Skip to comments.
Canada, U.S. agree to use each other's troops in civil emergencies
Canwest News Service ^
| 22 Feb 2008
| David Pugliese
Posted on 02/23/2008 9:18:08 AM PST by BGHater
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-159 last
To: BGHater
141
posted on
02/24/2008 6:55:44 PM PST
by
kellynla
(Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
To: tlb
Watch the youtube video and get enlightened! People like you with your head in the sand will cause the rest of us to be injected with a chip and thus become slaves to the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo
142
posted on
02/24/2008 9:19:15 PM PST
by
quendi
(Quendi)
To: exg
“But why the insults”?
Your attitude to my 2nd amendment will be a good place to start, not that I expect you to understand. I know that it is a great impediment to international relations, but, life is tough, get over it!
143
posted on
02/25/2008 1:28:34 AM PST
by
SWAMPSNIPER
(THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
To: DoughtyOne; TexasGreg
“It could serve as an end run around posse comitatus”
This was my very first thought on this subject but, I’m not the first.
This has been a fear for many in the pro-sovereignty, pro-2nd amend. crowd for years although, it involved mainly the threat of bluehat UN troops from whatever number of countries.
This could be the beginning of such a threat. When we send our troops to other countries for disaster relief, there’s always this thought in the back of their minds.(natives)
144
posted on
02/25/2008 4:23:05 AM PST
by
wolfcreek
(Powers that be will lie like Clintons and spend like drunken McCains to push their Globalist agenda.)
To: SWAMPSNIPER; exg
You say
Don't want to pick a fight, but, and then proceed to pick a fight.
exg is CERTAINLY NOT a troll.
When exg asks why you are making insults, you claim it is because of how exg views your second amendment, when exg has said nothing about the subject.
Don't get your panties in a knot over Canadian troops, Swampie.
If you lose your second amendment rights if will be because YOUR government took them away, not some Canadian soldiers.
145
posted on
02/25/2008 4:31:30 AM PST
by
fanfan
("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)
To: CalifChris; exg
146
posted on
02/25/2008 5:06:11 AM PST
by
fanfan
("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)
To: exg
147
posted on
02/25/2008 5:51:24 AM PST
by
fanfan
("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)
To: exg
By the way: Gun Control does not apply to the military. Yeah, that's a problem isn't it.
The point of the Second Amendment is to make sure that the politicians aren't the only ones with guns.
148
posted on
02/25/2008 5:55:18 AM PST
by
ovrtaxt
(Member of the irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.)
To: DoughtyOne
In the response to Hurricane Katrina, the Mexican Navy had a ship (
ARM Papaloapan) off the coast of Mississippi, and Mexican Marines went ashore to help clean up in Biloxi and Pascagoula. They were unarmed, and carrying relief supplies, very similar to what the U.S. Navy did in Indonesia after the tsunami. There was a very specific effort to maintain the appearance of strictly humanitarian assistance, also similar to the U.S. military's overseas relief efforts. They were under the control of JTF Katrina, which means they were working for Gen Honore. We were still taking care of our own business they were just supplying some more manpower.
Thats what this agreement is about. Its not to set up an invasion of U.S. territory by Canadian forces, or vice versa. This is how we normally do things, only now theres a formal, written agreement on procedure. If we need help, theyll provide it. If they need help, well provide it. Same as its been in the past. I understand your concerns, but this is not something to be overly worried about.
To: fanfan
To quote exg; “I suppose these guys are trying to take your precious guns too”,
This implies to me that someone thinks I’m unreasonable in my defense of a birthright. There is no other way to read it.
150
posted on
02/25/2008 7:51:36 AM PST
by
SWAMPSNIPER
(THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
To: SWAMPSNIPER; exg
There is no other way to read it. Did you look at the link exg provided?
I can see how you would read it like that, however, as a Canadian, I see exg's comment as a plea to stop the Canada bashing that is so rampant here.
151
posted on
02/25/2008 9:24:18 AM PST
by
fanfan
("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)
To: JackRyanCIA
We should invade Canada and lets the Mexicans have the USA. They appear to be taking it anyway.Let's just give back Kalifornia.
152
posted on
02/25/2008 9:27:20 AM PST
by
P8riot
(I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
To: fanfan
I don't go out of my way to bash Canada.
The comment in discussion shows a remarkable disdain for a vital part of our Constitution, a part that many of us will fight to preserve. I have no interest in giving law enforcment powers to anyone else not bound by the Constitution, we have enough of those already.
153
posted on
02/25/2008 9:38:34 AM PST
by
SWAMPSNIPER
(THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
To: SWAMPSNIPER
Yes, a Republic, if you can keep it.
America is the worlds beacon of freedom.
Good luck.
154
posted on
02/25/2008 9:42:34 AM PST
by
fanfan
("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)
To: fanfan
155
posted on
02/25/2008 9:54:32 AM PST
by
SWAMPSNIPER
(THE SECOND AMENDMENT, A MATTER OF FACT, NOT A MATTER OF OPINION)
To: DoughtyOne
To: BenLurkin
Thanks Ben. Good evening to you...
157
posted on
02/25/2008 5:29:56 PM PST
by
DoughtyOne
(We've got Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dumb & Tweedle Dumber left. Name them in order. I dare ya.)
To: RightWhale
“This would be effective 99% in one direction.”
If you get 4 years of Obama or Clinton and we get another 4 years of Harper will be in the other direction.
158
posted on
02/26/2008 8:16:37 AM PST
by
Grig
(Howard Dean + Terry McAulif = Mike Huckabee , Hillary Clinton + Obama = McCain)
To: BGHater
Actually, the Liberals made an agreement like this with the USA in 2003, this is probably more of a renewal of it after 5 years.
The agreement came out from the big ice storm in eastern Canada at the very end of 1997. There were 1100 troops in Edmonton that they needed out east, but they had to get there by begging the Americans and others for a ride. The Liberals then made this agreement as a way to avoid beefing up the Canadian military.
159
posted on
02/26/2008 8:19:36 AM PST
by
Grig
(Howard Dean + Terry McAulif = Mike Huckabee , Hillary Clinton + Obama = McCain)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-159 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson