Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies (1 Viewer)

I don't see what the big deal is. Our National Guard is stressed and stretched maximally. If we had another Katrina or 9-11 or major earthquake, what happens? Our neighbors come to our aid, just as we have for numerous other countries. Anybody remember the Mexican army pitching in to help Katrina evacuees? I really don't think there's anything to see here, but why wasn't it a 3-way agreement that includes Mexico. I realize the language barrier is a factor, but there could be situations where it wouldn't be extremely limiting and may even be helpful.


As far as the Guard goes, im of the opinion that the Guard should be here, not overseas filling in as a cheaper solution to regular armed forces. That may be simplifying it some, but I will assume you understand what I mean by that. I don't believe compensating by allowing foreign forces by agreement made in the hush hush twilight is such a good thing. Im not saying an greement for mutual help shouldn't be done, but lets face it, how much input do we the people have in this? and frankly, in Mexicos case, Im not sure I want them too involved. Im not questioning the majority of Mexico's willingness to help, or their ability to do so, but I am more concerned with the amount of corruption in Mexico. But I do agree, Mexico should have been included, I would think.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a "North American union" where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.


"Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!" notes one website. "The next time your town has a 'national emergency,' don't be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember - Canadian military aren't bound by posse comitatus."


Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.
Ignore the mention of bloggery speculation for a bit. There is also the matter of the above to get around. I am concerned about this. Again, im no paranoia spreader or conspiracy theorist, I just want to know there are some controls here.
 
I don't see what the big deal is. Our National Guard is stressed and stretched maximally. If we had another Katrina or 9-11 or major earthquake, what happens? Our neighbors come to our aid, just as we have for numerous other countries. Anybody remember the Mexican army pitching in to help Katrina evacuees? I really don't think there's anything to see here, but why wasn't it a 3-way agreement that includes Mexico. I realize the language barrier is a factor, but there could be situations where it wouldn't be extremely limiting and may even be helpful.


You love you some mexico, lol.
 
Same here. I was just stating the obvious that was eventually going to come up. Neighboring countries should be willing to lend each other a hand and I'm pretty sure this was an unspoken agreement before the official agreement ever came up. However, the fact that it is now an agreement and was done so quietly it makes you wonder if one day we wake up and find out our governments agreed to share natural resources, laws and currencies.

Well the core problem I have with any sweeping "NAU" is that I don't feel the interests, geopolitical and domestic, of the Latin American countries meshes particularly well with US interests. The fact that we're struggling with immigration policy is ample proof of that.

Canada, on the other hand, has a comparable standard of living, similar political values (seriously, from a broad perspective the differences are minor), a shared cultural background, and a long history of cooperation at varying levels.

The same could be said about England and Australia for that matter.

So the idea of a "greater commonwealth" of sorts has some appeal (I'm a big Churchill fan as you could probably have guessed). But I consider that a far cry from some "NAU" which I consider to be potentially dangerous.
 
Well the core problem I have with any sweeping "NAU" is that I don't feel the interests, geopolitical and domestic, of the Latin American countries meshes particularly well with US interests. The fact that we're struggling with immigration policy is ample proof of that.

Canada, on the other hand, has a comparable standard of living, similar political values (seriously, from a broad perspective the differences are minor), a shared cultural background, and a long history of cooperation at varying levels.

The same could be said about England and Australia for that matter.

So the idea of a "greater commonwealth" of sorts has some appeal (I'm a big Churchill fan as you could probably have guessed). But I consider that a far cry from some "NAU" which I consider to be potentially dangerous.

Again, I agree with you. I really don't see Mexico being a part of any union for quite some time. The geopolitical interests the US might have in Canada is oil and we all know what our government will do for oil.

The differences between Canada and the US really isn't much more of a difference between many of the NE states and the South or the midwest and California.
 
Again, I agree with you. I really don't see Mexico being a part of any union for quite some time. The geopolitical interests the US might have in Canada is oil and we all know what our government will do for oil.

The differences between Canada and the US really isn't much more of a difference between many of the NE states and the South or the midwest and California.

Right, you look at the substantial differences, things like "Health Care" and "Enviromentalism", those are all issues we're struggling with ourselves. We maybe coming down on a different side of the fence right now, but large parts of our population are in-line with Canadians (and, mind you, vice-versa. Canada has it's privatization proponents, particularly in the Western part of Canada up to BC). So it's not a stretch.

Canada's economy is certainly closer to our own then it is to most European economies.
 
As far as the Guard goes, im of the opinion that the Guard should be here, not overseas filling in as a cheaper solution to regular armed forces. That may be simplifying it some, but I will assume you understand what I mean by that. I don't believe compensating by allowing foreign forces by agreement made in the hush hush twilight is such a good thing. Im not saying an greement for mutual help shouldn't be done, but lets face it, how much input do we the people have in this? and frankly, in Mexicos case, Im not sure I want them too involved. Im not questioning the majority of Mexico's willingness to help, or their ability to do so, but I am more concerned with the amount of corruption in Mexico. But I do agree, Mexico should have been included, I would think.

Ignore the mention of bloggery speculation for a bit. There is also the matter of the above to get around. I am concerned about this. Again, im no paranoia spreader or conspiracy theorist, I just want to know there are some controls here.

I understood what you meant by our Guard, but the fact is they are over there. I don't see anything wrong with having a contingency plan in place. We help, Canada helps and Mexico helps other countries in need - without incident. It seems silly that we wouldn't be willing to do for each other what we all do around the globe time and time again.

Mexico has a lot of experience dealing with earthquakes, mudslides, hurricanes, floods, etc. I think your concerns about Mexican corruption are probably echoed in Mexico about American corruption, but that shouldn't keep us from being more "neighborly".

Suppose for a moment that a category 5 hurricane slams into South Padre Island and sweeps through the lower Rio Grande Valley - 1,500,000 people. Who would be in a better position to help with a disaster in the Texas borderlands? What if a hurricane /disaster struck Houston? Or a major earthquake devastates southern California? I would welcome either country's help, I just think in some situations Mexico would be the more practical aid provider.

They were here after Katrina and it was entirely uneventful, but just take a minute to read it anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina

Oh, and to bclemms and Spam, I could be wrong, but I don't think there's a huge difference in the amount of oil that flows into the US from Canada and Mexico.

And to varanook, It's not that I love Mexico - I just don't get the Mexico - bashing, fear/hate/resentment.... whatever, that seems so to have surged since 9-11. I'm not accusing anyone here of that, I just thought it interesting that Mexico wasn't included, and it probably is because of the political atmosphere as SBTB suggested. I just think it's a shame. Who's most likely to be affected by the exclusion of Mexico? I think Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California.

I'm all for neighbors helping neighbors, and don't think either Canada or Mexico helping out in a time of crisis presents a threat to us. I could understand how Mexicans and Canadians might be more concerned about having our troops there, but I don't think we posed any threat to them either.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom