Resources for leaving the U.S.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

montreal

Postby vondardenelle » Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:22 pm

i'm applying to grad school programs in Montreal now, and if I get in, I plan to apply for canadian citizenship once i've been in country for a little while. tho for me it's a combination of wanting to get out before things get really bad and just the fact that quality of life in canada seems alot better. (and schools are actually affordable in Canada).<br><br>tho in the back of my mind i know that if/when the US economy tanks, Canada would probably go with it (isnt something like 80% of canada's trade with the US?). and wasn't there some pact signed between canada and the US that if there is a "terrorist attack" in either country, the other country's army can enter and occupy that country? don't know that it would/could happen, but it seems like if things got really bad the US would just take over canada. and then you'd be in the same spot, but colder. <p></p><i></i>
vondardenelle
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

The Invasion of Canada

Postby Iroquois » Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:34 pm

The Invasion of Canada<br><br>by Michel Chossudovsky<br><br>December 31, 2005<br>GlobalResearch.ca<br><br>A recent Washington Post article entitled: <br><br> Raiding the Icebox; Behind Its Warm Front, the United States Made Cold Calculations to Subdue Canada, by Peter Carlson (30 December 2005), <br><br>focuses on a detailed US Plan to Invade Canada entitled "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan -- Red," It was formulated in the late 1920s, approved by the US War Department in 1930, updated in 1934 and 1935, withdrawn in 1939 and declassified in 1974. (See complete WP article below)<br><br>Following the publication of the WP article, which was casually presented as political humor, Canadian network TV and print media were quick to dismiss the matter outright. <br><br>It was in a bygone era. It no longer applies: the US administration would never dream of actually invading Canada. <br><br>Yet upon more careful examination, an ongoing plan to annex Canada to the US, is still (unofficially of course) on the books. The underlying procedure, however, is not straightforward as in the case of an outright military invasion (e.g. under the 1930 "Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan -- Red"). Today, it involves what the media refer to as "Deep Integration", which constitutes a more polite term for "Annexation". <br><br>"The Icebox" in the WP article refers euphemistically to a country we call Canada, a vast territory of strategic significance for the US, with tremendous resources extending from Coast to Coast; South from the St Lawrence Valley to the North West territories and the US Alaska border. <br><br>US Northern Command<br><br>The "invasion" of Canada is in many regards a fait accompli, a done deal. In 2002, when US Northern Command (NorthCom) was launched, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated unilaterally that the US Military could cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters. <br><br>More specifically, the redesign of Canada's defense system has been discussed behind closed doors at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). 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.<br><br>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. <br><br>This "bi-national integration" of Canada has, since 2002, been the object of continuous negotiations between Washington and Ottawa. Upon the completion of these negotiations, Canada is slated to become member of NorthCom in 2006. <br><br>A year ago, in November 2004, I addressed these issues in a detailed article entitled: <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050616&articleId=174">Is the Annexation of Canada Part of the Bush Administration's Military Agenda</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>While the article was widely circulated and debated on the internet, it was never cited or quoted by Canada's mainstream media. <br><br>A shortened version of the article was submitted for publication as an Oped piece to a major Toronto daily paper, which initially expressed interest in publishing it. <br><br>Following several email exchanges, the shortened article was accepted for publication on three separate occasions. But it never appeared in print. A few months ago, the article, received a 2006 Project Censored Award by the University of California, Sonoma, School of Journalism. <br><br>With a view to promoting debate as well as media awareness prior to the January 2006 federal elections, we reproduce the following documents: <br><br> 1. The article in the Washington Post entitled: Raiding the Icebox; Behind Its Warm Front, the United States Made Cold Calculations to Subdue Canada, by Peter Carlson, 30 December 2005.<br><br> 2. Is the Annexation of Canada Part of the Bush Administration's Military Agenda, by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 2004<br><br> 3. US, Canada and Mexico rollout border plans, by Shaun Waterman, UPI, July 2005<br><br> 4. "Securing the North American Security Perimeter" Dismantling the US Border, Bringing Canada and Mexico into Fortress America, June 10, 2005 CNN<br><br> 5. Mexico and U.S. put “Security Perimeter” on fast-track, Mexidata, by José Carreño, May 20, 2005.<br><br> 6. The Bill to Annex Canada into the US (1866). [Text of Bill approved by the US Congress in 1866. The latter preceded the 1867 Alaska Purchase from Russia and the subsequent establishment of the Canadian Confederation under <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html">The British North America Act of 1867</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->. Read the text of this Bill carefully. It is still relevant. Incidentally the term "Icebox" was first used in relation to the Alaska Purchase.] <p></p><i></i>
Iroquois
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Canada NO, New Zealand YES

