What US controveries and scandals do you believe should be investigated further?

[Nakura]

I've spent a fair amount of time this morning watching the House of Representatives discuss and debate the 2013 IRS scandal and I couldn't help but wonder what other controversies and/or scandals that my fellow political mudpitters would like to have investigated further, if any. My question to you use, which of the above (see poll) controversies do you believe merit a non-partisan investigation, if any?

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

I voted for all of the scandals. Every president should be responsible for the crimes committed during his presidency, regardless of political affiliation.

[Nakura]

I voted for all of the scandals. Every president should be responsible for the crimes committed during his presidency, regardless of political affiliation.

That's very noble of you and I agree with the sentiment.

[Lord of Nihilism]

Read number 2 on the list.

I'm not sure if this counts since it mainly revolves around my country but it involves US officials making observations about how my country is run.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/12...s-revelations/


Only number 2 on the list I feel should be explored more deeply by the Canadian Government, with assistance by the US Government where needed. The US already has annexed Canada via US military officers being stationed at Canadian bases, but now they feel the need to shape the way Canadian media reports Americans and American policies. Such actions are dangerous to this country and necessary measures should be taken to ensure security against American attempts to further control this country, which means a thorough investigation into the matter.

[Farnan]

You know there are Canadian troops on US bases, right?

[Lord of Nihilism]

Not permanently, the only time Canadian troops show up on American territory is for training exercises that runs for a few weeks at most. There are US officers stationed permanently(Or for an extremely long time) at Canadian military bases, which shouldn't be acceptable.

[Farnan]

Not permanently, the only time Canadian troops show up on American territory is for training exercises that runs for a few weeks at most. There are US officers stationed permanently(Or for an extremely long time) at Canadian military bases, which shouldn't be acceptable.

Again you are wrong.

There are permanent Canadian troops in the US.

http://www.norad.mil

We also have Canadian instructors in our Field Artillery School.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/arti...nship/hob7hd8s

[Caduet]

justice4canada
death to van buren

[Lord of Nihilism]

Your sources are outdated and there are a lot of incorrect statements. For starters, there are no Canadian officers who are stationed permanently in the US(For a year or more) except for a few hundred technicians that are payed to maintain NORAD equipment and etc, but they don't count as Army officers in my eyes. Canadian officers aren't stationed in the US for long periods of time and neither do they train/command US personnel; I can't say the same about US officers in Canada commanding Canadian troops, and the US officers are usually there permanently or for periods extending the time span of one year. Secondly, your 2nd source leads to the same page and nowhere does it say that Canadian officers train US artillery officers/soldiers.

The only troops that should be on Canadian soil are British, French or Canadian troops as far as i'm concerned. It wasn't that long ago that the US actually had active military bases operating in Canada(In the 1980's I believe).

[Farnan]

Umm.. We had a Canadian Officer training my lieutenant training course only three years ago. And there are permanent Canadian troops in NORAD. The deputy commander is Canadian.

Stop making up.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-commu...can/index.page

There are Canadian elements in Colorado and Washington Dc

http://www.norad.mil/Leadership/Arti...nt-cmm-cd.aspx

He might have something to say if you say there are no Canadian officers stationed in the US

And here is one who leads US troops:

http://www.bragg.army.mil/leaders/Pa...Operation.aspx

[Adamwestisgod]

What, how does having US officers stationed in Canada start as "annexation"? From what I understand of the term annexation is that it means that the country becomes part of the other country. Im pretty sure Canada is still a sovereign nation.... Also ive SEEN Canadian officers being stationed in America for a few years, Ive also seen British and Australians get stationed in America too (High ranking ones at that in command of America troops). Does that mean Britain and Australia are planning on annexing America??

Also the whole having US bases in places doesnt really mean . In the base I was at in Germany we couldnt sneeze on base without getting approval from the Germans, we couldnt even dig holes in the ground unless we got a crap ton of paperwork signed by the Germans. Hell we RENTED the base from the Germans every year, it got to the point that US Army rules didnt really "apply" in the barracks because they were owned by Germans . Also Its not like we imposed our will upon the local populace or anything, almost all of the Germans liked us because we helped out the local economy (mostly by getting drunk, eating kebabs, and having fun at the whore houses.) So I would LOVE to see some evidence of this "annexation" of Canada that the US is supposedly doing.

EDIT: Also in the US military a normal length for an officer to be in charge of a place can range from 2-4 years. They never stay in a position for to long. Its the US military way of spreading command knowledge and allowing leaders to move to different positions and gain experience in different areas. (This is why you'll see Infantry commanders get moved to support units, and vice versa).

[Lord of Nihilism]

What, how does having US officers stationed in Canada start as "annexation"? From what I understand of the term annexation is that it means that the country becomes part of the other country. Im pretty sure Canada is still a sovereign nation.... Also ive SEEN Canadian officers being stationed in America for a few years, Ive also seen British and Australians get stationed in America too (High ranking ones at that in command of America troops). Does that mean Britain and Australia are planning on annexing America??

Also the whole having US bases in places doesnt really mean . In the base I was at in Germany we couldnt sneeze on base without getting approval from the Germans, we couldnt even dig holes in the ground unless we got a crap ton of paperwork signed by the Germans. Hell we RENTED the base from the Germans every year, it got to the point that US Army rules didnt really "apply" in the barracks because they were owned by Germans . Also Its not like we imposed our will upon the local populace or anything, almost all of the Germans liked us because we helped out the local economy (mostly by getting drunk, eating kebabs, and having fun at the whore houses.) So I would LOVE to see some evidence of this "annexation" of Canada that the US is supposedly doing.

It's annexation because US officers are commanding Canadian troops and being stationed at Canadian bases for prolonged periods of time; US officers act as overseers basically and ensure that Canadian troops remain loyal to the US. The US also annexes Canada via political means, since our entire Government was bought by the Americans. Regarding Canadian officers commanding US troops; the only Canadian troops that are in the US for extended amounts of time are technicians sent in to repair the candy bar dispenser machine and/or technicians sent to maintain and repair NORAD equipment. You'll never see a Canadian officer commanding US troops, but you'll see a US officer commanding Canadian troops which shouldn't be allowed, and which is why the Wikileaks Diplomatic cables caused a substantial amount of anger; the US already conquered our country via politics, and has officers stationed here to ensure Canadian troops remain loyal to the American cause, yet America feels the need to change the way we view Americans via media outlets.

Actually, having bases in other countries means that you've annexed those countries. While the acting Government of the occupied country will say "No no no, we have an agreement and US troops won't be here forever and they're necessary!", the reality of the matter is that the US or whatever country has annexed that country, and no amount of "spinning" will change that.

As for your proof that the US controls/annexed Canada is quite simple, all you have to do is look at the Wikileaks Diplomatic cables between the US and Canada(Which I provided in my first post on this thread), read up on Operation Manifest Destiny(American plan to conquer the world) and read up on Canadian politics and how Harper and his Conservatives are doing everything they can to not upset the Americans, even if it means trading resources, materials and etc at a loss.

Oh and for those who say that Canadian officers have command in NORAD, have a look at this link: http://www.norad.mil/Leadership.aspx

There are 4 commanders of NORAD and guess how many of them are American? 3 and the Canadian General isn't even the head commander of NORAD, but serves as sidekick essentially.

[Adamwestisgod]

It's annexation because US officers are commanding Canadian troops and being stationed at Canadian bases for prolonged periods of time; US officers act as overseers basically and ensure that Canadian troops remain loyal to the US. The US also annexes Canada via political means, since our entire Government was bought by the Americans. Regarding Canadian officers commanding US troops; the only Canadian troops that are in the US for extended amounts of time are technicians sent in to repair the candy bar dispenser machine and/or technicians sent to maintain and repair NORAD equipment. You'll never see a Canadian officer commanding US troops, but you'll see a US officer commanding Canadian troops which shouldn't be allowed, and which is why the Wikileaks Diplomatic cables caused a substantial amount of anger; the US already conquered our country via politics, and has officers stationed here to ensure Canadian troops remain loyal to the American cause, yet America feels the need to change the way we view Americans via media outlets.

Actually, having bases in other countries means that you've annexed those countries. While the acting Government of the occupied country will say "No no no, we have an agreement and US troops won't be here forever and they're necessary!", the reality of the matter is that the US or whatever country has annexed that country, and no amount of "spinning" will change that.

As for your proof that the US controls/annexed Canada is quite simple, all you have to do is look at the Wikileaks Diplomatic cables between the US and Canada(Which I provided in my first post on this thread), read up on Operation Manifest Destiny(American plan to conquer the world) and read up on Canadian politics and how Harper and his Conservatives are doing everything they can to not upset the Americans, even if it means trading resources, materials and etc at a loss.

