Anticipation
Posted on 10/02/2006 3:55:59 AM PDT by Man50D
WASHINGTON – While several members of Congress have denied any knowledge of efforts to build "NAFTA superhighways" or move America closer to a union with Mexico and Canada, four members of the House have stepped up to sponsor a resolution opposing both initiatives.
Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va., has introduced a resolution – H.R. 487 – designed to express "the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico and Canada."
"Now that Congress is preparing to take up the issues of the North American Union and NAFTA superhighways, we are moving out of the realm where critics can attempt to disparage the discussion as 'Internet conspiracy theory,'" explained Jerome Corsi, author and WND columnist who has written extensively on the Security and Prosperity Partnership – the semisecret plan many suspect is behind the efforts to create a European Union-style North American confederation and link Mexico and Canada with more transcontinental highways and rail lines. "This bill represents a good first step."
Corsi explained to WND that the Bush administration is trying to create the North American Union incrementally, under the radar scope of public attention.
"Even today," said Corsi, SPP.gov has a 'Myths vs. Facts' section that denies the administration is changing laws or working to create a new regional government. Unfortunately, the many references on SPP.gov to Cabinet-level working groups creating new trilateral memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements makes these denials sound hollow."
The resolution introduced by Goode had three co-sponsors: Reps. Thomas Tancredo, R-Colo., Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Walter Jones, R-N.C.
The "whereas" clauses of the resolution lay out the case against the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighways as follows:
Whereas, according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly widened since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);
Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA;
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union;
Whereas it would be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would increase the insurance rates for American drivers;
Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities;
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would be funded by foreign consortiums and controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States. The resolution calls for the House of Representatives to agree on three issues of determination:
The United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;
The United States should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and
The President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States. "As important as this resolution is," Corsi said, "we need still more congressional attention. Where is congressional oversight of SPP? We need congressional hearings, not just congressional resolutions."
H.Con.Res.487 has been referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Internal Relations for consideration prior to any debate that may be scheduled on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Whatever. Our comments are on record.
"Hey, doubters and skeptics: Congress is moving against something you said didn't exist."
I was just laughed and scoffed at by someone on this subject just last week."
Me too. Then I was reminded scoffing is a tool of deceivers; those that were hired to silence the opposition to the selling out of America by running a road right over it.
Do you know what a wonderful target an armored or a mech infantry division--or troops trying to flee with their loot--strung out on a road makes for aircraft in an era of precision-guided weapons?
It is exactly what you suggested. I take it you're offering a comment on your own competency to make military judgements.
You raised the spectre of an invading army using these roads. I pointed out what happens to an army in the open on roads in this day and age.
That's why advancing campaigns usually win wars whereas retreating/fleeing (cut and run) campaigns usually fail.
I'm sure that any surviving members of the German Sixth Army would offer to disagree.
You are confusing cause and effect.
Let's review:
1. You raised the spectre of an invading army using these roads.
2. I pointed out what happens to an army strung out along a road in an era of modern weapons.
3. You questioned the competence of a military commander who puts his army into such straits.
4. I pointed out that you proposed doing exactly that, suggesting that as a benchmark of your competency in such matters.
That's why advancing campaigns usually win wars whereas retreating/fleeing (cut and run) campaigns usually fail.
I'm sure that any surviving members of the German Sixth Army would offer to disagree.
Are you saying that the unending advancements of the Allied forces didn't win the war and that retreating Germans did?
I must admit I'm confused by your statement.
Okey-dokey.
Now, you can deny that you raised the spectre of an enemy using the US road net as part of an invasion; however, your own words say otherwise.
Incidentally, today's mechanized forces do not move significantly faster than World War II forces on the strategic and operational levels. Tactically, they're fast; but they still have to stop to refuel, and that takes time.
Not quite. You pointed out what happens to a fleeing army, not an advancing army.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find pictures of the road to Khafji (the reporters never got there). Most of the Iraqi Army got slaughtered on the road.
Are you saying that the unending advancements of the Allied forces didn't win the war and that retreating Germans did?
I take it you're unfamiliar with the Battle of Stalingrad, then. The German Sixth Army didn't "cut and run," so they should have been victorious--they weren't. The problem is that you are confusing the cause with the effect.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find pictures of the road to Khafji (the reporters never got there). Most of the Iraqi Army got slaughtered on the road.
Where you did get the pick from...Highway of Death
Attacks took place on two different sections; some 1,400 vehicles on the main highway north of Al Jahra and another 400 or so on the coastal road to Basra - the former predominantly stolen civilian vehicles and manned by Iraqi conscripts and the latter predominantly military and belonging to the Iraqi Republican Guard's 1st "Hammurabi" Armored Division. ("Most of the Iraqi Army got slaughtered on the road.") When visited by journalists the former was a long uninterrupted line of damaged and abandoned vehicles. On the other road, known as the place of the Battle of the Junkyard, vehicles of the had been destroyed over a much larger area in smaller groups, and the attacking Allied forces included ground units of the US 3rd Armored Division.
I take it you're unfamiliar with the Battle of Stalingrad, then.
On the contrary.
The German Sixth Army didn't "cut and run," so they should have been victorious--they weren't.
You're right, they didn't cut and run. They stayed in place on the orders of Hitler, another incompetent military leader. They didn't strategically withdraw and regroup either, which is what I believe they should've done. Don't you?
Anything else?
The road from NAFTA is dangerous.
Why, can't we bomb an army that uses the road?
You've only shown examples of fleeing armies being bombed.
Bombs don't work on advancing armies?
Where did I say that? What makes you think I said that?
LOL! It all sounds very familiar. Where have I heard a conversation like that before?
That's it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.