the Sept. 11 attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
The plan is highly controversial in a country sensitive to any sacrifice of sovereignty to its superpower neighbor. But Defense Minister John McCallum said at a news conference in Ottawa that Canada has little choice but to work closely with the United States. The pact, he said, ''puts us in a position to work with the United States on plans to defend North America - plans the United States would otherwise be developing without us.''
According to a recent report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian cities are likely to become prime targets for Islamic terrorists if the United States goes to war against Iraq. Failure to strengthen Canada's security, police warned, risks turning the country into ''the weak link in the North American fight against terrorism.''
Many Canadians are unsympathetic to the idea of a US campaign against Iraq. A poll published over the weekend found that more than a third perceive President Bush as posing a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the poll by Ekos research found 41 percent of Canadians don't want their country lending any support to the United States in a Middle East war, while 65 percent want the United States to stop badgering Canada to beef up its own military.
Under the terms of yesterday's agreement, final details of which will be thrashed out by the joint Canadian and US military committee, US troops would be allowed to operate on Canadian soil in the event of a crisis, but only with Ottawa's permission. ''Nothing would happen without the go-ahead from the two capitals,'' said McCallum.
The new group, to be headed by Canadian Lieutenant General Ken Pennie but based in the United States under overall American command, will also devise ways in which the neighbors might coordinate surveillance of the Canadian Arctic and waters off Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, improve intelligence sharing, and devise fast-response cross-border emergency plans.
For example, Canadian officials said, the United States would be able to respond from Seattle to a biological or chemical attack against the British Columbia city of Vancouver in less time than Canada could deploy an emergency military team from Ontario or Quebec.
McCallum insisted that the pact does not represent a step toward integrating the Canadian military into an American command structure, anathema to many Canadians at a time of strained relations. The United States has repeatedly urged Canada to increase military spending, but the Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien has methodically slashed the budget and size of the armed forces over the past seven years.
From a credible ''middle power'' fighting force of nearly 100,000 soldiers, sailors, and aviators at the outset of the 1990s, Canada's military has withered to fewer than 60,000 troops. As a result of spending cuts, army units operate at half strength, naval ships are routinely forced to remain in port for want of qualified crew or because of mechanical breakdowns, and military helicopters date to the 1960s and are considered to be unsafe. According to a major study earlier this year, the country needs to invest an extra $18 billion to upgrade equipment and recruit qualified personnel just to prevent the ''extinction'' of Canada as a militarily-capable country.
Canada sent 750 soldiers to Afghanistan to assist in the US-led war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but they had to be flown aboard American transports and were equipped with bright green tropical camouflage because the military couldn't afford desert garb. The small force - which suffered four dead when Canadian soldiers were bombed by a US fighter plane in a ''friendly fire'' accident - was withdrawn after six months because the government could not afford to keep them in the field.
''We are a military force that's going down the toilet quickly, because of funding problems and manpower problems,'' Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Vance, commander of the Royal Canadian Regiment's 2d Battalion, said in New Brunswick over the weekend. ''We are desperately short of the stocks - the spare vehicle parts, the bits and pieces, and all the supplies required to send a battle group on a sustained mission.'' |
Disgracefully commandeered from http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/344/n...act+.shtml
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
phoenix22
General
Premium Member
Joined: Mar 08, 2002
Posts: 4521
Location: "DEROS"
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just love your little klepto fingers.....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seasalt
Corporal
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 72
Location: Afghanistan
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 11:57 am Post subject: Re: US, Canada make security pact |
|
|
| JackBenny wrote: |
| Quote: |
US, Canada make security pact
Agreement allows Washington to send troops over border
By Colin Nickerson, Globe Staff, 12/10/2002
MONTREAL - A pact signed by Ottawa and Washington yesterday may allow for the deployment of United States armed forces on Canadian soil in the event of a terrorist attack or other large-scale emergency.
Although billed by Canadian authorities as a sort of mutual assistance program between good neighbors, the agreement comes as this country's armed forces are teetering toward insolvency and so reduced in size and firepower that Canada, which played a heroic role in crushing Nazi Germany, is considered incapable today of fighting even a small conflict on its own behalf. Neither do most military analysts consider Canada any longer capable of contributing in an important way as a military ally of the United States or Britain in overseas operations.
