The Annexation of Canada (I can't believe this is happening)

[DreamTone7]

I agree, bitwhys...this should be big news in Canada...is it?

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[bitwhys]

getting there. you obviously missed the part about the Canadian press not reporting on it (yet).



the missile initiative was relatively unknown until a few weeks ago. now most folks up here know what it is at least.



we can thank Sharon Parrish for that. the Bush visit is giving us LOTS to talk about.

[russky joe]

"Yeah, if we were taking over Canada & Mexico, I would have heard about it somewhere besides a message board.



That's big-time news."



Nah. First, it ain't a "take-over" it's just an expansion of the sphere of influence and dependency, and second the corporate news media tell you what they want you to know at any one particular time and nothing frickin' more.



The Romans invented this - Pax Romana, i.e. "we don't want to take over your country we just want to install our military forces to help you protect yourselves, you're frickin' better off with us!"



This sneaky idea is as old as the Urals.

[The Master68]

Pax Romana, huh?



Does that make Bush "Augustus Caesar"?

--------------

When you argue with a fool, be sure he isn't similarly occupied...

--------------

Music - Organismo Cibernetico (Cybernetic Organism)

[bitwhys]

sort of.



its called "Pax Americana" now and the ideology is called American Neoconservatism.

[russky joe]

"Does that make Bush "Augustus Caesar"?"



Maybe more like frickin' Nero.

[russky joe]

Pax Americana?

by Anthony Aman



For many months the people of the world have been trying to figure out just what it is that President Bush is trying to do. Many people think the administration's goals are simply to enrich themselves and their supporters. Others cite the Iraq war as an attempt at "closure on the Gulf War" - the son completing the father's job. Still more believe oil is the primary goal. An astonishing document has come to light that finally puts the pieces of the puzzle together.



The name of this most revealing report is "Rebuilding America's Defenses." Details of this treatise was written by Jay Bookman, deputy editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Consitiution, and published on Sept. 29. "The official story on Iraq has never made sense," Bookman writes. "The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence." He continues, "The pieces didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing."



The report was written five months before the attacks of Sept. 11 and is authored by six members of the current administration, including Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, I. Lewis Libby, along with 21 other people who attended meetings or contributed papers for the report. Bookman goes on to explain what the plans are for world military domination and how Bush has mirrored those plans so far. "In essence, it lays out a plan for a permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make the plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence."



"Rebuilding America's Defenses" puts the entire world on notice. America will get what it wants, from any country on earth, by any means necessary. If we perceive resistance ("a threat to national security") we reserve the right to strike preemptively with or without the support of another country. The authors of this amazing manifesto dream of an American Empire with George W. Bush as its first emperor. Bookman goes on to say, "They envision the creation of what they call a worldwide 'Pax Americana,' or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition."



Apparently neither do our elected representatives. Calls to Olympia Snowe's office and Susan Collins' office yielded no knowledge of such a document. There has been no discussion of this vision of Pax Americana in the congressional debates. Not surprisingly! If they were to debate such a scheme it would lend legitimacy to the Bush plan for expanding America's military domination just before the elections. If the American people really understood the implications of this plan how would they react? How would our allies react? How will our adversaries react?



This scheme presents scenarios of apocalyptic proportions. The world's resources are limited; our power is not. If we control the resources, we could control the world. But what about the people who live in those resource rich countries? Will they simply join with us to promote Pax Americana, quietly acquiescing to our demands? Is it not likely that resistance will be encountered from every quarter in every way possible?



What terrors await us as we accumulate more of the world's wealth and territory? Will this truly create "American Peace"? How many more American citizens will be required to enlist in the armed forces to replace the "spent assets" as time drags on? What cost will we be required to bear for this scheme? The war on Iraq is estimated to reach $100 billion and that's just the first country in the Axis of Evil. What sacrifices must we accept to fund this vision? Once we conquer one country how will we hold on to it while going on to the next, and the next? Will we go the way of the Soviet Union, bankrupt by our own military overspending and overreaching ambition? Rome's empire collapsed and the world settled into the Dark Ages. Who can predict what fate awaits us if we should fail?



Now we are about to hand over the decision to use that power to President George W. Bush. Once given it will be nearly impossible to rescind. The debate in Washington might sound like it is about Iraq and it's despised leader and weapons of mass destruction. But is it not time to ask if it is really about "Rebuilding America's Defenses" - Pax Americana? Whether knowingly or not, a vote for a resolution to give him the unfettered power to attack Iraq also gives Bush or Cheney or whoever wields the power of the Presidency the green light to attempt to conquer the world. Is that what we want our congresspersons to do? Perhaps it is time to start asking those who make this decision exactly what we are agreeing to.

[DreamTone7]

What was right under their noses that they so conveniently failed to see (or I should say decided to ingnore) is Saudi Arabia. Oh, brother...talk about hidden agendas.

[bitwhys]

What about Saudi Arabia?

[bitwhys]

I think the problem has the potential to be more subtle than things may appear. I read over an Inside the Pentagon article that makes it all sound harmless enough.

Quote:

---

As for information sharing, "we just want to enhance again those ties and protocols to make sure we're not missing anything," Fraser said

---

fair enough. But I get the feeling they're trying awfully hard in the PR department. I also get the feeling they're not giving us the whole story. Like I said before, I don't want them getting an inch more than they need and when the paperwork surfaces I want to know our Government will allow ample time for debate and examination of detail.



I, for one, am dying to know how the US intends to reconcile all the promises this new arrangement with the infamous (and not well enough known) section 308 of H.R.5630 - 2001 which reads...

Quote:

---

SEC. 308. APPLICABILITY TO LAWFUL UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL LAWS IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS.



(a) IN GENERAL- The National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new title:



`TITLE X--ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS



`APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OF FEDERAL LAWS IMPLEMENTING INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS



`SEC. 1001. (a) IN GENERAL- No Federal law enacted on or after the date of the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 that implements a treaty or other international agreement shall be construed as making unlawful an otherwise lawful and authorized intelligence activity of the United States Government or its employees, or any other person to the extent such other person is carrying out such activity on behalf of, and at the direction of, the United States, unless such Federal law specifically addresses such intelligence activity.



`(b) AUTHORIZED INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES- An intelligence activity shall be treated as authorized for purposes of subsection (a) if the intelligence activity is authorized by an appropriate official of the United States Government, acting within the scope of the official duties of that official and in compliance with Federal law and any applicable Presidential directive.'

---

translation? "we use the treaty to get in as far as we can above board and then do as we please because we play by our own rules".



as the ACLU said at the time...

Quote:

---

There can be no excuse for giving intelligence agencies a license to ignore the law, including laws that implement treaty obligations. To create such a blanket exception for "authorized intelligence activities" is to invite other countries that undertake treaty obligations to except these and other activities from the requirements of the treaty. This provision would ensure that there is no public debate as to whether there should be an "intelligence exception" to a future treaty obligation proscribing objectionable conduct.

---

With all the rearrangements under way with Home Security in the US, I want to know explicitly who this clause (intended for the CIA clandestine operations branch) will apply to and whether there is a promise (explicit agreement) that it will not apply to any treaty signed (post 2001) under the auspices of NORTHCOM.



that clause creates a one way street.