The USA should just take over the whole of the americas and get it over and done with.

Right. And when does your mother take the camera on your cam site today?

What? Thanks for proving my point.:thumbsup

You can bump my thread all you want :2 cents:

Okay penis pill boy. Here's another.

It's NOT Pills!!!! heh, I used to have to tell people "It's not pumps!", but now "pills" enter peoples minds when they here penis enlargement. They are exercise techniques you perform with your hands. :thumbsup

see sig.. :winkwink:

Independent Task Force on North America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from North American Union)
Jump to: navigation, search
To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page, or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.
This article has been tagged since September 2006.

The Independent Task Force on North America was a project organized by the United States Council on Foreign Relations, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It was chaired by former Canadian politician John Manley and advocates a North American Union, entailing a greater integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

It was launched in October 2004 and published two documents - Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (March 2005) and its final report Building a North American Community[1] (May 2005).

The final report proposed increased international cooperation between the nations of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, similar in some respects to that of the European Union.

Some Internet sources claim that this report, despite its own language rejecting a political union, would create a North American Union.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 History
* 2 Current debate
* 3 Geography
* 4 Status
* 5 See also
o 5.1 NAU precursors and alternatives
o 5.2 Other regional blocs
o 5.3 More information
* 6 External links
o 6.1 Pro - In Favor of NAU
+ 6.1.1 Regional foreign policy think tanks
+ 6.1.2 Other Sources Supportive of Expanded Trilateral Relations
o 6.2 Neutral - Information About NAU
o 6.3 Con - Opposed to NAU

[edit] History

In recent times, the three North American nation-states have been increasing their economic ties, accelerating the process with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

In response to the demands of increasing globalization and shared concerns from abroad, such as the increasing clout of other economic spheres such as the European Union and China, the leaders of the three nations agreed in 2005 to work more cooperatively on shared North American concerns. To this end, they agreed to establish the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). [2]

[edit] Current debate

Robert Pastor, a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report Building a North American Union, has suggested that a hypothetical common currency might be called the "Amero", which would be similar in concept to the Euro, the common currency of the EU. [3]

The third major country, Mexico, uses the peso, which is also a dollar-like currency (although it is currently trading at an exchange rate significantly lower relative to the dollar currencies of both Canada and the USA). (At one time, one silver dollar equaled exactly one peso, which was in turn based on the Spanish dollar.)

The Full Disclosure Network(tm) coverage of the July 2006 National Council of La Raza Convention in Los Angeles offered this video blog debate on the concept of a North American Union. NCLR delegates and Hispanic leaders offered their opinions. Available for viewing 24/7, on demand, at this URL: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/flash/...ideoBlog32.php as a public service of the Full Disclosure Network(tm)

Opponents of the current government in Canada, such as Jack Layton of the NDP, see the North American Union proposal, referred to as deep integration, as compromising Canadian sovereignty, potentially paving the way for Canada's total annexation by the United States. [4]

On 28 September 2006, HCR 487 was introduced to declare that the US Congress should not construct the NAFTA Superhighway or enter into the North American Union.[5]

[edit] Geography

The North American Union would currently (as of 2006) have a total population of around 436,020,884 citizens. For comparison, the European Union currently (as of 2006) has an estimated population of 457,514,494.

The NAU population would be divided among the three constituent nations as follows:
North American Population By Country Country Population
USA 300,050,259
Mexico 107,449,525
Canada 31,021,100

[edit] Status

To date, the three governments have taken no official action on the proposal, either to endorse or reject it. Some opponents have, however, alleged that international discussions around economic and security matters, for instance, fit within the context of the proposal and are designed to pave the way for a formal set of negotiations on the union.

[edit] See also

[edit] NAU precursors and alternatives

* NAFTA - North American Free Trade Agreement
* North American SuperCorridor Coalition
* Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
* United North America

[edit] Other regional blocs

* Eurasia Party
* Continental union
o African Union
o Asian Union
o European Union
o Pacific Union
o South American Community of Nations

* Caribbean Community
* South American Community of Nations
* Arab League

[edit] More information

* International Mid-Continent Trade Corridor
* Trans-Texas Corridor
* North American SuperCorridor Coalition

[edit] External links

[edit] Pro - In Favor of NAU

[edit] Regional foreign policy think tanks

* (USA) Council on Foreign Relations
o Council on Foreign Relations - Building a North American Community
o Building a North American Community by Council on Foreign Relations
* (Canada) Canadian Council of Chief Executives
* (Mexico) Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales

[edit] Other Sources Supportive of Expanded Trilateral Relations

* The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
* Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America
* NASCO, North America's SuperCorridor Coalition
* USINFO Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

[edit] Neutral - Information About NAU

* North American Union Documents
* United North America.org

[edit] Con - Opposed to NAU

* Lou Dobbs
* Alex Jones
* Howard Phillips - The Conservative Caucus on NAU
* Deanna Spingola
* Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D.
* Jerome R. Corsi (2)
* 1000+ SPP/NAU Documents Released by FOIA Request by Jermome R. Corsi
* The Cancun Summit Mandated The North American Union by 2007
* Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway
* The North American Union "Matrix"
* CFR/Bilderberg Plan To Erase US Borders Finally Gets Attention
* Continental Integration of Military Command Structures: A Threat to Canada's Sovereignty
* Abolishing The USA
* More On ?Merger?: Three Nations Under God?
* The Bell Tolls For Canada
* The SPP: Similar To Rebuilding Of America?s Defenses
* Articles Critical Of The North American Union Provided By Age Of Tyranny News
* Articles Critical Of The North American Union Provided By Eagle Forum
* Articles Critical Of The North American Union Provided By Jerome R. Corsi
* Vive le Canada Sovereignty Watch Articles
* An anti North American Union Discussion Forum (Note that this blog, as of 2006-07-04, has a total of 5 members.)
* Americans Against A North American Union
* MEXAMERICANADA: It?s Coming By Robert B. Murray
* H. CON. RES. 487
* Corridor Watch
* Texas Toll Party

Bump for thoughts and feedback :thumbsup

That would be amazing!!!...if it were true.

this is fucking ridiculous.

u got it ! :thumbsup

I wonder if this thread will make it to 100 posts? :)

I vote yes! unless Bush wasn't the laws in MX to be the same as US..

