De nieuwe wereld orde

[Herr Flick]

Ik vraag mij af wat het inwijdingsritueel voor de 666 'ste kring dan wel niet moet inhouden...

[filosoof]

een voorbeeldje:
Canadese onafhankelijkheid en die van andere staten in US-ogen...en hoe Canada dat aanvoelt:

Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda?



by Michel Chossudovsky

[size=2]www.globalresearch.ca[/size] [size=2]23 November 2004[/size]

[size=2]he URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html [/size]

Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.




At this critical juncture in our history and in anticipation of the visit of George W. Bush to Canada on November 30th, an understanding of these issues is central to the articulation of a coherent anti-war and civil rights movement.

The purpose of this detailed report is to encourage discussion and debate in Canada and Quebec, as well as in the US. Kindly circulate this article widely. The Summary can be forwarded by email with a hyperlink to the complete text.

SUMMARY

For nearly two years now, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. [/font][font=Verdana]Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.[/font]

NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

[size=1](Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm [/size]

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)

Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States".

The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons.

[font=Verdana]The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners", who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel responsible for detailed joint military planning".

Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).

The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions

As part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established "military contingency plans" which would be activated "on both sides of the Canada-US border" in the case of a terror attack or "threat". Under the BPG's Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called "threat scenarios" would involve:

"coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada."

In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration." Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents. It also provides US authorities with access to the tax records of Canadians.[/font]




What these developments suggest is that the process of "binational integration" is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within Canada's jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is completed?[/font]

Canada and NORTHCOM[/font]

Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the BPG's two years mandate.[/font]

No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being "in the national interest". It "will create jobs for Canadians" and "will make Canada more secure".[/font]

Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context, may serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which implies Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon.[/font]

And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:[/font]

• Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.[/font]
• US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.[/font]
• Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.[/font]

But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a Nation.[/font]

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda.[/font]

The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have endorsed embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.[/font]

Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003. [size=1](See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism" http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004)[/size][/font]

Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.[/font]

FULL TEXT OF ARTICLE

[size=2]in de links[/size][/font]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html



http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

Continental Defence in the Wake of 11 September: A New Urgency

In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, defence of the North American continent returned to the forefront of American national security policy. The Bush Administration quickly formed a civilian-led, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. On the military side, on 17 April 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) was being updated to include a new regional command – Northern Command (NorthCom).

The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

Rumsfeld boasted that the introduction of NorthCom – with all of North America as its geographic command – "is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan since its inception in 1947."

NorthCom is a wholly American command. Inescapably, however, its presence will profoundly influence those other states included within its geographic area of responsibility. Canadian military and political leaders, mindful of historic and continuing military ties to the United States, have engaged in an increasing number
of debates regarding the significance of this singular
UCP revision. The formation of NorthCom has revived familiar disputes regarding the need to cooperate with the US in continental defence, weighed against the likely impact of such cooperation on our nation's sovereignty. [/font][edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 17:48
Reason:
--------------------------------

een voorbeeldje:
Canadese onafhankelijkheid en die van andere staten in US-ogen...en hoe Canada dat aanvoelt:

Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda?



by Michel Chossudovsky

[size=2]www.globalresearch.ca[/size] [size=2]23 November 2004[/size]

[size=2]he URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html [/size]

Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.




At this critical juncture in our history and in anticipation of the visit of George W. Bush to Canada on November 30th, an understanding of these issues is central to the articulation of a coherent anti-war and civil rights movement.

The purpose of this detailed report is to encourage discussion and debate in Canada and Quebec, as well as in the US. Kindly circulate this article widely. The Summary can be forwarded by email with a hyperlink to the complete text.

SUMMARY

For nearly two years now, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. [/font][font=Verdana]Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.[/font]

NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

[size=1](Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm [/size]

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)

Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States".

The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons.

[font=Verdana]The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners", who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel responsible for detailed joint military planning".

Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).

The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions

As part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established "military contingency plans" which would be activated "on both sides of the Canada-US border" in the case of a terror attack or "threat". Under the BPG's Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called "threat scenarios" would involve:

"coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada."

In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration." Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents. It also provides US authorities with access to the tax records of Canadians.[/font]




What these developments suggest is that the process of "binational integration" is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within Canada's jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is completed?[/font]

Canada and NORTHCOM[/font]

Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the BPG's two years mandate.[/font]

No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being "in the national interest". It "will create jobs for Canadians" and "will make Canada more secure".[/font]

Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context, may serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which implies Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon.[/font]

And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:[/font]

• Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.[/font]
• US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.[/font]
• Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.[/font]

But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a Nation.[/font]

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda.[/font]

The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have endorsed embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.[/font]

Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003. [size=1](See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism" http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004)[/size][/font]

Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.[/font]

FULL TEXT OF ARTICLE

[size=2]in de links[/size][/font]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html



http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

Continental Defence in the Wake of 11 September: A New Urgency

In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, defence of the North American continent returned to the forefront of American national security policy. The Bush Administration quickly formed a civilian-led, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. On the military side, on 17 April 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) was being updated to include a new regional command – Northern Command (NorthCom).