Postby manxkat » Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:58 pm

Canada is not a smart place to move if you're wanting to escape from Amerika, as the article above by Michel Chossudovsky illustrates. <br><br>New Zealand has always been my #1 choice and it still is. I won't be moving since I have an aging mother here who I'm taking care of. <br><br>It's becoming increasingly difficult to get into New Zealand though, from what I've been reading. And, keep in mind that if you do get in, New Zealand is going to be having some serious energy and economic problems sooner than other countries. So, my advice would be to look for an <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://directory.ic.org/records/index.php?action=search_results&conjunction=and&full_text_search=&cmty_name=&locations%5Bstate_prov%5D%5B%5D=&locations%5Bcountry%5D=New+Zealand&locations%5Bstate_prov_other%5D=&forming=&trait%5B39%5D%5Bcheckbox%5D=either&trait%5B31%5D%5Bcheckbox%5D=either&trait%5B32%5D%5Bcheckbox%5D=either&trait%5B40%5D%5Bcheckbox%5D=either&trait%5B16%5D%5Bcheckbox%5D=either&trait%5B17%5D%5Bcheckbox%5D=either&trait%5B23%5D%5Bcheckbox%5D=either&x=32&y=13" target="top">intentional community</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> there -- one with plans for sustainability using permaculture, etc.<br><br>More about New Zealand's coming energy problems can be found <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0511/S00402.htm" target="top">here</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Oil prices have doubled in 18 months. Our oil dependence is showing up in the current account deficit and in the inflation rate. During the last few months I've been meeting with groups of 100 or so people around the country and showing The End of Suburbia. Citizens, unlike governments, are taking it seriously and are deep in discussion about what we should do. <br><br>New Zealand has passed peak gas. Our gas reserves peaked in 2001 and Maui is in rapid decline. New finds are likely but uncertain and will almost certainly be much smaller and much more expensive.<br> <br>Energy demand is growing at an alarming rate, fuelled by rapid and, in my view, unsustainable economic growth, but outstripping even that. The growth is especially fast in transport fuel, the hardest of all to supply in a post-oil economy.<br> <br>Electricity prices are rising in real terms and wind farms are becoming a highly visible flagship for renewable energy. <br> <br>Awareness of climate change is growing and there is less debate about its reality, as New Zealand suffers severe weather events consistent with a climate-changing future. <br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=manxkat@rigorousintuition>manxkat</A> at: 1/9/06 4:09 pm<br></i>
manxkat
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canada NO, New Zealand YES

Postby joyofsox » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:40 pm

I get real tired of the lame old coward line.<br><br>We left our friends, some family, two really good paying jobs, and a relatively cheap apartment in NYC to move to a country in which we knew no one and had absolutely no contacts.<br><br>You can call that many things, but it isn't cowardly. One could argue that staying put -- afraid to uproot your life -- is cowardly. <br><br>(Note: I do not. Every person has to do what he or she feels is right for them. There is no right action. We have no children, so it was easier for us to get up and go.)<br><br>We were sick of supporting the US's subversion of human rights and actions of mass murder around the globe with our taxes -- and now we are not doing that anymore.<br><br>That is a GREAT feeling.<br><br>***<br><br>Naturally Canada is not perfect, and we may move elsewhere in the future. Toronto was a good starting point, though, because it was close to NY, English-speaking, was the center of the Canadian legal industry (in which we work), our dogs did not need to be quarantined, etc.<br><br>I'm a friend of Paul Thompson of 9/11 Timeline fame, and he moved to New Zealand a few years ago. He loves it.<br> <p></p><i></i>
joyofsox
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Canada NO, New Zealand YES

Postby joyofsox » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:44 pm

You have to live in Canada for 3 years before you can apply for citizenship.<br><br>***<br>I can't swallow being driven out of my country, my home by these liars and worse.<br>***<br><br>Well, we weren't driven out. We left of our own choice. For a long time, this has not felt like my country. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=joyofsox>joyofsox</A> at: 1/10/06 4:02 pm<br></i>
joyofsox
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

joyofsox

Postby darkbeforedawn » Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:06 pm

Good for you joyofsox. You have more gumption than I do. If you read what I said carefully you will notice that I thought it took a lot of courage to consciously decide to stay OR to go. Most people don't even know what is in store and most of the rest are paralyzed with fear or too poor to go...so congratulations. I envy you somedays, and others I am happy with my choice of "sticking it out" and just facing whatever. <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 

uprooting

Postby ir » Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:13 pm

is fine. but clearly one of the PTB's subtle message is that "there will be no hiding place". I felt it strongly in Israel, with those "bombing" of Sinai, the last resort where peace/quiet and simplicity was found, the last hideaway for Israelis from pressure. the tsunami (whether intentoinal or not) was also a blow in the stomach for the "island of sanity meme", or sanctuary. <br>Canada is going under and if too many people mention NZ, it will be the next target. Since the PTB/US war against sanity is not only physical but "ideological" (the elimination of a certain form of being and thinking, as a crusade !) - it is imperative to create very strong negative incentive and deter public displays of the possibility to live another kind life (namely, anything less than dog eat dog forms of communities). <br>One of the reasons, I sense, that canada will go under, soon, is the audacity to pose an alternative paradigm at a core level, to the Bushco 'vision'. Bush has shown his long memory and motivation to "get back" - for doing precisely that. Canada is too close, significant, dependent and vulnerable to US economic invasion to afford that. I don't know NZ, but it might be small, far and who cares about it situation that will allow it to stay the course. but I doubt it. However, if Bush falls, things can change and slow down the process for a while. I think australia is still much more balanced and the goverment is more cooperative on the surface with Bush/Blair which might make it in fact safer, for political immigrants. <br>Canada, for instance, because there were a lot of "loud mouthing" against Bush and re 9-11, cannot hold ground now in national security matters. that was my impression from how the Canadian authorities dealt with my immigration situation, and cases like Maher Arar etc., everying with regards to Bush's interests in the Middle East...Once the laws in canada changed after 9-11, and introduced major human rights violations, the road was open to further interfere and create corruption and havoc. <br>but since it is practically an empty huge country, one can still hide somewhere...and hope for better times.<br>I think the sanctuary, we need a sanctuary. "when privacy becomes unlawful, on the outlaws can have it". or something...like that. <br> <p></p><i></i>
ir
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 4:09 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

NZ

Postby sparkinthedark » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:24 pm

I live on the CAscadia fault with volcanos and all. Lived through St Helens. New Zealand is on an extremely scarey fault and has an active super volcano that is more frightening than Yellowstone. The prettiest places in the world are the most dangerous. Just look at the plate lines before you make any long term plans. <p></p><i></i>
sparkinthedark
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 8:54 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NZ

Postby scollon » Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:27 pm

Isn't NZ part of the British Commonwealth ? How about Holland, the drugs are good ! <p></p><i></i>
scollon
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: NZ

Postby joyofsox » Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:03 am

dark:<br><br>i'm sorry if it sounded like i was ragging on you. i didn't mean anything of the kind.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
joyofsox
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 11:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to The "War on Terror"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests