What’s the deal with the proposed, 8-lane superhighway, the Amero (sp - like a Euro $), North American Union, etc. I keep hearing about it but most people I talk to seem to blow it off by giving it the “conspiracy nut” as though that answers the question.
Most people were also unaware of the, “Project for a New American Century”, that stated that now infamous statement, “…Pearl Harbor like incident…”
Should I be buying firearms, stocking up on canned food and joining a militia, or what?
Forget about it, it’s right wing paranoia. Neither Mexico nor Canada is interested in being engulfed by America in a North American Union.
Yes, but not because of this.
I hear what you’re saying, but I learned a long time ago that it is dangerous to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” There have been too many documented instances where our govt. has done things that were poo hoo’d that later turned out to be factual in basis. For instance, MKULTRA is well documented along with radiation, drug and biological experiments perpetrated on the American people. The Gulf of Tonkin, Spanish American War, Agent Orange, etc.
Conspiracy nuts see conspiracies behind every bush and under every rock like Alex Jones. However, on the other side of the “Amero” coin, naysayers automatically label everything as a wacko(Waco) conspiracy.
I did some research on 911 conspiracy theories and the naysayers always refer to the Popular Mechanics debunking as absolute gospel because their expert sources are impeccable and beyond reproach. This is a logical fallacy of reasoning known as Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority). This is especially the appeal to authority outside the field of that authority’s expertise. In the field of the authority’s expertise, “this method of argument is in many cases perfectly legitimate, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of that authority’s competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence. … Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to support it.”
However, if you do enough research you will find just as many qualified experts who say otherwise. A lot of it depends on what you want/don’t want to believe. It’s scary to think that people in power would actually do something like that but there are hideous things on record and documented.
Your bolds fonts have convinced me… that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The government can plan what it likes. But Mexico and Canada aren’t going to cooperate, and a war of conquest is impractical at best. Which is the other problem with your question about whether you should “be buying firearms, stocking up on canned food and joining a militia”; YOU aren’t the one the government would be coming after in such a scenario. It would be much too busy dealing with a two front war and occupation. And probably an economic embargo to boot.
And your small fonts have convinced me…that you are someone who shouldn’t even be talking.
Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive).
"The phrase argumentum ad hominem translates literally as 'argument directed to the man.'" The abusive variety occurs when one attacks the other person rather than the other persons argument.
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” HERBERT SPENCER
Here’s a Snopes thread talking about the non-existance of a “North American Union”. that might help:
And here’s a look at the “Amero”:
Why do you regard the word “wacko” as derived from the word “Waco”?:dubious:
Granted, Texans are disturbing, still…
Although I’m pretty right-wing (at least for this board, anyway), I don’t think a single north american nation (well, barring tiny Central American Nations) would exactly be a bad thing.
However, the only way it could work would be by a radical change in peple’s perceptions, and a belief that the fundamental identities of American, Mexican, and Canadian were compatible somehow.
Then, the latter two nations would have to petition Congress to join up as territories and then seperate states (which they wouldn’t like). And in ordre to make the whole thing work, we might have to abandon Judicial Precedent, or limit it, and switch to Code Law as a legal principle. The capital might get moved - who knows, and nobody would exactly like that, because they’d be sitting in COngress in Nowhere, Kansas or something. And since each nation has its own political parties and electoral methods, we’d have a very complicated voting situation.
However, the Amero is an incredibly stupid idea. You could make the official currency name the Dollar-Peso, but Amero is just as stupid as name as Euro. And dammit, I want to put cool presidents on it. Mexico has some cool people. The Texans will be pissed to see Santa Anna on the 20$ bill. 
Canada, of course, don’t have anyone worth putting on currency.
(Zing! Gotcha, Canadopers!)
Seriously, though, this is al just kinda silly. Heck, I think Mexico would have an easier time assimilating with the US than Canada, even, jsut because Canada’s identity is basically, “We’re not Americans. We’re like Americans, but less energetic about it. Same great taste, less filling.” There’s certainly something nice about it and less likely to cause trouble but it also cuts out so much of what makes America great in the first place. And it makes it rather hard for them to join up, since they’d ahve to fundamentally give up what makes them Canadaian to do it. Quebec, of course, would be totally freaked out because nobody in America would give a damn about them.
But the biggest problem with the whole idea is that it would massively complicate things. Governing America is terribly hard. Governing a nation of 500 million+ would be very much tougher. We’re not China with its extremely center-oriented culture and heavy emphasis on traditional modes of authority passed down.
Here’s an article from The Nation pretty comprehensively debunking the idea of a “NAFTA Superhighway”.
As for the concept as a whole, the most obvious argument against it is the one against most large-scale conspiracy theories: how one earth could this be kept a secret when (in this case) at minimum, hundreds of thousands of people would have to be in on it?
Educate a Brit here: it seems to me that a good road network stretching all the way up and down both Americas would be very good indeed for trade. I’m aware that there would be difficulties with immigration, taxes, border controls, and the like, but purely from a trade POV, opening up a route like that would generate a huge amount of money.
Well, but the road system already exists. The reason nobody takes this 8-lane superhighway seriously is that the existing 4 and 6 lane highways (various Interstates in the US, the Trans Canada and 40x highways in Canada, not familiar with Mexico) already serve international trade adequately or nearly so. Where there are bottlenecks, there are various proposed projects to resolve things, such as upgrading Huron Church Rd in Windsor, ON between the Ambassador Bridge and the 401 turnoff. But it would be rather silly to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on building a new highway where the existing highways are adequate.
And the other reason why no one takes it seriously is : Why would the people behind it bother to keep their plans a secret ?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you’ve read Bartlett’s Online. Where’s your evidence of the conspiracy, though?
No. You will not.
You may find a lot of people with doctorates, but you will not find people with doctorates in the specific fields of knowledge required to correctly analyze the WTC collapse. You may find several civil engineers, but you will not find civil engineers whose specialties are the construction of super high rise buildings and no one whose specialty is the analysis of the destruction of large buildings. (There are a few pretenders who have put themselves forth as having the required credentials, (or authority), but they have not been legitimate.)
Any further discussion of the WTC/Pentagon attacks, of course, can be carried out in the aptly named 9/11 wreckage train wreck.
I thought there were key points missing, like the transit to South America. The Darien Gap, for one, IIRC. And getting from East to West in South America isn’t that easy either.
Well, yes, but that’s irrelevant to the supposed conspiracy in the OP. This Amero/NA Union thing is all about US/Mexico/Canada, and the alleged highway doesn’t extend south of Mexico.
Moreover, trade between South America and North America is better served by sea than it would be by land, and if the South Americans want to improve their highway network they’re welcome to do so but shouldn’t expect any subsidies from their northern neighbours.
I’m not even saying there was or was not a conspiracy. What I’m saying is that when you defer to some sort of an “Authority” on the matter you are assuming they are right and impeccable in their statements whether what they are saying is true or not.
Just for the record, my stance is that the 911 commission report is not a truly accurate representation of what happened. There are too many discrepancies and coincidental things to just brush it off and poo hoo it.
The conspiracy vs non-conspiracy stances are like religions…“if ours is the true religion, then everybody else who doesn’t believe what we believe is wrong.”
It’s called selective perception. Either side will seek out that which supports their philosophy and ignore anything else that does not support.
If believr of the 911 report
You’re the fortieth person, at least, to come in to the SDMB and claim there was some sort of conspiracy concerning 9/11. If you provide any convincing evidence there was, you will be the very first to do so.
By all means, give it a shot.