Goodby United States of American and Hello...

[funboy6942]

Oh this is not going to be good it look slike if it comes true. North America Union, no more will be be United States of America. Free and open Borders from Mexico and Canada.

Papers Please, and this is coming into effect in 2008.

More info

And even more info.

SPP, not mentioned as the United States of America at this government website but just as North America.
This trilateral initiative is premised on our security and our economic prosperity being mutually reinforcing. The SPP recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

The SPP provides the framework to ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business. It includes ambitious security and prosperity programs to keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade.

The SPP builds upon, but is separate from, our long-standing trade and economic relationships. It energizes other aspects of our cooperative relations, such as the protection of our environment, our food supply, and our public health.


I searched for this and nothing came up for me on either of them. Scary stuff to say the least.

 

[dmcowen674]

Nothing new here, Republicans and Bush administration already put all this in place.

Whether or not it can be undone remains to be seen.

 

[techs]

Look, up in the sky, its Black Helicopters!

 

[sandorski]

Too much is being made abbout this. It makes perfect sense for all involved and should increase the Security of the US, though the "security" idea is more smoke/mirrors than actual fact. The 3 Nations are tied to each other Economically so much that whn 9/11 happened and the Borders were closed all 3 suffered.

 

[2Xtreme21]

I'd be fine with Canada + US becoming more integrated, but not Mexico. Mexico would only hinder the US economically (more so than it already does) if it were to become integrated. I do like how Bush is going behind the backs of EVERYONE with this, though-- even his own party.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I'd be fine with Canada + US becoming more integrated, but not Mexico. Mexico would only hinder the US economically (more so than it already does) if it were to become integrated. I do like how Bush is going behind the backs of EVERYONE with this, though-- even his own party.

If Mexico gets developed, you'll have fewer Mexicans wanting to cross the Border. Just something to consider.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Well, everyone knows that if you want to win, you have to secure North America first. Next you can move to South America, then Africa. Europe is a pushover by then, and you get enough armies for the Asian continent. All that's left is Australia, and you win.

The Rules

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
Well, everyone knows that if you want to win, you have to secure North America first. Next you can move to South America, then Africa. Europe is a pushover by then, and you get enough armies for the Asian continent. All that's left is Australia, and you win.

The Rules

I always did better getting Australia first, then S America, Africa, N America, Europe, Asia. Whil taking over, alawys give Australia it's Continent Bonus Armies and a couple extra. Later on in the game some poor fool will try to take you on, perhaps wipe out all your other holdings, but die a painful death in Australia. Cash in a Risk set, take him out, Victory. Seen it happen too many times, both in my favour and against.

 

[blackangst1]

Interesting considering Dept of Homeland Security is beginning in January 2007 to REQUIRE passports if coming from Mexico or Canada. Kinda goes against open border policy IMHO.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
Well, everyone knows that if you want to win, you have to secure North America first. Next you can move to South America, then Africa. Europe is a pushover by then, and you get enough armies for the Asian continent. All that's left is Australia, and you win.

The Rules

I always did better getting Australia first, then S America, Africa, N America, Europe, Asia. Whil taking over, alawys give Australia it's Continent Bonus Armies and a couple extra. Later on in the game some poor fool will try to take you on, perhaps wipe out all your other holdings, but die a painful death in Australia. Cash in a Risk set, take him out, Victory. Seen it happen too many times, both in my favour and against.

If you can secure N.A. you only have to have massive armies in C. A., Alaska, and Greenland. This was always much easier than holding on to Europe, Asia or Africa. Obviously if you could hold on to Australia and amass a huge army you could possibly lay in wait for almost any onslaught. Spent many hours playing this game with friends.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: conehead433

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
Well, everyone knows that if you want to win, you have to secure North America first. Next you can move to South America, then Africa. Europe is a pushover by then, and you get enough armies for the Asian continent. All that's left is Australia, and you win.

