• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

North American "Security Perimeter"

Thundar

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Yes they are at it again.

Of course Hillary is involved.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/12/12/canada-foreign-ministers-meeting-wakefield.html

Fair use:


Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon will host U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Affairs Patricia Espinosa at the picturesque Wakefield Mill Inn in Wakefield, Que., about 35 kilometres north of Ottawa.

Recent reports that a new security and trade perimeter deal could be in the works between the U.S. and Canada have put the spotlight on Monday's meeting.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010...inisters-meeting-wakefield.html#ixzz17xouiWGL
 
ChiangShih

ChiangShih

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
628
Location
KC
KBCraig said:
I'm pretty sure they only mean Northern North America. There are three countries on this continent.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is like a 10 country continent if you don't count the islands nations attached to the continental plate :D
 
M

McX

Guest
it appears the only security perimeter is.......................................us.
 
KBCraig

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
SouthernBoy said:
The number is 24.
Click to expand...
That's an odd number. How do you arrive at it?

If one includes all the non-island nations in "the Americas", it is: North America, 3; Central America, 7; South America, 19. The island nations and territories add another 30~ish (depending on how you parse their nationhood).

Speaking of the North American tectonic plate, it includes the 3 North American countries, but not Central America, and adds Cuba, Bahamas, Greenland, half of Iceland, and half of Siberia.

No matter, there are still exactly three nations on the North American continent. Islands aren't on the continent, and the subcontinent that lies on a different tectonic plate is part of the landmass, but not the continent.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I am so glad the the RKBA is such a settled matter that we can spend our time arguing over how many countries constitute North America. BTW, Wikipedia puts the number at 23. So that would probably be the answer on Jeopardy.

Generally, when folks speak of North America, they may or may not be including Central America or the island nations. So, no one is wrong here, just operating from different perspectives.
 
KBCraig

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
eye95 said:
I am so glad the the RKBA is such a settled matter that we can spend our time arguing over how many countries constitute North America.
Click to expand...
I didn't know a proposed "North American Security Perimeter" --the topic of this thread-- had anything at all to do with gun rights.
 
since9

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
This is nothing more than political posturing and showmanship. In the last decade, 3,000 U.S. civilians died at the hands of non-local terrorists. That's less than 2% of the 155,000 who were murdered by criminals.

Yet it'll probably cost the taxpayers billions to implement, so ok, it's more than just politics as usual. It's a means of siphoning even more of the taxpayer's dollars into the hands of those who're getting rich off the deal providing these "services."

Come to think of it, I'm beginning to believe the whole Department of Homeland Security and TSA efforts are really thinly disguised "work for welfare" programs, as well as a way of getting the more vocal "we should do something!"ers to shut up.
 
Last edited:
KBCraig

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
since9 said:
I'm beginning to believe the whole Department of Homeland Security and TSA efforts are really thinly disguised "work for welfare" programs, as well as a way of getting the more vocal "we should do something!"ers to shut up.
Click to expand...
"Beginning to"? It's been pretty evident since 9/13/2001, especially when GWB and the congressional Democrats federalized the security screeners over the objections of the GOP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top