The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

Rumsfeld boasted that the introduction of NorthCom – with all of North America as its geographic command – "is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan since its inception in 1947."

NorthCom is a wholly American command. Inescapably, however, its presence will profoundly influence those other states included within its geographic area of responsibility. Canadian military and political leaders, mindful of historic and continuing military ties to the United States, have engaged in an increasing number
of debates regarding the significance of this singular
UCP revision. The formation of NorthCom has revived familiar disputes regarding the need to cooperate with the US in continental defence, weighed against the likely impact of such cooperation on our nation's sovereignty. [/font][/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 17:45
Reason:
--------------------------------

een voorbeeldje:
Canadese onafhankelijkheid en die van andere staten in US-ogen...en hoe Canada dat aanvoelt:

Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda?


by Michel Chossudovsky

[size=2]www.globalresearch.ca[/size] [size=2]23 November 2004[/size]

[size=2]he URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html [/size]

Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.



At this critical juncture in our history and in anticipation of the visit of George W. Bush to Canada on November 30th, an understanding of these issues is central to the articulation of a coherent anti-war and civil rights movement.

The purpose of this detailed report is to encourage discussion and debate in Canada and Quebec, as well as in the US. Kindly circulate this article widely. The Summary can be forwarded by email with a hyperlink to the complete text.

SUMMARY

For nearly two years now, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. [/font][font=Verdana]Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.[/font]

NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

[size=1](Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm [/size]

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)

Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States".

The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons.

[font=Verdana]The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners", who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel responsible for detailed joint military planning".

Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).

The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions

As part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established "military contingency plans" which would be activated "on both sides of the Canada-US border" in the case of a terror attack or "threat". Under the BPG's Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called "threat scenarios" would involve:

"coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada."

In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration." Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents. It also provides US authorities with access to the tax records of Canadians.[/font]



What these developments suggest is that the process of "binational integration" is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within Canada's jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is completed?[/font]

Canada and NORTHCOM[/font]

Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the BPG's two years mandate.[/font]

No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being "in the national interest". It "will create jobs for Canadians" and "will make Canada more secure".[/font]

Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context, may serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which implies Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon.[/font]

And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:[/font]

• Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.[/font]
• US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.[/font]
• Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.[/font]

But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a Nation.[/font]

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda.[/font]

The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have endorsed embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.[/font]

Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003. [size=1](See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism" http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004)[/size][/font]

Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.[/font]

FULL TEXT OF ARTICLE

[size=2]in de links[/size][/font]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html


http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

Continental Defence in the Wake of 11 September: A New Urgency

In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, defence of the North American continent returned to the forefront of American national security policy. The Bush Administration quickly formed a civilian-led, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. On the military side, on 17 April 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) was being updated to include a new regional command – Northern Command (NorthCom).

The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

Rumsfeld boasted that the introduction of NorthCom – with all of North America as its geographic command – "is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan since its inception in 1947."

NorthCom is a wholly American command. Inescapably, however, its presence will profoundly influence those other states included within its geographic area of responsibility. Canadian military and political leaders, mindful of historic and continuing military ties to the United States, have engaged in an increasing number
of debates regarding the significance of this singular
UCP revision. The formation of NorthCom has revived familiar disputes regarding the need to cooperate with the US in continental defence, weighed against the likely impact of such cooperation on our nation's sovereignty. [/font][/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 17:38
Reason:
--------------------------------

een voorbeeldje:
Canadese onafhankelijkheid en die van andere staten in US-ogen...en hoe Canada dat aanvoelt:

Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda?

by Michel Chossudovsky

[size=2]www.globalresearch.ca[/size] [size=2]23 November 2004[/size]

[size=2]he URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html [/size]

Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.


At this critical juncture in our history and in anticipation of the visit of George W. Bush to Canada on November 30th, an understanding of these issues is central to the articulation of a coherent anti-war and civil rights movement.

The purpose of this detailed report is to encourage discussion and debate in Canada and Quebec, as well as in the US. Kindly circulate this article widely. The Summary can be forwarded by email with a hyperlink to the complete text.

