# Superhighway/N. American Union **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2009, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848 "2009-01-18T10:37:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/21 "2009-01-19T00:14:01Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Here’s an article from [_The Nation_](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes) 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? No, the biggest argument against the idea being real is that nobody would want it. Who the hell needs to drive from Mexico to Kansas to western Canada on a casual basis? ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/22 "2009-01-19T00:29:25Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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. I don’t think you’re getting it. I’m not saying there was or there wasn’t a conspiracy, I’m saying that I don’t think the 911 report is not a true and accurate representation with ALL of the facts laid out. It could be something as simple as National Security. Remember, the JFK assination had, still has, sealed documents, therefore, the Warren Commission’s report was complete and didn’t represent the whole picture. Again, I don’t beleive or disbelieve either side of the conspiracy…the believers and the naysayers. I’m saying I don’t think the report is necessarily true, accurate and complete. > [@](#): > > Long before the Jersey girls ever began appearing on national TV, they were leaving their children with friends and relatives and making repeated trips to Washington, where they went from office to office, pressuring Congress into establishing an official investigation into the attacks. The 9/11 Commission was largely the work of the Family Steering Committee, a group formed by the Jersey widows along with several other 9/11 families who, after reading everything they could get their hands on about 9/11, drew up a voluminous list of questions they wanted to see answered, the goal being to provide the 9/11 Commission with every piece of information it would need to do a solid investigation. > > The questions covered everything from the president’s actions on the morning of 9/11, to why hijacked airplanes were permitted to fly around for nearly two hours in U.S. airspace without any military response, to why no one at any level of the government has ever been held responsible for the many failings leading up to the attacks. The widows had high hopes for the 9/11 Commission Report, but when it was published in July of 2004 they were bitterly disappointed. While the public moved on, widely assuming 9/11 to be a bygone issue, the widows were stuck with the frustrating realization that the investigation they’d worked so hard to achieve had utterly failed to meet their expectations. > > . . . > > “It’s hard for us to come to any other conclusion than that the 9/11 Commission was a political cover-up from the word go,” says Patty Casazza, who lost her husband John in WTC I. “We were so naïve, we had no idea we were going to run into this kind of fight. We just wanted an investigation into the attacks, for safety reasons. And yet it took President Bush fourteen months to agree to the 9/11 Commission. This was the man I’d voted for in 2000, and all of a sudden he was my biggest adversary. I look back, and I think, well, at least we got them to put down their version of the events on record, so you can see where they weren’t being thorough. It was supposed to be a complete account, but it was anything but. If my husband had been run over by a car I’d know more.” [http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id358.html](http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id358.html) ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/23 "2009-01-19T01:12:27Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > No, the biggest argument against the idea being real is that nobody would want it. Who the hell needs to drive from Mexico to Kansas to western Canada on a casual basis? I can understand believing that someone, somwhere, is dreaming up a North American union. The elites are always tossing around crap like that. It won’t come to pass but I’m sure some think tank somewhere has said it would be a good idea. But this superhighway thing is just baffling to me for this very reason. You cannot connect the three countries with one highway. You see, they’re **big**. Mexico is easily the smallest of the three and it’s REALLY big; it’s the fifteenth biggest country in the world. The USA is just immensely, ridiculously big, and Canada’s bigger still. If you wanted to connect them with a single highway, where would you run it? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/24 "2009-01-19T01:20:32Z")
For fuck’s sake, you’ve got a whole other thread to spread your Truther nonsense. You started this thread to ask about the North American Union. Why not stick to that? If you’re going to hijack every thread into 9/11 Trutherism you’re gonna have a short stay here. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/25 "2009-01-19T01:43:04Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Here’s an article from [_The Nation_](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes) 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? Well, it’s kinda like the conspiracy theories involving the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations: Hiding in plain sight. These organizations make no secret of their **existence,** nor of the fact that their members are extraordinarily powerful people; which, to a certain kind of mind, just makes it all the more plausible that they are using that power in ways the general public never learns of and would be enraged if it did. The “North American Union” conspiracy theory, in particular, seems to me an extrapolation of RW-populist fears of a neoliberal, borderless “New World Order” where both national culture and the earning capacity of native-born Americans are considerations to be discounted in favor of economic efficiency and the profit margins of the elite. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/26 "2009-01-19T01:49:09Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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. First off, I did not say there was a conspiracy. I said that I did not believe the 911 report was accurate. The widows felt the same way after demanding there be an official to get the ball rolling. They asked many tough questions that didn’t get answered that should have been answered: [http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id358.html](http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id358.html) [http://www.911summary.com/science.php](http://www.911summary.com/science.php) And the beat goes on and on and on… Guys like you don’t want to challenge the official story because it wasn’t true the reality would be staggering, overwhelming and frightening. Your entire world would be turned upside down. Once again, I’m not saying that it was a conspiracy. I’m saying that I don’t think the 911 story is necessarily true and accurate as presented. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/27 "2009-01-19T01:49:12Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > 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 [Not always a fallacy.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=405245) The most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/28 "2009-01-19T01:52:33Z")
Sorry about the double post. Firefox crash. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/29 "2009-01-19T01:53:22Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > No, the biggest argument against the idea being real is that nobody would want it. Who the hell needs to drive from Mexico to Kansas to western Canada on a casual basis? Truckers. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/30 "2009-01-19T01:55:52Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > No, the biggest argument against the idea being real is that nobody would want it. Who the hell needs to drive from Mexico to Kansas to western Canada on a casual basis? The mythical highway is not intended to make it convenient for people to drive their cars between those points, it’s intended for heavy freight traffic. The centerpiece is supposed to be easy transit of Chinese goods from Mexican ports (presumably using low-cost, non-union dockers) to a huge distribution center near Kansas City. Why the conspiracy theorists think it makes sense to have it then going on to terminate somewhere on the plains of Alberta is beyond me. Anyway, as the article points out, the ‘NAFTA Superhighway’ myth in part seems to be based on the planned Trans-Texas corridor, which is a real project and which is increasingly being opposed in that state, for several reasons outlined in the text, not least a decided whiff of corruption surrounding it. Oh, and one thing the consipracy theorists seem to miss is the ongoing, long-term project by the Kansas City Southern Railrod to develop a major rail freight corridor between Mexico and KC, including the current building of a considerable stretch of new railroad in south Texas. Frankly, I don’t personally have any problem with this. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/31 "2009-01-19T02:05:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Not always a fallacy.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=405245) The most important piece of information in any message is the name of the messenger. Hey, I like your post and it is educational. I’m not sure what that means, “…name of the messenger.” But let me try it this way: If you throw the baby out with the bathwater like that you are basically saying that everybody that doesn’t believe like I do is completely wrong and I’m completely right. That’s what religions do. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/32 "2009-01-19T02:05:45Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Oh, and one thing the consipracy theorists seem to miss is the ongoing, long-term project by the Kansas City Southern Railrod to develop a major rail freight corridor between Mexico and KC, including the current building of a considerable stretch of new railroad in south Texas. Frankly, I don’t personally have any problem with this. Especially as there’s no obvious reason why the freight trains would not be forced to stop at the border for customs and immigration inspections. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/33 "2009-01-19T02:14:39Z")
Yeah, the dumbest part is that the point of the consipracy is that Chinese goods would arrive in Mexico so they wouldn’t have to be inspected at US ports. Then they can be driven into the US without inspection along this superhighway. But why then would the Illuminati need a North American Union and a new currency? Wouldn’t it be better to let the sheeple keep their illusion of national soveriegnty? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/34 "2009-01-19T02:40:03Z")
