The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.
The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.
"It's kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites," said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.
Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.
"Are we going to see [U.S.] troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?" he asked.
Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. "We don't know the answers because the government doesn't want to even announce the plan," he said.
But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.
He said the agreement is "benign" and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.
"But there's no agreement to allow troops to come in," he said. "It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The ‘allow' piece is entirely up to the two governments."
If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.
News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.
...
http://www.nationalpost.com/rss/story.html?id=327869
Note: http://www.nationalpost...

<br />
More CONservative party secrets.<br />
<br />
The USNORTHCOM press release can be found here:<br />
<a href="http://www.northcom.mil/News/2008/021408.html">http://www.northcom.mil/News/2008/021408.html</a><br />
<br />
Notice the masthead text on every page of the site:<br />
"UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND"<br />
"DEFENDING OUR HOMELANDS"<br />
<br />
Plural? How many homelands do they think they have?
Uh, I think this insanity will be *opposed* (greeted yeah right) by all flavors of the political spectrum.
The last thing I want to see are American troops in Canada, and they had better stay out if they know what's good for themselves.
-Max Planck<br />
<br />
WTF!!
As Tony Montana would say "Say hello to my little friend". Or as George W.
once levied against the world, "bring it on". If one US soldier touches
Canadian soil, for whatever reason, the 49th will be painted red.
If failure to support the Harper's government’s wrongful treasoness policies
makes me a terrorist—so be it. If speaking truth to power makes one a
terrorist—sign me up; move me to NSA and FBI lists of suspects. If exposing
the lies and corruption that attends power makes me a terrorist—I will
proudly wear the crown and bear the cost. I will cheerfully take my place
alongside other terrorists with names like Thoreau, Debs, King, Gandhi,
Einstein etc...
---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck
This is a lie! American troops operate under foreign command every day. NATO and the UN
“As it's not likely that there will be a need for Canadian troops to romp through the US of A”
Canadian and Mexican troops will be used confiscate American guns.
What are you going to do, you allowed your government to take all of your guns?
Get on your knees Canadians you are now property ot the United States of Canada and the the US
Don't revolt, Eh?
Can you say, North American Union?
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
No, they do not. There is a difference between 'under command' of and 'supporting' a mission. It's a key difference.
US troops 'supporting' the UN or NATO missions are given orders by an American officer, who recieves those orders from the overall UN or NATO commander. And only an American Officer.
Otherwise, they are 'under command' of a foreign army, which the US does not permit.
---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4</a> <br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />
If UN or NATO commander gives the orders to an American Officer and he or she gives that order to the US troops who is commanding the US troops? The UN and/or NATO
The American Officer is just a lackey of his or her UN or NATO "commander".
Anyway, I guess we'd better school up on IED making just to be on the safe side.
If you want to give them your reaction and predictions of what that would mean for them, then email him your commments at richard@48north.com
Ask as many of your friends as possible to also send him their thoughts.
Given the stakes, we can't afford not to. Lets nip their asumptions about our apathy in the bud.
Brent