SUMMARY

For nearly two years now, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. [/font][font=Verdana]Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.[/font]

[font=Verdana]NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."[/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1](Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm [/size][/font]

[font=Verdana]Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)[/font]

[font=Verdana]Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States".[/font]

[font=Verdana]The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons.[/font]

[font=Verdana]The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners", who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel responsible for detailed joint military planning".[/font]

[font=Verdana]Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).[/font]

[font=Verdana]The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions[/font]

[font=Verdana]As part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established "military contingency plans" which would be activated "on both sides of the Canada-US border" in the case of a terror attack or "threat". Under the BPG's Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called "threat scenarios" would involve:[/font]

[font=Verdana]"coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada."[/font]

[font=Verdana]In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration." Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents. It also provides US authorities with access to the tax records of Canadians.[/font]


[font=Verdana]What these developments suggest is that the process of "binational integration" is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within Canada's jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is completed?[/font]

[font=Verdana]Canada and NORTHCOM[/font]

[font=Verdana]Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the BPG's two years mandate.[/font]

[font=Verdana]No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being "in the national interest". It "will create jobs for Canadians" and "will make Canada more secure".[/font]

[font=Verdana]Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context, may serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which implies Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon.[/font]

[font=Verdana]And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:[/font]

• [font=Verdana]Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.[/font]
• [font=Verdana]US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.[/font]
• [font=Verdana]Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.[/font]

[font=Verdana]But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a Nation.[/font]

[font=Verdana]The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda.[/font]

[font=Verdana]The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have endorsed embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.[/font]

[font=Verdana]Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003. [size=1](See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism" http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004)[/size][/font]

[font=Verdana]Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.[/font]

[font=Arial][/font][font=Verdana]FULL TEXT OF ARTICLE[/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2]in de links[/size][/font]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

Continental Defence in the Wake of 11 September: A New Urgency

In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, defence of the North American continent returned to the forefront of American national security policy. The Bush Administration quickly formed a civilian-led, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. On the military side, on 17 April 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) was being updated to include a new regional command – Northern Command (NorthCom).

The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

Rumsfeld boasted that the introduction of NorthCom – with all of North America as its geographic command – "is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan since its inception in 1947."

NorthCom is a wholly American command. Inescapably, however, its presence will profoundly influence those other states included within its geographic area of responsibility. Canadian military and political leaders, mindful of historic and continuing military ties to the United States, have engaged in an increasing number
of debates regarding the significance of this singular
UCP revision. The formation of NorthCom has revived familiar disputes regarding the need to cooperate with the US in continental defence, weighed against the likely impact of such cooperation on our nation's sovereignty. [/font][/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 17:35
Reason:
--------------------------------

een voorbeeldje:
Canadese onafhankelijkheid en die van andere staten in US-ogen...en hoe Canada dat aanvoelt:

[font=Verdana]Is the Annexation of Canada part of Bush's Military Agenda?[/font]

[font=Verdana]by Michel Chossudovsky[/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2]www.globalresearch.ca[/size] [size=2]23 November 2004[/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2]The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html [/size][/font]

[font=Verdana]Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Binational integration" of military command structures is also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.[/font]

[font=Verdana]At this critical juncture in our history and in anticipation of the visit of George W. Bush to Canada on November 30th, an understanding of these issues is central to the articulation of a coherent anti-war and civil rights movement.[/font]

[font=Verdana]The purpose of this detailed report is to encourage discussion and debate in Canada and Quebec, as well as in the US. Kindly circulate this article widely. The Summary can be forwarded by email with a hyperlink to the complete text.[/font]

[font=Arial][/font][font=Verdana]SUMMARY[/font]

[font=Verdana]For nearly two years now, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This redesign of Canada's defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).[/font]

[font=Verdana]The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. [/font][font=Verdana]Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.[/font]

[font=Verdana]NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."[/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1](Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm [/size][/font]

[font=Verdana]Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)[/font]

[font=Verdana]Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States".[/font]

[font=Verdana]The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons.[/font]

[font=Verdana]The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners", who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called " panel responsible for detailed joint military planning".[/font]

[font=Verdana]Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).[/font]

[font=Verdana]The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions[/font]

[font=Verdana]As part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established "military contingency plans" which would be activated "on both sides of the Canada-US border" in the case of a terror attack or "threat". Under the BPG's Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called "threat scenarios" would involve:[/font]

[font=Verdana]"coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada."[/font]

[font=Verdana]In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the "Canada-US Smart Border Declaration." Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents. It also provides US authorities with access to the tax records of Canadians.[/font]

[font=Verdana]What these developments suggest is that the process of "binational integration" is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within Canada's jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is completed?[/font]

[font=Verdana]Canada and NORTHCOM[/font]

[font=Verdana]Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the BPG's two years mandate.[/font]

[font=Verdana]No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being "in the national interest". It "will create jobs for Canadians" and "will make Canada more secure".[/font]

[font=Verdana]Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada's participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context, may serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which implies Canada's acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon.[/font]

[font=Verdana]And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:[/font]

• [font=Verdana]Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.[/font]
  
• [font=Verdana]US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.[/font]
  
• [font=Verdana]Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.[/font]
  

[font=Verdana]But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a Nation.[/font]

[font=Verdana]The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda.[/font]

[font=Verdana]The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have endorsed embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.[/font]

[font=Verdana]Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003. [size=1](See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism" http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004)[/size][/font]

[font=Verdana]Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.[/font]

[font=Arial][/font][font=Verdana]FULL TEXT OF ARTICLE[size=2] [/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=2]in de links[/size][/font]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

Continental Defence in the Wake of 11 September: A New Urgency

In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, defence of the North American continent returned to the forefront of American national security policy. The Bush Administration quickly formed a civilian-led, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. On the military side, on 17 April 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) was being updated to include a new regional command – Northern Command (NorthCom).

The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

Rumsfeld boasted that the introduction of NorthCom – with all of North America as its geographic command – "is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan since its inception in 1947."

NorthCom is a wholly American command. Inescapably, however, its presence will profoundly influence those other states included within its geographic area of responsibility. Canadian military and political leaders, mindful of historic and continuing military ties to the United States, have engaged in an increasing number
of debates regarding the significance of this singular
UCP revision. The formation of NorthCom has revived familiar disputes regarding the need to cooperate with the US in continental defence, weighed against the likely impact of such cooperation on our nation's sovereignty. [/font][/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 17:31
Reason:
--------------------------------

een voorbeeldje:
Canadese onafhankelijkheid en die van andere staten in US-ogen...en hoe Canada dat aanvoelt:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

Continental Defence in the Wake of 11 September: A New Urgency

In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, defence of the North American continent returned to the forefront of American national security policy. The Bush Administration quickly formed a civilian-led, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. On the military side, on 17 April 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) was being updated to include a new regional command – Northern Command (NorthCom).

The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

Rumsfeld boasted that the introduction of NorthCom – with all of North America as its geographic command – "is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan since its inception in 1947."

NorthCom is a wholly American command. Inescapably, however, its presence will profoundly influence those other states included within its geographic area of responsibility. Canadian military and political leaders, mindful of historic and continuing military ties to the United States, have engaged in an increasing number
of debates regarding the significance of this singular
UCP revision. The formation of NorthCom has revived familiar disputes regarding the need to cooperate with the US in continental defence, weighed against the likely impact of such cooperation on our nation's sovereignty. [/font][/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 17:31
Reason:
--------------------------------

een voorbeeldje:
Canzdese onafhankelijkheid en die van andere staten in US-ogen...en hoe Canada dat aanvoelt:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

Continental Defence in the Wake of 11 September: A New Urgency

In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, defence of the North American continent returned to the forefront of American national security policy. The Bush Administration quickly formed a civilian-led, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. On the military side, on 17 April 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) was being updated to include a new regional command – Northern Command (NorthCom).

The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

Rumsfeld boasted that the introduction of NorthCom – with all of North America as its geographic command – "is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan since its inception in 1947."

NorthCom is a wholly American command. Inescapably, however, its presence will profoundly influence those other states included within its geographic area of responsibility. Canadian military and political leaders, mindful of historic and continuing military ties to the United States, have engaged in an increasing number
of debates regarding the significance of this singular
UCP revision. The formation of NorthCom has revived familiar disputes regarding the need to cooperate with the US in continental defence, weighed against the likely impact of such cooperation on our nation's sovereignty. [/font][/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 17:30
Reason:
--------------------------------

een voorbeeldje:
Canzdese onafhankelijkheid en die van andere staten in US-ogen...en hoe Canada dat aanvoelt:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411C.html
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

[font=Times]Continental Defence in the Wake of 11 September: A New Urgency

In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, defence of the North American continent returned to the forefront of American national security policy. The Bush Administration quickly formed a civilian-led, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. On the military side, on 17 April 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) was being updated to include a new regional command – Northern Command (NorthCom).

The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

Rumsfeld boasted that the introduction of NorthCom – with all of North America as its geographic command – "is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan since its inception in 1947."