What you are referring to is what is commonly called the NAFTA Superhighway. It is a series of planned and actual highways running from Mexico to Canada. It would make extensive use of “supercoridors”. These are basically 1200’ wide paths containing combined highway, rail and utility lines. They would theoretically bypass traditional borders, delivering to inland ports called [‘smartports’](http://www.kcsmartport.com/) Most of the controversy seems to come from: -Environmental concerns over cutting quarter mile swaths of land through the countryside -Issues on eminent domain -Security -Migration of trucking jobs -Lack of investment in existing infrastructure ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/35 "2009-01-19T04:12:49Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > 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. No, but I understand if your paranoia needs this falsehood to sustain itself. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/36 "2009-01-19T04:16:01Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > 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. It’s one thing to suppose that the government engaged in some nefarious experimentation and covered it up, or connived in the engineering or reporting of an event that triggered a war. But with these sorts if issues, the conspiracy theorists are seizing on completely innocuous things, like naive speculation in favor of a North American Union or One World Government, or a tiny evolutionary step that seems to point in that direction, as evidence that an evil plot to establish a regime whose purpose is to devour the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/37 "2009-01-19T04:36:49Z")
A few other problems that occur to me. Even if you buy the idea that a road is such a scary, scary thing - how could they build it and have it used without it becoming blatantly obvious that there’s a Great Big Highway with a bunch of trucks on it ? Not to mention how obvious it’s construction would be. It only makes sense to declare something secret if you can hide it. And on a related note; what’s the point of keeping secret an intended NAU ? You can’t create something like that without people noticing either. Is the European Union secret ? In fact, in order to actually pull such a union off you’d need to convince the populations of the countries involved to go along; the opposite of secrecy. > [@sqweels](#): > > It’s one thing to suppose that the government engaged in some nefarious experimentation and covered it up, or connived in the engineering or reporting of an event that triggered a war. Nitpick; at least some of that stuff DID happen, and isn’t just a matter of supposition. Like the radiation experiments; Clinton apologized for them when the news came out as I recall. > [@sqweels](#): > > But with these sorts if issues, the conspiracy theorists are seizing on completely innocuous things, like naive speculation in favor of a North American Union or One World Government, or a tiny evolutionary step that seems to point in that direction, as evidence that an evil plot to establish a regime whose purpose is to devour the United States. You know what’s extra amusing about that ? The rather obvious end result of that would be a Union overwhelmingly dominated by the U.S. In other words - WE’D be the evil conspiracy in that scenario. So if anyone should be paranoid over it ( assuming there was anything to it ), it should be Mexicans and Canadians, not Americans. ---
**Author:** ![jakesteele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ed8c4c/32.png) [@jakesteele](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jakesteele)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/38 "2009-01-19T07:09:51Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > No, but I understand if your paranoia needs this falsehood to sustain itself. Man, oh, Man. You just don’t seem to get it. The mere fact that you have to take the stance of, "If you don’t believe like I do, then you’re a kook, paranoid, wacko, nuts, etc. is sad. People like you do everything in their power to marginalize, diminish and deny anything contrary to your world view. Let’s try it this way. In a court of law there will be cases where both the prosecution and the defense will each hire their own equally qualified forensic expert. With the same evidence in front of them one will say, “Yes, he did it.” and the other will say, “No, he didn’t do it.” It’s like the prosecution hires CSI Miami and the defense hires CSI NY. Equally qualified experts coming to different conclusions. Sometimes one wins, sometimes the other does. If the defense wins it’s because he raises enough reasonable doubt about the other guys interpretation of the evidence. Just remember the O.J. Simpsom trial. In general, many people thought he got away with murder and many thought he was innocent. This whole thing is based on two different interpretations of the same evidence. It’s called Reasonable Doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/39 "2009-01-19T07:45:59Z")
> [@jakesteele](#): > > In a court of law there will be cases where both the prosecution and the defense will each hire their own equally qualified forensic expert. Not necessarily. > [@](#): > > This whole thing is based on two different interpretations of the same evidence. No, that’s not even close to true. One theory is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence, the other theory is basically bad fiction, and I’ve never seen an honest argument for it. People who support the conspiracy theory basically pretend to make an argument: they’ll make assertions that violate the laws of physics, or common sense, or history, then refuse to acknowledge any flaws in their argument. Then they’ll attempt to poke some minor holes in the historical narrative without offering much of an alternative explanation, because if there are errors in the record, there must be a coverup. After that they usually resort to namecalling or martyrdom. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2009, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848/40 "2009-01-19T07:48:41Z")
As to the North American Union/superhighway theory, **Der Trihs** is correct: it’s paranoid nonsense. Interestingly the only people I’ve ever heard pushing this garbage were Ron Paul voters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/superhighway-n-american-union/481848.md?page=3)