Discussion: The North American Union

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

The United States. A North American Union would basically be unable to stop it. If the United States were a more smaller and weaker nation like those of Eastern Europe, it would be a different story, but the United States is far too powerful. It would be more on par with France and Germany if such a union existed.

Our military might has nothing to do with our governance. The last 20 years has certainly proven that.

 

[justinlancaster]

The United States. A North American Union would basically be unable to stop it. If the United States were a more smaller and weaker nation like those of Eastern Europe, it would be a different story, but the United States is far too powerful. It would be more on par with France and Germany if such a union existed.

I think that is a dangerous statement. You must look at the future implications of this union also. Who is to say whether the US will be as powerful in the future as it is now?

 

[justinlancaster]

How would that be fair for Canada or Mexico?

It isn't and if all the nations involved with this union are not equal, then what is the point of having it in the first place.

 

[hippie_hunter]

How would that be fair for Canada or Mexico?

And that's why a North American Union would never be as powerful as the European Union or Community of South American Nations. The United States would be far too protectful of it's soverignty and the North American nations of Latin America (a North American Union would most likely spread into Central America) would be too distrustful of the United States to allow it to get too strong.

A North American Union would most likely be a free trade zone committed to common defense, a common currency, looser border controls, and a few other things. Not as powerful as the European Union which issues a common passport, has more economic regulations, etc.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Our military might has nothing to do with our governance. The last 20 years has certainly proven that.

It doesn't have to do with military might. Politically the United States is still a very powerful nation. It still holds considerable influence.

 

[TBadora]

I think that is a dangerous statement. You must look at the future implications of this union also. Who is to say whether the US will be as powerful in the future as it is now?

This guy, he knows what's gonna happen YEARS before hand!:

Spoiler

 

[SuBe]

The United States. A North American Union would basically be unable to stop it. If the United States were a more smaller and weaker nation like those of Eastern Europe, it would be a different story, but the United States is far too powerful. It would be more on par with France and Germany if such a union existed.

More than likely, situations like that would be solved like the UN solves them now, by imposing Fines to that Nation's Government. So say NY is again attacked by Terrorist in the Same Fashion as in 9/11. The Terrorist Snuck through the border of Belize and Mexico. Now, they would have absolutly no problem getting throught the Mexican/US border. We discover that this Terrorist Groups comes from some Middle Eastern Country. We go to Fight said ME Country. The NAU doesn't agree with our actions. The NAU fines the US for our Military actions against the ME Country. Who pays that fine. The Government derieves its revenue from Taxing its citizens. Who pays the tythe to Ceaser?

 

[SuBe]

A North American Union would most likely be a free trade zone committed to common defense, a common currency, looser border controls, and a few other things. Not as powerful as the European Union which issues a common passport, has more economic regulations, etc.

We already have that, it's called the Monroe Doctorine.

 

[hippie_hunter]

More than likely, situations like that would be solved like the UN solves them now, by imposing Fines to that Nation's Government. So say NY is again attacked by Terrorist in the Same Fashion as in 9/11. The Terrorist Snuck through the border of Belize and Mexico. Now, they would have absolutly no problem getting throught the Mexican/US border. We discover that this Terrorist Groups comes from some Middle Eastern Country. We go to Fight said ME Country. The NAU doesn't agree with our actions. The NAU fines the US for our Military actions against the ME Country. Who pays that fine. The Government derieves its revenue from Taxing its citizens. Who pays the tythe to Ceaser?

Again, a North American Union would never have that much power. Latin America would be too distrustful of the United States and the United States would be too worried about its soverignty. Hell, the EU doesn't even have that kind of power.

Also the United States is far too powerful politically. Notice how we aren't fined and punished for invading Iraq.

 

[lazur]

Some people just believe there's conspiracy in everything.

Paranoia...proud to be American.

Get to know your fellow poster before coming to such conclusions. This isn't a 'conspiracy theory' - this is a fact. It's posted right on Whitehouse.gov. Unless, of course, you believe our own government is posting conspiracy theories...

 

[justinlancaster]

And that's why a North American Union would never be as powerful as the European Union or Community of South American Nations. The United States would be far too protectful of it's soverignty and the North American nations of Latin America (a North American Union would most likely spread into Central America) would be too distrustful of the United States to allow it to get too strong.

-I hope you are right but if the United states was so protectful of its sovereignty then we probably would not be having this conversation right now.

A North American Union would most likely be a free trade zone committed to common defense, a common currency, looser border controls, and a few other things. Not as powerful as the European Union which issues a common passport, has more economic regulations, etc.

And that is exactly the problem with a NAU. A common defense for three nations paid for by the people. I do not want my tax money to pay for the defense of Canada and Mexico and I bet their citizens feel the same way about us. I do not want looser border control that fades the boundary lines of the USA or a common currency because it is more convenient. We have enough problems with monetary policy in our own country. We do not need to bring in other countries to compound it.

 

[lazur]

Again, a North American Union would never have that much power. Latin America would be too distrustful of the United States and the United States would be too worried about its soverignty. Hell, the EU doesn't even have that kind of power.

Also the United States is far too powerful politically. Notice how we aren't fined and punished for invading Iraq.

C'mon now, you really don't think that Canada and Mexico are going to form a union in which they are powerless to the U.S., do you?

As to the power of the NAU, I think the documents located at the Whitehouse.gov website give a pretty clear picture of how powerful it will be over each participating nation. Some of those bullet points are outrageously powerful in scope - more so, in many cases, than the EU is over each participating country.

But hey, we're all just paranoid. Wait a few years and then see just how paranoid we are. I don't know about you, but I don't plan on being on NAU soil in a few years...