NorthCom is a wholly American command. Inescapably, however, its presence will profoundly influence those other states included within its geographic area of responsibility. Canadian military and political leaders, mindful of historic and continuing military ties to the United States, have engaged in an increasing number
of debates regarding the significance of this singular
UCP revision. The formation of NorthCom has revived familiar disputes regarding the need to cooperate with the US in continental defence, weighed against the likely impact of such cooperation on our nation's sovereignty. [/font][/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 17:28
Reason:
--------------------------------

een voorbeeldje:
Canzdese onafhankelijkheid en die van andere staten in US-ogen...en hoe Canada dat aanvoelt:
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

[font=Times]Continental Defence in the Wake of 11 September: A New Urgency

In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks, defence of the North American continent returned to the forefront of American national security policy. The Bush Administration quickly formed a civilian-led, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. On the military side, on 17 April 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) was being updated to include a new regional command – Northern Command (NorthCom).

The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

Rumsfeld boasted that the introduction of NorthCom – with all of North America as its geographic command – "is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan since its inception in 1947."

NorthCom is a wholly American command. Inescapably, however, its presence will profoundly influence those other states included within its geographic area of responsibility. Canadian military and political leaders, mindful of historic and continuing military ties to the United States, have engaged in an increasing number
of debates regarding the significance of this singular
UCP revision. The formation of NorthCom has revived familiar disputes regarding the need to cooperate with the US in continental defence, weighed against the likely impact of such cooperation on our nation's sovereignty. [/font][/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

een voorbeeldje:
Canzdese onafhankelijkheid in US-ogen...
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm[/size]

[/edit]

[filosoof]

vooral dit is "mooi":

Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States".

EN DIT:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 18:06
Reason:
--------------------------------

vooral dit is "mooi":

EN DIT:

[/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 18:05
Reason:
--------------------------------

vooral dit is "mooi":

EN DIT:

[/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 18:05
Reason:
--------------------------------

vooral dit is "mooi":

EN DIT:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

vooral dit is "mooi":

[/size]

[/edit]

[filosoof]

Bush zal je buur maar wezen!...[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by filosoof on 23-08-2005 at 18:08
Reason:
--------------------------------

Bush zal je buur maar wezen!...[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Bush zal je buur maar wezen!...[/size]

[/edit]

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door filosoof

Bush zal je buur maar wezen!...

Dit speelt allemaal in het plan van de NWO om de soevereiniteit van de naties af te breken en landen te verenigen op weg naar de wereldregering. Het plan gaat uit van de CFR. (Hoe zou dat toch komen).

CFR’s Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada Idaho Observer | August 21 2005

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what’s really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

"Community" means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

"Community" is sometimes called "space" but the CFR goal is clear: "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely." The CFR’s "integrated" strategy calls for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."

The CFR document lays "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." The "common security perimeter" will require us to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations" with Mexico and Canada, "harmonize entry screening," and "fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals."

This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush’s ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.

It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet "vigilantes" on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona.

A follow-up meeting was held in Ottawa on June 27, where the U.S. representative, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, told a news conference that "we want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders." The White House issued a statement that the Ottawa report "represents an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership."

The CFR document calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages.

Just to make sure that bringing cheap labor from Mexico is an essential part of the plan, the CFR document calls for "a seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico."

The document’s frequent references to "security" are just a cover for the real objectives. The document’s "security cooperation" includes the registration of ballistics and explosives, while Canada specifically refused to cooperate with our Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

To no one’s surprise, the CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.

The experience of the European Union and the World Trade Organization makes it clear that a common market requires a court system, so the CFR document calls for "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution." Get ready for decisions from non-American judges who make up their rules ad hoc and probably hate the United States anyway.

The CFR document calls for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities. The CFR document calls for adopting a "tested once" principle for pharmaceuticals, by which a product tested in Mexico will automatically be considered to have met U.S. standards.

The CFR document demands that we implement "the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico." That’s code language for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, which is bound to bankrupt the system.

Here’s another handout included in the plan. U.S. taxpayers are supposed to create a major fund to finance 60,000 Mexican students to study in U.S. colleges.

To ensure that the U.S. government carries out this plan so that it is "achievable" within five years, the CFR calls for supervision by a North American Advisory Council of "eminent persons from outside government . . . along the lines of the Bilderberg" conferences.

The best known Americans who participated in the CFR Task Force that wrote this document are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld and Bill Clinton’s immigration chief Doris Meissner. Another participant, American University Professor Robert Pastor, presented the CFR plan at a friendly hearing of Senator Richard Lugar’s Foreign Relations Committee on June 9.

Ask your Senators and Representatives which side they are on: the CFR’s integrated North American Community or U.S. sovereignty guarded by our own borders.

[Percalion]

Allez gij.

[Musketo]

Ik krijg echt de tyfuskleretering van die schuine tekstjes.

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Musketo

Ik krijg echt de tyfuskleretering van die schuine tekstjes.

Je bent niet verplicht van ze te bekijken, hé.

[Musketo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door exodus

Je bent niet verplicht van ze te bekijken, hé.

Door mijn dwangneuroses kom ik elke dag in dit soort onderwerpen kijken. Hoe moet ik die zever dan negeren, zeg mij dat eens Einstein?

[Percalion]

Wedden dat hij nu die opmerking gaat negeren? Of toch minstens antwoorden met een nietszeggend bericht?

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Percalion

Wedden dat hij nu die opmerking gaat negeren? Of toch minstens antwoorden met een nietszeggend bericht?

Ik ging het negeren omdat ik geen zever meer wou schrijven. Nietszeggende berichten vragen immers om nietszeggende berichten. Houdt de zever maar voor K&K.

[Lex Blanca]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Mephisto

Dát is wat ik van die mensen ken, nìet de geruchten dat ze zijn verkracht door de paus. Iets wat ik persoonlijk hoogst onwaarschijnlijk acht, simpelweg omdat

1. Die man, net als de Dalai Lama, zijn uiterste best doet om 'liefde' te verspreiden, al geloof ik dat de Katholieke kerk dat woord nog niet echt begrijpt.

De Paus (die celibatair die beslist over de anticonceptie van vele miljoenen) probeert helemaal geen liefde te verspreiden.Hij probeert op elke mogelijke manier de macht van de kerk over de massa te versterken/handhaven en gaat daarbij over lijken.
Het is niet omdat de kerk dat laat uitschijnen dat het zo is hè Méphisto.
Was het een grapje van je?Of geloof je echt dat de Paus liefde probeert te verspreiden?

[Lex Blanca]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Mephisto

Dát is wat ik weet van de vrijmetselarij. Dat mag u van mij satanisme noemen, ik vind dat die loges zich meestal vrij filosofisch voordoen.

Voordoen idd.Ik geloof best dat in de lagere regionen goede mensen zitten die goede dingen trachten te verwezenlijken.Slechts een klein percentage stoot echter door naar de hoogste graden en daar gelden andere normen(kijk maar hoeveel 33ste graads niet het goede doen/deden).
Blijkbaar werden de laatste 8 graden van de vrijmetselarij ook opgericht door Frederick de Grote en de Superial General van de Order of the Jesuits...die hetzelfde principe hanteren.
Het merendeel van hen zijn gelovige integere mensen,slechts 2 a 3% krijgen de kans toe te treden tot de selecte groep waartoe ook de Superial General en de Provincials behoren.Zij leggen de Fourth Vowl af;ze worden gekozen voor bepaalde van hun eigenschappen.Niet de meest nobele eigenschappen...
Ze zweren trouw aan de Luciferiaanse religie...evenals die hoge Vrijmetselaars.
Er is een chain of command en landsgrenzen/wetten zijn ondergeschikt aan die van de orde en haar doel.

[Lex Blanca]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Turkje

Uit de Witte:

"Zoo hing er namelijk thuis in de beste kamer een schilderij die hem een bijzonder ontzag inboezemde. Het was, in 't midden, een driehoek van waaruit u een eenig oog zoo dreigend en zoo loensch aankeek dat ge d'r naar van werdt. Bovenaan stond te lezen: God ziet mij! en er onder: Hier vloekt men niet! De schilderij in haar geheel hiet: een Christusoog, en men vindt die in de streek bijna in alle huizen hangen. "



Zelfs Ernest Claes (en zo te lezen het ganse Hageland !) was onderdeel van de illuminati

Nee,zij waren geen deel van de Illuminati,aleen was hun symboliek vlak onder hun neus te vinden...zoals je schrijft...het oog van God (eigenlijk Lucifer maar voor de massa God) en eronder hier wordt niet gevloekt.Alsof God zich daar wat van aantrekt.Misbruik van geloof door degenen die de touwen in handen hadden-hebben.[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Lex Blanca on 23-08-2005 at 19:37
Reason:
--------------------------------

Nee,zij waren geen deel van de Illuminati,aleen was hun symboliek vlak onder hun neus te vinden...zoals je schrijft...het oog van God (eigenlijk Lucifer maar voor de massa God) en eronder hier wordt niet gevloekt.Alsof God zich daar wat van aantrekt.Misbruik van geloof door degenen die de touwen in handen hadden-hebben.[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Nee,zij waren geen deel van de Illuminati,aleen was hun symboliek vlak onder hun neus te vinden...zoals je schrijft...het oog van God (eigenlijk Lucifer maar voor de massa God) en eronder hier wordt niet gevloekt.Alsof God zich daar wat van aantrekt.Misbruik van geloof door degenen die de touwen in handen hebben/hadden.[/size]

[/edit]

[Lex Blanca]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Percalion

Wedden dat hij nu die opmerking gaat negeren? Of toch minstens antwoorden met een nietszeggend bericht?