Oh and for those who say that Canadian officers have command in NORAD, have a look at this link: http://www.norad.mil/Leadership.aspx

There are 4 commanders of NORAD and guess how many of them are American? 3 and the Canadian General isn't even the head commander of NORAD, but serves as sidekick essentially.

Ya I guess I do need to get my eyes checked because I mean YOU know how the American military works because you are obviously a part of it. I guess I'll just forget seeing the entire platoon of US soldiers that had a Canadian LT in charge of them who they had to report too. We havent annexed Germany, japan, or actually ANY of the countries that there are bases in. It isnt the same as like when the British had bases in colonies and imposed their rules and laws on the local populace. When we are in another country we have to obey THEIR rules first above ours. They still make decisions that sometimes go AGAINST American wishes. I cant tell you how many times we would have Germans shoot down our plans for military training because they just didnt want us doing it. Does that sound like something that a nation that has been would annexed do? Ya ill admit maybe the US has some influence with the local goverment of those areas, but its not like we can force them to do things. I just read your article and I see nothing as serious as you just said, unless the US goverment getting all butthurt over how the CIA was portrayed and wanting to change that constitutes a national outrage. Dude manifest destiny is hundreds of years old, I barely know of any American that shares the same idea that that old idea did. I also seriously doubt ANYBODY in American is still trying to do that.
I just did a google search of ANY US officers stationed in Canada and I could find nothing. I would love to see a link proving what you are saying. (which from the sounds of it, it seems like you have zero idea how the military works which isnt surprising).
Im starting to think you just plain hate Americans thinking we are trying to control your country.
PS I actually like Canadians I served alongside some in Afghanistan and they were some of the most hardworking soldiers I ever had the pleasure to work with.

[Arbitrary Crusader]

No Roswell incident? Pffft, put the most insignificant events, but the biggest one? Alright gotcha.

[Farnan]

Lord: I linked a Canadian General commanding US troops. Link a US commander commanding Canadian troops.

Germany and Singapore have units stationed in the US they must have annexed the US.

[Nevins]

Remember people, this is the same LoN who stated that Canada should scrap everything to build about a dozen new carriers to do..... who knows what. I don't think that he is being serious in his posting

[Adamwestisgod]

Remember people, this is the same LoN who stated that Canada should scrap everything to build about a dozen new carriers to do..... who knows what. I don't think that he is being serious in his posting

I have unfortunately come to the same conclusion after typing my long response. I feel like I have been successfully trolled...by a Canadian no less (jk I love you guys)

[Mayer]

Nothing from the Reagan era? And before?

what about the global surveillance revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden?

[Roma_Victrix]

Nothing from the Reagan era? And before?

what about the global surveillance revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden?

Reagan is curiously missing from the list, although to be fair he is now dead, so maybe that was the impetus for leaving out the Iran-Contra affair among other things from the Reagan administration?

Also, while the Whitewater incident was a genuine real estate scandal conducted by the Clintons (Bill and Hillary), I fail to see how the Assault Weapons Ban has made the list, seeing how the president simply did not veto the bill that was sent to his desk from Congress. The president doesn't craft legislation, the House and Senate do, his power being only to veto or accept what Congress has done. It also wouldn't make much sense for Clinton to spearhead an offense against his own Democratic party, which at the time was the proponent of the bill.

About half the things listed for Obama don't make much sense. A weak response to Crimea? What do you want Obama to do beyond funding Ukraine and sanctioning Russia? Invade and nuke Russia or something? I swear, people have such a hard-on for a land war with Russia, forgetting that it didn't work out so well for Napoleon and Hitler. It's a country that also has nukes, so welcome to the unsettling concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

The other half on Obama, and Bush with the Iraq War and mass unwarranted surveillance, are sensible enough. However, I'm with Arbitrary Crusader: declassify the events that occurred at Roswell, New Mexico! Plus, what about Dick Cheney and Halliburton? Some things are conspicuously absent from the list.

And down with Van Buren.

[Mayer]

I find it fascinating that Reagen justified the invasion of Grenada and the airstrike on Libya as defense of fellow citizens.
But when Putin uses the same justification it is called blood & soil ideology.