The plan to unite Canada, US and Mexico is a very real idea from this administration and plans using the Texas super highway is part of that. It frightens the hell out of me.

Yeah exactly, the biggest inland port is right here in Kansas City, Missouri!!

The NAFTA super highway, transamerican coridoor or something to that effect.

Wouldn't need to come to that.
Canada supplies the midwest with water, the eastern seaboard with power and the shipping lanes from alaska (oil) are within easy mining distance. And given the level of USA's overseas military commitment now, and the fact that they're losing two wars at the moment, and that china and korea would back canada just to see the USA fall flat, it would be very unwise for the states to alienate it's allies, risk it's oil/electric/water supply, or give korea and china ideas by moving on canada.

In addition, the USA would be turfed from NATO and the UN. Loans would be called, or denied and the US economy wouldn't be able to afford to roll out the tanks. If you can't pay/feed your soldiers you can't fight a war, and the US economy is so overstretched right now that without outside money they could not sustain that kind of action. And given that our land mass/climate is much the same type that the nazi's floundered in during world war 2 (with a much larger force I might add, and simpler equipment less prone to freezing solid) and the studies the US military did on the likelyhood of winning a land war in the USSR, I doubt they'd attempt it.

Not to mention, it's political suicide for the president that gives the ok for it.

That's the kind of war that could end without a single shot being fired.

Doing a search on globalization I found a site that talkes of a world currency already printed called the "Phoenix" which will be mostly an electronic currency, no paper. Wild!

You're an idiot.

Blacklisted!


Check me out on http://moreniche.com/testimonials.html

I'm Brandon, owner of MensForte.com and already have 175 bucks in commissions this morning

This high quality traffic of mine will never go anywhere near you guys, nor any company you are affiliated with. :thumbsup

But I do love GFY :thumbsup

he can do what he wants..... if the Canadians and Mexicans dont want it expect a simple invasion over a few days while some US troops drive Hummers to both Capitals and claim "Mission Accomplished"

while Canadian/Mexican Insurgants fight small gun battles and blow shit up for 3-10 years afterwards

sounds like a plan

:1orglaugh

It's amazing how weak and fragile some think the US is. Without the US the Canadian economy wouldn't exactly be in tip-top shape either. And don't you think within the first week the US would control all the strategically important assets in Canada? I hate neo-cons, but I also hate such idiotic leftist rambling. China wouldn't back anyone (in fact it would more likely back the US as their economy is very reliant on the US as well), North Korea doesn't have the ability to back anyone (California alone has more wealth than that shithole), and the South would back the USA before Canada (as would various other nations, such as Australia, the UK, etc). But in any event, I am quite sure they would much faster pull every last troop out of both Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention the troops they have stationed in Germany, South Korea, etc) and let both fall to shit and start sending them into Canada in any such event to protect more important assets. But anyway, of course such a thing would never happen, there is no reason for it to. But just the fact that you have some deluded picture in your head that Canada could beat the USA in a war shows how much of an idiot you are.

bush can dream all he wants - but there is no way in hell canada would consider joining america - we are brothers - but also realize that along with any financial benefits - we would also inherit all the negative shit that america is current going through.

Our political system is totally different and we would never agree to changing that after seeing the current problems in voting, the best that can hoped for is a more open policy on trading

Why would we have to outright beat the U.S.A. in a war.

You would think American's would see the folly of that argument.

that would be AWESOME!

And as much as that's true, you also know it's true that would be the beginning of the end. The UN certainly wouldn't allow that to be swept under the rug like Iraq. Changing trade partners isn't anything worth invasion, and if that were to be the stance the US would take on it, it would be doomed to fail, even if they "succeeded".

Time to do a little research and realize that the political/economic alliances that once safeguarded the relationship have been eroded slowly and surely by the US president time and again. Nobody ever said Canada could beat the US in a war either. We wouldn't have to. The political/economonic/global climate would end that coup before it ever turned into anything much of anything. And IF in the EXTREMELY SLIM chance it was "successful", the global reprecussions would be catastrophic, not to mention there would be civil war in Canada. No way in hell Canadians would quietly submit to being "conquered". It's nice to think that war is as simple and easy as the actual killing itself, however, there is a lot more to consider than just that. Too bad good old Bush didn't think about that before he delved into his. I think he's learned his lesson now (or one would hope)

riiiight... :upsidedow

I was going to type something long in response, but really there isn't a need. The fact that you think Canadians are going to launch some Iraqi styled insurgency is just hilarious. I live in Australia, which parallels with Canada in many respects, and I know for absolute certain if another Western nation (especially an English speaking one with a similar background - such as the US) conquered us a grand total of two people would end up fighting.

Now, if Iran conquered Canada I could imagine an insurgency of some type, but the US? Not going to happen. The US would allow most freedoms, protect the wealth and property of everyone, and people would just go about their daily business and wouldn't risk their lives, or the lives of their families. You may like to think you'd fight, but once you realize the reality of a bullet and an occupier with more power than you could ever dream of you'd fall into line just like the rest of the sheep, and nothing would happen.

staying out of this one, two of the most never ending conversations in the world are politics and religion.