De nietszeggende berichten....wie post ze..?Wat drijft hen...?
1 ervan is Percalion.Vroeger was hij een gerespecteerd zakenman...nu post hij nietszeggende berichten....
Is het zijn bedoeling om met dit soort nietszeggende posts zo snel mogelijk de status van Secretaris-Generaal van de VN te bekomen op forum.politics.be?
Laten we het hem samen vragen...u ziet het vanavond in...Jambers.

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Turkje

Wat bedoelde de schrijver anders met zijn "more savvy leftists, feminists, ..." zinneke dan, oh weledelgestrenge ziener ?

Jij blijft je vastpinnen op die ene zin ... zegt voor mijn part genoeg over uw selectieve blindheid[edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by 2004gun on 23-08-2005 at 21:02
Reason:
--------------------------------

Jij blijft je vastpinnen op die ene zin ... zegt voor mijn part genoeg over uw selectieve blindheid[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Jj blijft je vastpinnen op die ene zin ... zegt voor mijn part genoeg over uw selectieve blindheid[/size]

[/edit]

[Turkje]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door 2004gun

Jij blijft je vastpinnen op die ene zin ...

Misschien had u het nog niet opgemerkt (die ogen van u toch hé), maar die zin was IN T VET gedrukt in het oorspronkelijke bericht. Een simpele ziel als mijzelf verbindt daar dan de conclusie aan dat die zin belangrijk is in het betoog.

zegt voor mijn part genoeg over uw selectieve blindheid

Uw gezaag en irrationele volharding zegt voor mijn part ook genoeg over u.

[Mephisto]

What's a 33rd Degree Mason? Do they really know and practice hideous and disgusting Luciferian rituals that are hidden from 'common Blue Lodge Masons'?

Scottish Rite RingsTo Masons this is probably the most hilarious 'indictment' against the fraternity that they could ever see. In every lodge, at every meeting, there are found Masons who have joined the Scottish Rite and who have received their prestigious and HONORARY 33rd Degree. These men are nearly always the ones most active and involved in Freemasonry. They have labored for long years 'in the quarries' (as Freemasonic allegory would explain it) and any allusion that they're off dancing naked in the moonlight and/or whipping up spells to praise Lucifer are more absurd than any childish taunt. Claims that only the "top 5%" of Masons really know what's going on in this secret 'new world order/luciferian conspiracy', though, are a staple of anti-Masons who want to convince you of some horrific conspiracy. Sometimes the 'five percent' are identified as the 33rd Degree Masons but in other cases (like the claims of Roger "El Gato" Bullock), it's some amorphous group whose membership credentials haven't been quite categorized just yet.

When one looks critically at the membership of the Scottish Rite's 33rd Degree, it would seem to most people that it's the most unlikely group one would ever find out plotting to take over the world. Of course, conjecture and imagination are amazing things and any similarities between truth and the claim of world-dominating 33rd Degree Masons are often deliberately blurred by Masonic detractors. Tossing away mounds of provable and visible evidence that 33rds are not really different than any average grouping of senior and involved members of an organization, they'll instead concentrate on the one single thing which supports their theories.

Bron: Masonic Info - nauwelijks objectief te noemen, echter wel een 'fatsoenlijke'? tegenhanger van niburu of prisonplanet.

Let's step back just a bit to explain how this '33rd' stuff came into play in the fantasies of anti-Masons.
There are three (Count 'em: 3) degrees of Masonry:

1. Entered Apprentice
2. Fellowcraft
3. Master Mason

When one becomes a Master Mason he has received the highest degree in Masonry. This fact totally confounds those outside of Freemasonry who believe that when they see a higher numbered degree, it means the person is somehow superior in rank. It's simply not true. Don't believe it? Ask any Mason.... Of course, those who love conspiracies will argue that those non-33rds simply don't know what's going on.

