[Texgreen] Canada's media elites cover up U.S. take-over of Canadian military

[Alfred Molison]

This article sounds sensational and paranoid.

I don't think there's any "Anschluss" of Canada planned.  No merger of 
Canada into the American
Co-Prosperity sphere.

We're bad.  No doubt about it.  But I just don't see that much drama in a 
NATO style alliance.

Now, admittedly, in the hands of the Bush administration, or the big 
business Republicans who will continue to rule after him, any alliance with 
the United States is potentially dangerous.  But they'll twist everything to 
their desires.

I'd look at this as a variation of the Monroe Doctrine.  How dramatic an 
announcement is that?

Alfred Molison


>From: margaret <max104@io.com>
>To: Texgreen <texgreen@gp-us.org>
>Subject: [Texgreen] Canada's media elites cover up U.S. take-over of 
>Canadian military
>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:10:00 -0500
>
>"This U.S military take-over has certain underlying obligations and
>commitments.  . . . If Canada accepts to join NORTHCOM and integrate
>U.S. command structures, itnot only "promises to cherish" Star Wars, it 
>also
>becomes an official member of a crypto-fascistic Anglo-American military
>axis, integrated by Israel (unofficially) and Australia."
>
>
>The Canadian - Sep 26, 2006
>http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2006/09/26/01232.html
>
>Canada's media elites cover up U.S. take-over of Canadian military
>
>Traitors among us cover up the Continental assimilation of
>Military Command Structures as a Threat to Canada's Sovereignty
>
>by Michel Chossudovsky
>
>The issue of continental integration of military command structures has 
>been
>on the US-Canada agenda since April 2002. This issue has been has
>substantively covered-up by the elites who now own Canada's mass-media.
>
>Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington's geopolitical and
>military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by U.S. Defense Secretary 
>Donald
>Rumsfeld. "Binational integration" of military command structures is also
>contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law
>enforcement and intelligence.
>
>Since 2002, Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military
>cooperation agreement. In November 2004, *Global Research* published a
>detailed article on the subject, an abridged version of which was accepted
>for publication as an Op Ed piece in the Toronto Star. That article never
>appeared in print. More generally, the Canadian media has failed to provide
>coverage of an issue which strikes at the heart of Canada's territorial
>sovereignty.
>
>What the current news coverage fails to acknowledge is that the US Military
>can cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our 
>provinces,
>as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. This
>redesign of Canada's defense system has for the last four years been
>discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force
>base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).
>
>The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant
>violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense
>Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command
>would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and
>Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's
>jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the
>continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the 
>Caribbean,
>contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off 
>the
>Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.
>
>NORTHCOM's stated mandate according to the Canadian American Strategic
>Review (CASR) is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace,
>land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation's civil
>authorities in times of national need."
>
>Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM - with all of North
>America as its geographic command - 'is part of the greatest transformation
>of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)
>
>In my "censored" Toronto Star article, I had warned that the process of
>Bi-National Integration implying the integration of military command
>structures was slated to be completed in May 2006:
>
>"What we are dealing with is a "military marriage' characterized by the
>integration of the two countries' command structures.
>
>Missile Defense is part of "the vows" of this "military marriage", 
>something
>which nobody in Canada wants to talk about.
>
>This U.S military take-over has certain underlying obligations and
>commitments.
>
>If Canada accepts to join NORTHCOM and integrate U.S. command structures, 
>it
>not only "promises to cherish" Star Wars, it also becomes an official 
>member
>of a crypto-fascistic Anglo-American military axis, integrated by Israel
>(unofficially) and Australia.
>
>Canada thereby becomes a pro-active partner in America's on-going
>crypto-fascistic military adventures, including Iraq, Afghanistan,
>Palestine, Iran, North Korea and beyond, not to mention the preemptive use
>of nuclear weapons in conventional war theaters directed "against rogue
>enemies and terrorists".
>
>Shortly prior to the Bush-Martin meetings in Ottawa in November 2004, it 
>was
>decided to extend the Binational Planning Group arrangement until May 2006.
>In other words, what is really at stake is the process leading up to a
>formal announcement of Canada's accession to NORTHCOM, prior to the May 
>2006
>cut-off date."
>
>Canada's accession to NORTHCOM is being formally implemented under the
>mandate of the Prime Minister Harper government.
>
>[Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America's "War
>on Terrorism". He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and
>Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization.]
>
>
>* * * *
>In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is 
>distributed for educational purposes and without profit and as such we 
>believe constitutes a 'Fair Use' as provided for in Sec.107 of the US 
>Copyright Law and complies with the Good Faith Fair Use Defense [17 USC 
>504(c)(2).  
>_______________________________________________
>texgreen mailing list
>texgreen@lists.gp-us.org
>http://lists.gp-us.org/mailman/listinfo/texgreen