THE North American Union/SPP Thread (merged)

by **Oilgood** » Wed 24 Nov 2004, 22:00:01

Article implying that the US could effectively control all of North America if things get desperate

by **Sencha** » Wed 24 Nov 2004, 23:20:50

Can we start a revolution yet? How about we call ourselves the Peak Oil Army or POACH (Peak Oil Army Crushing Hegemony). I like the sound of that. Hey, its working for the Ukrainians as we speak, sort of. I mean, they just sort of had a spontaneous election declaring a new President, but of course no one is recognizing his legitimacy.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd say the PNAC is failing, as evident from the resignations of a few neocons. If there is a time to strike, its now. The neocons don't know what to do, virtually the entirety of the U.S. military is overseas, the ban on automatic weapons has (or will?) be lifted. I mean, come on! If we don't take action soon, they'll just be more and more posts like this, and I'll have fewer and fewer reasons to face each day.

by **Taskforce_Unity** » Thu 25 Nov 2004, 05:36:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sencha', 'M')aybe I'm wrong, but I'd say the PNAC is failing, as evident from the resignations of a few neocons. If there is a time to strike, its now. The neocons don't know what to do, virtually the entirety of the U.S. military is overseas, the ban on automatic weapons has (or will?) be lifted. I mean, come on! If we don't take action soon, they'll just be more and more posts like this, and I'll have fewer and fewer reasons to face each day.

by **Sencha** » Thu 25 Nov 2004, 07:35:56

Fine, you make good points, so much for trying to be positive. Yeah, I'm sure they do know what they're doing. I just remembered some of my own thoughts. Thinking, "If PNAC failed, it would rise up again under a new name, under new people."

So I guess it doesn't matter. If the neocons failed, there'd be others to pick up where they left off. But even I have to say, we're pretty lame to have not pacified Iraq yet. Not that it matters either, when the costs get to high, we'll just pick up, leave and damn the consequences. Still, it makes me wonder how we can be expected to conquer the whole rest of the Middle East. (without a massive draft and a shift to a wartime economy, which who knows, we are probably already at.)

I bet I know their deployment plan too. Take all the hardcore, l33t troops and send them to Iran, Saudia Arabia (?), Syria or where ever. Then they'll take the green troops and drop them in Iraq. The insurgents would love that. Like a prison inmate getting a new bitch.

by **Chocky** » Thu 25 Nov 2004, 08:02:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')rticle implying that the US could effectively control all of North America if things get desperate.

by **frankthetank** » Sat 27 Nov 2004, 01:14:11

Just to let you know...by the way the phone calls sounded on C-Span earlier this evening (Iraq Vets calling in) I have a feeling they might be on the PeakOILArmy side...

We need a leader with street credit...???

by **WebHubbleTelescope** » Sat 27 Nov 2004, 02:07:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('frankthetank', 'J')ust to let you know...by the way the phone calls sounded on C-Span earlier this evening (Iraq Vets calling in) I have a feeling they might be on the PeakOILArmy side...

by **Venerye** » Tue 25 Jul 2006, 00:16:43

I did a quick forum search and I was surprised not to see a thread already devoted to this. We listen to the Financial Sense Newshour pretty regularly and Mr. Puplava mentions the Amero occasionally, but this past weekend he went into greater depth covering the SPP, Security and Prosperity Partnership, basically a supergovernmental entity which is quietly being planned for implementation around 2010 encompassing the US, Canada, and Mexico - like the European Union. The relevant segment runs between 47:00-1:06:30 of Saturday's "Big Picture," worth listening to:
Realplayer
Windows media
mp3

Especially interesting is how the labeling of "agreement" rather than "treaty" effectively allows the SPP to bypass Congress... The segment piqued my interest so I did a little digging on the internet this evening. Came up with the following links, first the gov websites [I parsed out the energy information to ensure this thread isn't banished to "Open Discussion"]:

Official site
SSP: Prosperity Agenda

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')edited] Building on existing commitments, we agree that priority initiatives warrant special attention in the coming year:

Strengthening Competitiveness in North America: We are pleased to announce the creation of a North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). The Council will comprise members of the private sector from each country and will provide us recommendations on North American competitiveness, including, among others, areas such as automotive and transportation, steel, manufacturing, and services. The Council will meet annually with security and prosperity Ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an ongoing basis.

We are convinced that regulatory cooperation advances the productivity and competitiveness of our nations and helps to protect our health, safety and environment. For instance, cooperation on food safety will help protect the public while at the same time facilitate the flow of goods. We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation in this and other key sectors and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007.

North American Emergency Management: A disaster - whether natural or man-made - in one of our countries can have consequences across national borders. Our vision for a North American response, relief and recovery strategy would ensure that critical equipment, supplies and personnel can be deployed expeditiously throughout North America. We commit to develop a common approach to critical infrastructure protection, coordinated responses to cross border incidents, and coordinated training and exercises, with the participation of all levels of government in our countries.

North American Energy Security: A sustainable, secure and affordable supply of energy is key to fueling the North American economy. Collaboration in the areas of innovation, energy efficiency, and technology development, including moving these technologies to market, promotes energy security. Our governments renew their commitment to trilateral cooperation on clean energy technologies, conservation, and market facilitation as a means to meeting our shared goals of energy security and sustainable development. Officials will also examine how this cooperation can be expanded to further our climate efforts.
US Embassy, Canada on SSP

by **threadbear** » Tue 25 Jul 2006, 22:46:14

From "Thinking the Unthinkable"

"The meeting of the “Three Amigos” in Cancun last March (Bush, Fox, and Harper in his Empire-friendly military jacket) was simply more of the same. The media focused on the photo ops, while politely failing to mention the particulars of the meeting. The silence was in large part due to the fact that deep integration is proceeding with the ignorance of most elected representatives. According to Jerome R. Corsi in a report in WorldNetDaily.com, working groups in all three nations are busy turning the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement into reality. Determining the names of the officials involved in the working groups has proved to be difficult."

CBC has been cowed into silence, on this issue, partly because their budgets have been so deeply cut, and they can no longer afford the muckraking it would take to deliver the goods. They also live in fear of further budget cuts, so tend to look the other way.

Canada is becoming a country who's state media produces excellent documentaries on the inner machinations of other countries--generally third world, or developing nations. It can no longer produce genuine critique of what is going on within it's own borders, and when it does, it dare not provide the right contextual background.

Btw, the author of the article, Geoff Olson, is my brother.

by **watchdogmovement** » Sun 22 Oct 2006, 16:53:38

GOODBY AMERICA:HELLO NORTH AMERICAN UNION

BUSH HIDES SSP FROM CONGRESS
WHITEHOUSE COMMENT LINE 202-456-1414

No More United States of America

"The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), signed by President Bush with Mexico and Canada in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005, was fundamentally an agreement to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada. ... The SPP 'working groups' organized within the U.S. Department of Transportation are signing trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements with Mexico and Canada designed to accomplish the open borders goal incrementally, below the radar of mainstream media attention, thereby avoiding public scrutiny. Congress is largely unaware that SPP exists, let alone knowledgeable about the extensive work being done behind the scenes by the executive branch to advance the agenda articulated by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to establish a North American Union as a new regional super-government by 2010."... READ THE ENTIRE STORY BELOW

http://www.pushhamburger.com/joining.htm

by **Ludi** » Sun 22 Oct 2006, 16:58:33

Doesn't seem to square with the "let's build a wall between the US and Mexico" plan....

by **NEOPO** » Sun 22 Oct 2006, 17:04:17

FHck this means I will have to move back to my norse homeland.
Periodically post peak we will arrive in hordes and raid your pathetic eco villages - muahahahah ;-)

LUDI - Thats on hold along with the "LETS BRING DEMOCRACY TO IRAQ" plan ;-)

by **WildRose** » Sun 22 Oct 2006, 18:25:41

There is also a related article at Global Research.ca by Michel Chossudovsky dated 19 September 2006 re: Militarization and the Deconstruction of North America, outlining a meeting in Banff, Alberta in September amongst CEO's and defense big-wigs from US, Canada and Mexico.

by **NEOPO** » Sun 22 Oct 2006, 21:56:25

Secret Banff Meeting/CEO's/Defense Establishment/Militarization/Deconstruction of NA

Good stuff - so what does this mean to you Rose?

by **WildRose** » Sun 22 Oct 2006, 23:32:35

NEOPO, I guess what this means to me is assimilation.

Look at the titles of the topics, e.g. "North American Energy Strategy", "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration", and of course those that have to do with military integration - that's really scary. I fear the loss of Canada's sovereignty mostly because I don't want this country to be run by neocons. I suppose I always thought the day would come when Canada would be sharing more natural resources with the US, especially oil & natural gas and water, but what I fear is that these resources would just come under the control of Bushco, or whoever is in power. Who knows if, down the road, we 30 million up north would have the resources we need, even though the oil is coming out of the Athabasca oil sands. And natural gas? At this point we have no other way of heating our homes.

Then there's the military aspect; the idea of a North American military scares the sh*t out of me. I shake my head and curse at the events of the last few years and regret that Canada has any involvement at all. I don't want to progress to the point that the US military policy becomes my country's military policy. Nor do I want to fear my children being drafted to fight resource wars.

Why are meetings like this one not common knowledge? I wonder about the Canadian participants - are they all in agreement with these strategies for a "Fortress North America"? Do they not think there's any other course to take?

What exactly does "profit driven militarization" mean?

This article was an eye-opener to me. It just seems to me that, when you look at the list of participants and the modules of discussion, these strategies for integration are close to the final planning stages.

by **Dreamtwister** » Wed 25 Oct 2006, 02:27:43

This has been coming for 50 years, ever since Diefenbaker pulled the plug on the Avro Arrow. If it were not for that one policy decision, America would have lost the space race.

Canada's government is just as crooked as America's, they are just a lot quieter about it.

by **Kristen** » Wed 27 Dec 2006, 22:05:07

So a few days ago, i read somewhere that Canada, Mexico, and The U.S. could unionize calling themselves the great North American Union and their currency would entitled the Omnipotent Ameru. With willing suspention of disbelief, imagine this happens in 2008. How would the future differ than?

by **the_sword** » Wed 27 Dec 2006, 22:38:36

I'd move to Canada, and Mexicans would continue to move to the US....

Our boarder would then be secure because Mexicans know how to stop it illegal immigration... Mostly because it comes off as racism when Whites try to keep out browny from south of the boarder.

Hell, I'd even take the sails out of the Mexicans in the Southwest who want to cut part of the US to form a seperate country ( in 50 years that's our palestine or Kosovo )

I think it's a win win win situation. I'm all for the Union of Mexico, Canada and the US... So long as I can keep my guns. :-)

by **Kristen** » Wed 27 Dec 2006, 22:40:50

heres a link

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=4216