The agreement created a joint planning group that will spell out standards for ''cross-border'' military operations in the event of a terrorist attack or other calamity. The pact means that for the first time Ottawa has agreed, in principle, that US troops could enter Canadian territory to assist police and firefighters in an emergency - a notion that would have been nearly unthinkable prior to the Sept. 11 attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
The plan is highly controversial in a country sensitive to any sacrifice of sovereignty to its superpower neighbor. But Defense Minister John McCallum said at a news conference in Ottawa that Canada has little choice but to work closely with the United States. The pact, he said, ''puts us in a position to work with the United States on plans to defend North America - plans the United States would otherwise be developing without us.''
According to a recent report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian cities are likely to become prime targets for Islamic terrorists if the United States goes to war against Iraq. Failure to strengthen Canada's security, police warned, risks turning the country into ''the weak link in the North American fight against terrorism.''
Many Canadians are unsympathetic to the idea of a US campaign against Iraq. A poll published over the weekend found that more than a third perceive President Bush as posing a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the poll by Ekos research found 41 percent of Canadians don't want their country lending any support to the United States in a Middle East war, while 65 percent want the United States to stop badgering Canada to beef up its own military.
Under the terms of yesterday's agreement, final details of which will be thrashed out by the joint Canadian and US military committee, US troops would be allowed to operate on Canadian soil in the event of a crisis, but only with Ottawa's permission. ''Nothing would happen without the go-ahead from the two capitals,'' said McCallum.
The new group, to be headed by Canadian Lieutenant General Ken Pennie but based in the United States under overall American command, will also devise ways in which the neighbors might coordinate surveillance of the Canadian Arctic and waters off Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, improve intelligence sharing, and devise fast-response cross-border emergency plans.
For example, Canadian officials said, the United States would be able to respond from Seattle to a biological or chemical attack against the British Columbia city of Vancouver in less time than Canada could deploy an emergency military team from Ontario or Quebec.
McCallum insisted that the pact does not represent a step toward integrating the Canadian military into an American command structure, anathema to many Canadians at a time of strained relations. The United States has repeatedly urged Canada to increase military spending, but the Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien has methodically slashed the budget and size of the armed forces over the past seven years.
From a credible ''middle power'' fighting force of nearly 100,000 soldiers, sailors, and aviators at the outset of the 1990s, Canada's military has withered to fewer than 60,000 troops. As a result of spending cuts, army units operate at half strength, naval ships are routinely forced to remain in port for want of qualified crew or because of mechanical breakdowns, and military helicopters date to the 1960s and are considered to be unsafe. According to a major study earlier this year, the country needs to invest an extra $18 billion to upgrade equipment and recruit qualified personnel just to prevent the ''extinction'' of Canada as a militarily-capable country.
Canada sent 750 soldiers to Afghanistan to assist in the US-led war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but they had to be flown aboard American transports and were equipped with bright green tropical camouflage because the military couldn't afford desert garb. The small force - which suffered four dead when Canadian soldiers were bombed by a US fighter plane in a ''friendly fire'' accident - was withdrawn after six months because the government could not afford to keep them in the field.
''We are a military force that's going down the toilet quickly, because of funding problems and manpower problems,'' Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Vance, commander of the Royal Canadian Regiment's 2d Battalion, said in New Brunswick over the weekend. ''We are desperately short of the stocks - the spare vehicle parts, the bits and pieces, and all the supplies required to send a battle group on a sustained mission.'' |
Disgracefully commandeered from http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/344/n...act+.shtml
|
Hello Jack Benny, I've read several of your post on Homeland Security and agree with most. But as a Canadian, I should tell you that in the past several months relations are getting worse between the two Nations. Many, not all Canadians I've spoken to regarding comments comming out of the U.S. regarding Canada have a lot of Canadians angered. For example, on MSNBC, Pat Buchanan called Canada "Soviet Canuckistan" and that my country is basically a country of freeloaders. Over the past months I've watched shows such as Hardball, Buchanan's show, and too many others to mention run Canada through the dirt. Last night on Donahue one of the panelists who was pro war with Iraq made a comment near the end of the show which angered me, he said, "maybe we should bomb Canada" he laughed! Is that suppose to be funny? Donahue told him the show is aired in Canada, but it didn't seem to bother the guy who has as much military experience as my late Grandmother did. It's all getting a little old, and I'm sick of it. I'll meet any of these big mouthed "hardliners" at the border any time and would love to have them trash Canada to my face, but alas, cowards speak tough, but when confronted they would run back across the border like the women they are. Don't get me wrong, as a long time member of the Canadian Forces I know what has happened to our Armed Forces over the last 30+ years and I've always been outspoken regarding it, especially to my members of Parliament.
I know my comments are off topic, I'm just sick and tired of having to defend my country against U.S. insults. There are better ways for the U.S. to get the point made, for instance don't insult and anger the average Canadian with anti-Canadian comments.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seasalt
Corporal
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 72
Location: Afghanistan
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 1:31 pm Post subject: Re: US, Canada make security pact |
|
|
[quote="JackBenny"][quote]US, Canada make security pact
Agreement allows Washington to send troops over border
By Colin Nickerson, Globe Staff, 12/10/2002
MONTREAL - A pact signed by Ottawa and Washington yesterday may allow for the deployment of United States armed forces on Canadian soil in the event of a terrorist attack or other large-scale emergency.
Under the terms of yesterday's agreement, final details of which will be thrashed out by the joint Canadian and US military committee, US troops would be allowed to operate on Canadian soil in the event of a crisis, but only with Ottawa's permission. ''Nothing would happen without the go-ahead from the two capitals,'' said McCallum.
"Although billed by Canadian authorities as a sort of mutual assistance program between good neighbors, the agreement comes as this country's armed forces are teetering toward insolvency and so reduced in size and firepower that Canada, which played a heroic role in crushing Nazi Germany, is considered incapable today of fighting even a small conflict on its own behalf. Neither do most military analysts consider Canada any longer capable of contributing in an important way as a military ally of the United States or Britain in overseas operations."
Very true, no argument with that. It's disgusting what has happened to our Armed Forces over the last 30+ years. But it will be resolved, it will take time and astronomical amounts of money but I have faith that after the next federal election with a new Prime Minister things will begin to change.
"The plan is highly controversial in a country sensitive to any sacrifice of sovereignty to its superpower neighbor. But Defense Minister John McCallum said at a news conference in Ottawa that Canada has little choice but to work closely with the United States. The pact, he said, ''puts us in a position to work with the United States on plans to defend North America - plans the United States would otherwise be developing without us.''
What country wouldn't be "sensitive" to any sacrifice of sovereignty to a superpower neighbor? Remember the words "Manifest Destiny"? It true we should work together, I have no problem at all with that, as long as we are treated with all the respect the U.S. would demand.
Pat Buchanan and his comments that Manitoba, Saskatchwan & Alberta should become U.S. States and that the 3 Atlantic Provinces would be better off becomming U.S. States as they have more in common with the New England States than with Quebec and Ontario, angered me so much I could have chewed nails and spit out tacks. Who are these people, their ignorance knows no bounds.
"Many Canadians are unsympathetic to the idea of a US campaign against Iraq. A poll published over the weekend found that more than a third perceive President Bush as posing a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein. Moreover, the poll by Ekos research found 41 percent of Canadians don't want their country lending any support to the United States in a Middle East war, while 65 percent want the United States to stop badgering Canada to beef up its own military."
True, many Canadians are mostly due to the fact that we are waiting for proof that war is required at this time, plain and simple, show the proof, JFK did for example. And as far as Polls go, we already have ships in the Gulf and more will be sent. And with the 2nd largest country on earth and the worlds longest coastline, how could we ever manage to become strong enough militarily to take on any aggressor, our entire population is 33 million. Roughly the same as California, imagine California being solely responsible for maintaining the enitire U.S. military. We can do a lot more, but without Canada developing Nuclear weapons which we could begin to do at any time since we have everything needed for the construction and could easily develope delivery systems, it will take time to get conventional systems up to an acceptable level. It isn't pretty that just the facts.
"The new group, to be headed by Canadian Lieutenant General Ken Pennie but based in the United States under overall American command, will also devise ways in which the neighbors might coordinate surveillance of the Canadian Arctic and waters off Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, improve intelligence sharing, and devise fast-response cross-border emergency plans."