 

[justinlancaster]

Again, a North American Union would never have that much power. Latin America would be too distrustful of the United States and the United States would be too worried about its soverignty. Hell, the EU doesn't even have that kind of power.

Also the United States is far too powerful politically. Notice how we aren't fined and punished for invading Iraq.

How do you know that? Think about the future of this country also. I believe, based on history, that this country will not be as powerful (in the future) as it is today. All countries and civilizations fade.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

hippie, you're explaining the theory, not the practicle application.

In theory, on paper, it will be described and understood as you say. But in reality, the practicle application of this shared currency is a fluid shared reserve (which can't be individually defended or preserved in case of national crisis) shared debt, loser border and legal enforcement (the dictaits and constraints of which may not originate this country) that are by definition losses of soveriegnty.

And that's bad... that's very not good.

 

[TBadora]

The United States. A North American Union would basically be unable to stop it...the United States is far too powerful.

The North American nations of Latin America (a North American Union would most likely spread into Central America) would be too distrustful of the United States to allow it to get too strong.

In the first quote you are saying that the America is way more powerful and cannot be stopped by the other North American Nations. In the second you are saying that the North American nations wouldn't let America become powerful enough to be unstopable by the other North American nations.

Please clarify.

PS: I'm saying that once the North American Union is formed, the other nations in the Union wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING to overrule the American powerhouse (which will have the best interests of it's corporations in mind, not it's citizens). Ultimately, you'll see a seperation of social classess, the middle class will disappear and you'll see conditions similar to the slave trade reappearing in the long run. The rich will get richer while the poor will get poorer or die away etc...

 

[justinlancaster]

This guy, he knows what's gonna happen YEARS before hand!:

Spoiler

Do you have any good links to information about him?

 

[TBadora]

Do you have any good links to information about him?

Oh yea! I will PM them to you. Kudo's to you for asking.

 

[justinlancaster]

Not entirely sure how to feel about this, conceptually, just yet. There's pros and cons to the issue. The extraneous language that's added to this thing does give me cause for concern, though, and the fact that this really isn't being approached openly and with the input of the people is highly disturbing. I dislike all this Cloak & Dagger Government crap we've had the last seven years, and this is just more of it. I read somewhere recently that from 1959 to 2001 there were only 63 (I think that was the number) instances of Executive Privilege invoked, wherein the President declines to provide information on a particular investigation in the interest of national security. Since 2001, under the Bush Administration, there have been 39. The secrecy with which this administration operates is disturbing, especially when stuff like this gets leaked out.

jag

It is very disturbing. If this was going to help the American economy and the surrounding countries, why wouldn’t the government be more vocal about it?

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

'Cause they're trying to slip it in under the radar... and have been accomplishing it for 90 years.

 

[justinlancaster]

'Cause they're trying to slip it in under the radar... and have been accomplishing it for 90 years.

Exactly.

 

[AhabTheArab]

this is outrageous. we must storm the Bastille.

 

[justinlancaster]

This guy, he knows what's gonna happen YEARS before hand!:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1lTDWcsz2E

 

[hippie_hunter]

And that is exactly the problem with a NAU. A common defense for three nations paid for by the people. I do not want my tax money to pay for the defense of Canada and Mexico and I bet their citizens feel the same way about us. I do not want looser border control that fades the boundary lines of the USA or a common currency because it is more convenient. We have enough problems with monetary policy in our own country. We do not need to bring in other countries to compound it.

Your tax dollars are already going towards the common defense of Canada considering that they're a part of both NORAD and NATO. Your tax dollars also go towards the defense of Japan and South Korea, Australia and New Zeland since they're part of our ANZUS alliance. And don't forget the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemborg, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania because they're a part of NATO.

And lets not forget all that military assistance we give to Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Georgia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and many others where they're not obliged to help us back.

 

[hippie_hunter]

C'mon now, you really don't think that Canada and Mexico are going to form a union in which they are powerless to the U.S., do you?

In the first quote you are saying that the America is way more powerful and cannot be stopped by the other North American Nations. In the second you are saying that the North American nations wouldn't let America become powerful enough to be unstopable by the other North American nations.

Please clarify.

Canada and Mexico would have power because they're the major North American nations along with the United States. I'm talking about the Central American states which are part of North America where a North American Union would inevitably expand to.

I'm saying that no Latin American nation would join it because they would be too fearful of the United States' political power and it would be the one controlling everything. That's why the FTAA failed to get off the ground.

A North American Union that is as powerful as the European Union would never get off the ground. It would be unable to expand because of this distrust towards the United States and Americans fears of losing their soverignty.

PS: I'm saying that once the North American Union is formed, the other nations in the Union wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING to overrule the American powerhouse (which will have the best interests of it's corporations in mind, not it's citizens). Ultimately, you'll see a seperation of social classess, the middle class will disappear and you'll see conditions similar to the slave trade reappearing in the long run. The rich will get richer while the poor will get poorer or die away etc...

I think you're just acting a tad bit too paranoid about something like this.

 

[justinlancaster]

Your tax dollars are already going towards the common defense of Canada considering that they're a part of both NORAD and NATO. Your tax dollars also go towards the defense of Japan and South Korea, Australia and New Zeland since they're part of our ANZUS alliance. And don't forget the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemborg, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania because they're a part of NATO.

And lets not forget all that military assistance we give to Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Georgia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and many others where they're not obliged to help us back.

Exactly and it absolutely disgust me that my tax dollars go to this BS. If the NAU is allowed to come into existence it would make this phenomenon even worse.