En de kleine lettertjes:

[size=1]A brief but necessary footnote: There are, in some places in Continental Europe (France primarily), unrecognized Grand Lodges whose Degree system is ENTIRELY that of the Scottish Rite. In these instances, EVERY degree (1-33) comes under the aegis of their (unrecognized) Scottish Rite system. In these cases, 33rd Degree Scottish Rite members do have significant authority within the lodge since that is their entire system of operation. Let it be clearly understood, however, that these are UNRECOGNIZED organizations and their members would not be admitted to a lodge meeting anywhere else. See our page on recognition for more to do with this sometimes confusing aspect of Freemasonry. Suffice it to say, your Masonic lodge down the street does NOT work in this way. The Master Mason degree is the highest Masonic Degree one receives and the presence at a meeting of someone holding the 33rd Degree of the Scottish Rite is likely no more of concern than someone wearing a blue shirt. [/size]

Dus, de door deze vrijmetselaren niet-geaccepteerde clubs:
Scottish Rite Freemasonry
Knights Templar Eye Foundation
The Supreme Council 33
Deze is trouwens fantastisch. Die hoedjes![edit]
[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Mephisto on 24-08-2005 at 13:20
Reason:
--------------------------------

Bron: Masonic Info - nauwelijks objectief te noemen, echter wel een 'fatsoenlijke'? tegenhanger van niburu of prisonplanet.

En de kleine lettertjes:

Dus, de door deze vrijmetselaren niet-geaccepteerde clubs:
Scottish Rite Freemasonry
Knights Templar Eye Foundation
The Supreme Council 33
Deze is trouwens fantastisch. Die hoedjes![/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Mephisto on 24-08-2005 at 13:07
Reason:
--------------------------------

Bron: Masonic Info - nauwelijks objectief te noemen, echter wel een 'fatsoenlijke'? tegenhanger van niburu of prisonplanet.

En de kleine lettertjes:

Dus, de door deze vrijmetselaren niet-geaccepteerde clubs:
Scottish Rite Freemasonry
Knights Templar Eye Foundation
The Supreme Council 33[/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Mephisto on 24-08-2005 at 13:04
Reason:
--------------------------------

Bron: Masonic Info - nauwelijks objectief te noemen, echter wel een 'fatsoenlijke'? tegenhanger van niburu of prisonplanet.

En de kleine lettertjes:

[/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Mephisto on 24-08-2005 at 13:01
Reason:
--------------------------------

Bron: Masonic Info - nauwelijks objectief te noemen, echter wel een 'fatsoenlijke'? tegenhanger van niburu of prisonplanet.

[/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Mephisto on 24-08-2005 at 13:00
Reason:
--------------------------------

Bron: Masonic Info - nauwelijks objectief te noemen, echter wel een 'fatsoenlijke'? tegenhanger van niburu of prisonplanet.

[/size]

[size=1]Edit:[/size]

[size=1]After edit by Mephisto on 24-08-2005 at 12:59
Reason:
--------------------------------

Bron: Masonic Info - nauwelijks objectief te noemen, echter wel een 'fatsoenlijke'? tegenhanger van niburu of prisonplanet.[/size]

[size=1]Before any edits, post was:
--------------------------------

Bron: Masonic Info - nauwelijks objectief te noemen, echter wel een 'fatsoenlijke'? tegenhanger van niburu of prisonplanet.[/size]

[/edit]

[Mephisto]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

[size=2]Vind je dat nou echt geen waanzin! Als ik iets aanhaal dan klopt het niet, maar haalt een ander iets anders aan wat het tegenovergestelde beweerd dan klopt het opeens wel????? is dat niet raar? Ik zeg niet dat men mij zo bij zo dient te geloven, helemaal niet. Maar wat hier gebeurd is natuurlijk absurd.[/size]

Je leest niet goed, Pindar. Ik zeg: "ik vind dit vrij overtuigend bewijs van het tegendeel". Dat zorgt ervoor, dat jouw theorie dus één van de vele insteken is. Waarbij ik persoonlijk meer waarde hecht aan het verhaal dat zij een om aandacht schreeuwende psychiatrisch patiënte was/is, dan dat zij gelijk heeft & is misbruikt door de hele club van machthebbers.

1. Het lijkt mij vrij onwaarschijnlijk dat zo'n vrouw die eer te beurt zou vallen. Omdat mensen nu eenmaal verschillende smaken hebben, lijkt het me vreemd dat zij ze allemaal gehad heeft. Dat zou al aardig klinken als opschepperij.
2. Zie jij Bush & de paus al, gebroederlijk, samen neuken? Volgens mij weten beiden nog geeneens waarmee ze dat dienen te doen!

[exodus]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Mephisto

Bron: Masonic Info - nauwelijks objectief te noemen, echter wel een 'fatsoenlijke'? tegenhanger van niburu of prisonplanet.
En de kleine lettertjes:
Dus, de door deze vrijmetselaren niet-geaccepteerde clubs:
Scottish Rite Freemasonry
Knights Templar Eye Foundation
The Supreme Council 33
Deze is trouwens fantastisch. Die hoedjes!

Een vrijmetselaar site is inderdaad niet echt objectief te noemen. Bovendien weten veel onwetende vrijmetselaren (lagere rang) niet wat er zich echt afspeelt binnen de organisatie.