The Rules

I always did better getting Australia first, then S America, Africa, N America, Europe, Asia. Whil taking over, alawys give Australia it's Continent Bonus Armies and a couple extra. Later on in the game some poor fool will try to take you on, perhaps wipe out all your other holdings, but die a painful death in Australia. Cash in a Risk set, take him out, Victory. Seen it happen too many times, both in my favour and against.

If you can secure N.A. you only have to have massive armies in C. A., Alaska, and Greenland. This was always much easier than holding on to Europe, Asia or Africa. Obviously if you could hold on to Australia and amass a huge army you could possibly lay in wait for almost any onslaught. Spent many hours playing this game with friends.

So yes, annex Mexico and Canada making it easier to defend our borders, and as a bonus tax everyone living in both those countries.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: conehead433

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
Well, everyone knows that if you want to win, you have to secure North America first. Next you can move to South America, then Africa. Europe is a pushover by then, and you get enough armies for the Asian continent. All that's left is Australia, and you win.

The Rules

I always did better getting Australia first, then S America, Africa, N America, Europe, Asia. Whil taking over, alawys give Australia it's Continent Bonus Armies and a couple extra. Later on in the game some poor fool will try to take you on, perhaps wipe out all your other holdings, but die a painful death in Australia. Cash in a Risk set, take him out, Victory. Seen it happen too many times, both in my favour and against.

If you can secure N.A. you only have to have massive armies in C. A., Alaska, and Greenland. This was always much easier than holding on to Europe, Asia or Africa. Obviously if you could hold on to Australia and amass a huge army you could possibly lay in wait for almost any onslaught. Spent many hours playing this game with friends.

Works very well. 😉

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: conehead433

Originally posted by: conehead433

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
Well, everyone knows that if you want to win, you have to secure North America first. Next you can move to South America, then Africa. Europe is a pushover by then, and you get enough armies for the Asian continent. All that's left is Australia, and you win.

The Rules

I always did better getting Australia first, then S America, Africa, N America, Europe, Asia. Whil taking over, alawys give Australia it's Continent Bonus Armies and a couple extra. Later on in the game some poor fool will try to take you on, perhaps wipe out all your other holdings, but die a painful death in Australia. Cash in a Risk set, take him out, Victory. Seen it happen too many times, both in my favour and against.

If you can secure N.A. you only have to have massive armies in C. A., Alaska, and Greenland. This was always much easier than holding on to Europe, Asia or Africa. Obviously if you could hold on to Australia and amass a huge army you could possibly lay in wait for almost any onslaught. Spent many hours playing this game with friends.

So yes, annex Mexico and Canada making it easier to defend our borders, and as a bonus tax everyone living in both those countries.

Bah, not Mexico, can you imagine what the US and Canadian tax payers would have to shell out to support a 3rd world nation? It would make the money sent to the southeast look like pennies. Once the French Canadians spin off into a new country, I would love to have Canada join the US. It should help with the problem of dependency on foreign oil.

But this is all just fantasy, I dont think the Canadians will ever join the US... willingly...

The US will just have to use the North American Union to conquer North America like Germany used the EU to conquer France and other European countries..... again

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Nothing new here, Republicans and Bush administration already put all this in place.

Whether or not it can be undone remains to be seen.

Can you ever make a post without saying the words "Bush" "Republicans" "Christians" or "Neocons"? I think not.

 

[imported_Aelius]

The Real ID Act passed 100-0 in the Senate. There was little debate but it was brought up by several senators who objected to it as well as the way it was being brought in. Sadly the vote doesn't show this. It was attached to the emergency supplemental appropriation bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only way to stop it would have been to vote against the bill and stop funding.

This was in 2005. It was introduced before in 2004 and eventually it passed the House but "they" felt it might not pass the Senate. Hence it got attached to a bill that was guaranteed to pass.

In case anyone was wondering how they sold everyone out.

As far as trilateral initiative it is quite freaking scarry. It's sad that people don't realize what is going on and think that it's actually a good thing. I thought that too when I was a naive little kid in high school.

 

[funboy6942]

it was passed 100-0 because, like you said, they attached the ID Act to an "emergency" military spending bill. Kinda hard to deny the troops the money they need, so to insure the Act got passed, they slipped that sucker into the one bill they knew was going to pass 100% 😉

And if I read correctly no one read the Act at all because the Bill they slipped it into was a must sign bill, no one was to not sign it, it's difficult for politicians to vote against money that will go to the troops in Iraq and tsunami relief. The funds cover ammunition, weapons, tracked combat vehicles, aircraft, troop housing, death benefits, and so on. Very Sneaky.

 

[jrenz]

I thought Republicans were the one's who always used fear and emotion to push their political point? You and Dave seem to be writing the book on idiotic fear-mongering.

Tell me what the hell the difference is between a national ID card and a driver's license? Suddenly you have another card with your picture on it. Do you have a SS card? Slap your picture on it... what does that change? So now we're living in a police state? I honestly get headaches thinking about the level of stupidity that goes into posts like yours.

Edit: Readong more about it... all this legislation does is set standards which each state's ID's need to comply with. In essence, you're getting a new driver's license, which will be harder to obtain illegally. I'm still trying to figure out how this could be anything but positive.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Nothing new here, Republicans and Bush administration already put all this in place.

Whether or not it can be undone remains to be seen.

Can you ever make a post without saying the words "Bush" "Republicans" "Christians" or "Neocons"? I think not.

LOL, I THINK NOT ALSO.
he also convienently forgets Nafta was kicked off by clinton, this is just an extension of it.

 

[CPA]

Merge with the Canadians? Oh, HELL NO!

 

[imported_Aelius]

In other not so shocking news the corporate media ignored both the Real ID Act and the project to merge the three nations.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Aelius
In other not so shocking news the corporate media ignored both the Real ID Act and the project to merge the three nations.

If you want to share this news with the rest of the world, I'm sure the NYT would be glad to host a "Goddamn retarded conspiracy theories of the internet" editorial for you.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Aelius
In other not so shocking news the corporate media ignored both the Real ID Act and the project to merge the three nations.

If you want to share this news with the rest of the world, I'm sure the NYT would be glad to host a "Goddamn retarded conspiracy theories of the internet" editorial for you.

Hey don't let facts get in the way of a flame.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Aelius
In other not so shocking news the corporate media ignored both the Real ID Act and the project to merge the three nations.

If you want to share this news with the rest of the world, I'm sure the NYT would be glad to host a "Goddamn retarded conspiracy theories of the internet" editorial for you.

Hey don't let facts get in the way of a flame.

Only if you stop letting them get in the way of common sense.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I'd be fine with Canada + US becoming more integrated, but not Mexico. Mexico would only hinder the US economically (more so than it already does) if it were to become integrated. I do like how Bush is going behind the backs of EVERYONE with this, though-- even his own party.

If Mexico gets developed, you'll have fewer Mexicans wanting to cross the Border. Just something to consider.

Thats a big if. You'd have to start some serious redistribution effort on the 14 families who control everything in Mexico to build up an business and socieital infrastructure, educational system among other things. Mexico is a feudal socieity. I mean just look at thier leaders they certainly don't look like the ones crossing the borders.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jrenz
I thought Republicans were the one's who always used fear and emotion to push their political point? You and Dave seem to be writing the book on idiotic fear-mongering.

Tell me what the hell the difference is between a national ID card and a driver's license? Suddenly you have another card with your picture on it. Do you have a SS card? Slap your picture on it... what does that change? So now we're living in a police state? I honestly get headaches thinking about the level of stupidity that goes into posts like yours.

Edit: Readong more about it... all this legislation does is set standards which each state's ID's need to comply with. In essence, you're getting a new driver's license, which will be harder to obtain illegally. I'm still trying to figure out how this could be anything but positive.

I'm not sure I see the negative, but I don't really see a positive either...so in that sense it's "negative" because it's a huge waste of money. Despite all the noise, I see very little evidence to support the point I bolded.