General discussion


The Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

By AV . ·
I don't think I like this and there isn't all that much press about it. Are we merging? Just think. It won't be Canada, the US and Mexico anymore. It'll just be North America. Add the rest of South America to that. One big happy family.

Could this ever work? I'm skeptical.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

17 total posts (Page 2 of 2)   Prev   01 | 02
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I don't think the motivation is about oil

by AV . In reply to Far be it for me to be cy ...

I think its bigger than that. I think its about globalization and world power. Maybe the creation of the North American Union. America would still be cozy with Mexico and Canada because we share borders and common problems, regardless of oil.

I think cooperation between countries is a good thing, but I don't want to see America get lost inside a North American Union.

Illegal immigration through Mexico is an extreme problem. Their economy is dependant on the US. US social systems are overwhelmed by it and I think any kind of amnesty for illegals is wrong. Its time for Mexico to build their own economy.

South America is just too volatile. They don't like America. They have their problems. Lots of poverty. Lots of drugs. Who needs that?

Collapse -

South America

by neilb@uk In reply to I don't think the motivat ...

I will answer in greater detail off Max's most recent post as it's very relevant in answer to his challenge; but it's very interesting that you dismiss SA as "poverty and drugs".

The drug problem there is entirely created by the US's and Europe's drug users and their money. The Bolivians and others coexisted with Coca for hundreds, even thousands or years without any real problems. As for the poverty - watch this space.

Collapse -

If you can prevent the usual. . . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to The Security and Prosperi ... of "America Bashers" from hijacking your thread, this might be a good discussion. It is an interesting thing you brought up, and could make for some interesting dialogue. My mind is open on the issue, as I haven't read a whole lot about it. I'll research the issue and post more later.

Collapse -

I have only gotten a high level look at this

by Tig2 In reply to The Security and Prosperi ...

But it looks to me as if they are simply trying to establish clearer communicatons between the countries- something that kinda got ignored with NAFTA.

By establishing rules of communication, things that could cross borders can be effectively communicated so as to insure appropriate response.

I need to read on...

Collapse -

The needs

by JamesRL In reply to The Security and Prosperi ...

We three countries have an enourmous amount of trade amongst us and many issues to sort through.

To me this is somewhat akin to the creation of Homeland security - instead of individual agencies talking to individual agencies across the borders, we look at a 'holistic' approach to co-ordinating across borders and bureaucracies.

I wouldn't suggest it is a magic bullet, but I can't deny the need, so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt - if they fail I doubt we will be worse off.

There is a billion dollars of trade that crosses the Canada US border every day. Its in both our interests to make sure that whatever we do we don't jeapordize that trade.

Canada and US are already working very closely on security issues. Ask the former head of Homeland Security. And that was with the previous Canadian government, with a party not know to be friendly with Bush and co.


Collapse -

I dont think it will work

by mjwx In reply to The Security and Prosperi ...

Its far to US centric for most of America (continent(s) not nation)

First of all, I agree with AV where this is not about oil, at least mainly not about oil. I think the primary motivation for this is the recent wave to paranoia that has swept over the US government and large sections of the US population. Paranoia like "Look, look there a terrorists everywhere, their trying to **** up stuff, we must do anything to save ourselves" that kind of mentality. I think some of the US govt believe their own BS and that is where this springs from.

Now about getting people to join. Canada will be first, you could probably get Mexico with a few incentives but beyond that I don?t think you will have much luck. most central and south American countries have no love for the united states and will not wish to join what be or at the very least appears to be a US lead organisation. to many south American leaderships this will be seen as an attempt by the US to exert power over them.

An American Union in the style of a European Union will be met with the same kind of love-hate relationship as the EU is met with in Europe. Governments will wish to join as this provides a boost to their economies, People will enjoy a somewhat increased standard of living but they will also reject foreign influences and the idea of globalization.

Aside from this many of South America's governments are what you would consider "Communist" such as Venezuela although most are just extremely left (American definition) democracies or dictatorships. This level of "socialism" will not go down well with large sections of the American public.

IMO this plan is doomed to fail or at least be limited to the US, Canada and possibly Mexico (and I mean possibly in light of recent actions at the border).

Here's a site that lists US interventions in Latin America.
Here's a site that should give an insight into the South American perspective.

Back to Community Forum
17 total posts (Page 2 of 2)   Prev   01 | 02

Related Discussions

Related Forums