It was reported to Canadians that if American troops do enter Canada, they would be under Canadian Command. Under the plan, Canadian troops could enter the U.S. as well under U.S. Command. This isn't really new as for some time after 9/11 Canadian CF-18s patrolled over the U.S. in order to help out during the crisis.
"According to a recent report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian cities are likely to become prime targets for Islamic terrorists if the United States goes to war against Iraq. Failure to strengthen Canada's security, police warned, risks turning the country into ''the weak link in the North American fight against terrorism.''
This is true, I don't deny it. And this is one of the reasons why I am so offended by the Anti-Canadian BS that so many are spouting off so recklessly. If one of our cities is attacked in some fashion, we'll have to deal with it (meaning Canadians), I just wonder what those who have been trashing Canada will be spewing from their lips if it did happen. Would those I've mentioned still trash Canada, I really doubt it. Right now it just suits their simple minded agenda.
"For example, Canadian officials said, the United States would be able to respond from Seattle to a biological or chemical attack against the British Columbia city of Vancouver in less time than Canada could deploy an emergency military team from Ontario or Quebec."
We've helped each other in similar ways long before 9/11, it's a sound policy for two allies/friends/neighbors to assist in times of need. If one side can reach out faster why not.
"McCallum insisted that the pact does not represent a step toward integrating the Canadian military into an American command structure, anathema to many Canadians at a time of strained relations. The United States has repeatedly urged Canada to increase military spending, but the Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien has methodically slashed the budget and size of the armed forces over the past seven years."
The cutbacks have been going on a lot longer than the past seven years. It began in 68 under Trudeau. It would take hundreds of billions U.S. in order for Canada's military to get to the point where we could be considered a strong middle power. With a Dollar worth roughly 50 cents U.S. that's not easy to do.
"From a credible ''middle power'' fighting force of nearly 100,000 soldiers, sailors, and aviators at the outset of the 1990s, Canada's military has withered to fewer than 60,000 troops. As a result of spending cuts, army units operate at half strength, naval ships are routinely forced to remain in port for want of qualified crew or because of mechanical breakdowns, and military helicopters date to the 1960s and are considered to be unsafe. According to a major study earlier this year, the country needs to invest an extra $18 billion to upgrade equipment and recruit qualified personnel just to prevent the ''extinction'' of Canada as a militarily-capable country."
Don't let those numbers fool you. The number was much lower at the beginning of the 90s. And the numbers now aren't 60,000, maybe on paper but realistically more like 30,000. The chopper you speak of is old, agreed and is in the process of being replaced. Although it is the same type of chopper that lands on the grounds of the Whitehouse and is used by Bush.
"Canada sent 750 soldiers to Afghanistan to assist in the US-led war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but they had to be flown aboard American transports and were equipped with bright green tropical camouflage because the military couldn't afford desert garb. The small force - which suffered four dead when Canadian soldiers were bombed by a US fighter plane in a ''friendly fire'' accident - was withdrawn after six months because the government could not afford to keep them in the field."
Agreed, the camo gear was unforgivable. Can you imagine how those SF troops felt. Maybe if we do what the U.S. did and bought our Camo gear from China we could then afford the right Camo. The 750 troops were SF not regulars. Special Forces JTF2 are suppose to go into enemy held areas in small groups. Are we comparing how many Canada can send to how many the U.S. can or Brits? Those four dead was due to the drug "Speed" that the U.S. gives to pilots in order to keep them awake, alert, etc. The two pilots have admited it yesterday as the reason or the main reason they shacked our boys. Perhaps it was also partly due to Canada not trusting another friendly-fire accident.
''We are a military force that's going down the toilet quickly, because of funding problems and manpower problems,'' Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Vance, commander of the Royal Canadian Regiment's 2d Battalion, said in New Brunswick over the weekend. ''We are desperately short of the stocks - the spare vehicle parts, the bits and pieces, and all the supplies required to send a battle group on a sustained mission.''
How many people have had their heads in the sand for decades now amazes me. 30+ years, of course it's worse now.
Here's a link to the U.S. pilots and the taking of Speed to keep awake while on CAP.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/20/friendlyfire021220
And another with more info on Canadian Military issues
http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/targette...amilitary/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woody
Captain
Joined: Mar 09, 2002
Posts: 374
Location: British_Virgin_Isles
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
This statement in the article....
"MONTREAL - A pact signed by Ottawa and Washington yesterday may allow for the deployment of United States armed forces on Canadian soil in the event of a terrorist attack or other large-scale emergency. "
Gave the author of the article a chance to write and express his thought...just like many of you have done already and possibly more.
They article is false and misleading on the pact. It should read.....
"MONTREAL - A pact signed by Ottawa and Washington yesterday WILL allow both Candian and US authorities to cross EACH OTHERS BORDERS ..."
For that is the real truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Woody
Captain
Joined: Mar 09, 2002
Posts: 374
Location: British_Virgin_Isles
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
and this was the pact set up back in JUNE 2000
U.S., Canada sign pact to tighten border security
June 9, 2000
Web posted at: 2:25 p.m. EDT (1825 GMT)
From Correspondent Terry Frieden
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top law enforcement officials from the United States and Canada signed an agreement on Friday aimed at improving efforts to plug gaps in security along their East Coast border.
The agreement, signed by Attorney General Janet Reno and her Canadian counterpart, Solicitor General Lawrence Macaulay, creates an integrated border enforcement team similar to one established on the West Coast three years ago. Officials say the West Coast team has improved border control between Washington state and British Columbia.
Security on the northern U.S. border has been a matter of special concern since December, when Algerian Ahmed Ressam was arrested and charged with attempting to enter the U.S. with bomb-making equipment.
"There is no doubt that the Ressam case has put a spotlight on our common border enforcement efforts," Macaulay said in a speech to 60 U.S. and Canadian officials at a Washington hotel. "Canadians and Americans continue to watch this very closely because when it comes to border security and enforcement against terrorism, they take notice and demand action."
Reno made only a passing reference to the Ressam case. The U.S. attorney general also called for improved sharing of intelligence data "to identify organized crime objectives, to identify patterns of crime, to provide opportunities for investigation that can make an extraordinary difference."
Undercurrent of cross-border tensions
Before conference organizers closed the doors to the fourth annual meeting of the Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Crime Forum, officials stressed cooperation.
In private, however, officials readily acknowledged tensions often exist between U.S. and Canadian law enforcement agencies on several issues.
Canada's relatively lenient immigration laws, combined with the largely open U.S. border, are a source of continued concern for U.S. officials who fear that would-be terrorists and other criminals could enter the United States. Canada has also become a haven for telemarketers targeting U.S. customers.
Canada struggles with illegal firearms shipments from the United States and the smuggling of tobacco products north across the border to customers seeking cheaper prices.
Drug smuggling, money laundering, organized crime groups, and missing and abducted children are all areas in which criminals attempt to cross the border and exploit differences in the two nations' laws.
Increasingly, computer crime has become a high priority for both countries. In a recent high-profile case, a Canadian teen-ager was apprehended in a major hacking incident that forced the shutdown of U.S. commercial Web sites.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/06/09/canada.us/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phoenix22
General
Premium Member
Joined: Mar 08, 2002
Posts: 4521
Location: "DEROS"
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, one thing is for certain...............you can take whatever Pat B. sez with a whole glx (all 5) worth of salt........  or fertilize a whole nation for a growing season IMHO.....of course........just like the FOX.......fair........balanced and unafraid.......... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
McL_IVIUSTANG
Cadet
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Posts: 7
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ahem to Sea Salt.
- bout time we got some respect coming our way.
-Jesse |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wawadave
Major
Joined: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 929
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hello
it true the usa are the worlds gratest bs,ers the only problem is they beleave there own BS! 
_________________
•••Resistance is invigorating•••
Kill Spyware!
http://spywarewarrior.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8a © 2001 phpBB Group
Version 2.0.6 of PHP-Nuke Port by Tom Nitzschner © 2002 www.toms-home.com
Version 2.2 by Paul Laudanski © 2003-2004 Computer Cops
|
You can syndicate our news using the file RSS 0.91, ultramode.txt, or RSS 1.0.
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
