Why The United States And Canada Should Merge: Foreign Policy Opinion

The United States is still getting rid of its chemical weapons

The twice-weekly show can be viewed on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It can also be found on Twitter, along with our extended coverage of the energy and materials sectors, @TMFEnergy . The United States appears to be losing its status as the world’s top oil importer, thanks to the colossal turnaround in crude oil production caused by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques. While China’s 6.3 million barrels per day of crude oil imports are just slightly higher than the United States 6.1 million per day, the trajectory of the two countries’ crude consumption varies significantly. The United States could be the world’s largest crude oil producer by the end of the decade while oil demand drops as fuel efficient cars takeover our highways. Meanwhile, China is in the early stages of unconventional shale exploration, and with a growing middle class, fuel consumption is set to rise precipitously. See more on this topic in the following video. Stocks to buy to play the United States energy bonanza Record oil and natural gas production is revolutionizing the United States’ energy position. Finding the right plays while historic amounts of capital expenditures are flooding the industry willpad your investment nest egg. For this reason, The Motley Fool is offering a comprehensive look at three energy companies set to soar during this transformation in the energy industry. To find out which three companies are spreading their wings, check out the special free report, ” 3 Stocks for the American Energy Bonanza .” Don’t miss out on this timely opportunity; click here to access your report — it’s absolutely free. Alison Southwick and Taylor Muckerman have no position in any stocks mentioned. Joel South owns shares of Ford. The Motley Fool recommends and owns shares of Ford. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days .

* Agreement on the need to further consider steps for resolution of differences is a welcome development. Understanding between the two countries is primary to establishment of a framework for peace and stability in Afghanistan. The international community is closely watching what transpires as a result of these efforts. * The United States will want its military troops to have legal protection through immunity by the Afghan law. The Afghan tribal leaders will want an upper hand by demanding that in case of a breach, the Afghan government may be authorized to decide on the fate of a soldier. It is highly unlikely that American government would agree to provide Afghans with such a jurisdiction. This will be a contentious issue and may lead to further tensions. However, an agreement on the modalities of this proposal could be reached, but it will take a longer time and may not be able to satisfy all members of the Afghan advisory council. * The United States will have to keep in view the sensitivity of Afghanistan regarding its sovereignty. Afghanistan has openly condemned the killing of its civilians in military raids carried out by Nato and ISAF troops against the terrorists on its soil. This has been a major cause of tensions. Any progress in reaching a full agreement will require flexibility and understanding on both sides.

“Without dramatic change,” she writes, “Canada will remain … somewhat sleepy and vulnerable. The United States will continue to go broke buying foreign oil and cheap goods from Asia, then guarding countries that could and should pay for their own protection and, while they are at it, ‘buy American.’ ” “There has to be some kind of strategy,” she told FP. Francis was born in Chicago and holds dual citizenship — but she’s not some American agent provocateur. She acknowledges there is a certain paranoia about American intentions north of the border. “I think it’s a function of being the little guy next to the big guy and always having to worry,” she says. But there are real benefits to the merger — “synergies,” she notes in corporate terms — especially for Canada. By erasing the border, Canada would gain a military with a stake in protecting its resources from foreign incursions, and the investment capital and people to develop oil, natural gas and other mining projects in the country’s undeveloped north. The United States, for its part, would have access to an estimated 13 percent of the world’s remaining undiscovered oil reserves and 30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas. “The most obvious synergy,” she writes, “would be matching Canada’s undeveloped resource potential with America’s money, markets and workers.” In particular, Francis, who is a director for Aurizon Mines Ltd., which operates a gold mine in Quebec, wants to see the United States invest in infrastructure in Canada’s far north, which currently lacks the roads, ports and pipelines necessary to make resource extraction possible. “That kind of a Marshall Plan with infrastructure and so on — that would create millions of jobs, both sides of the border,” she says. “The Americans should just roll up their sleeves and get on with it, because they’ve got the capital and they’ve got the market for the stuff. At the very least, there’s got to be some kind of a joint venture, economically, and I say, ‘Let’s pick our partners.’ ” It’s a perspective that smacks of protectionism — though Francis objects to the word.

United States and Afghanistan; hope of an agreement

effort took billions of dollars, the cooperation of many levels of government — including the military — and a safe environment to make sure the destruction was done safely. “We had a coordinated effort, we had a government that insisted that it be done safely and that the community was protected,” said Mathews, who now works with the Tooele County emergency management team, which makes sure the Utah community is aware of the project. “I don’t think those things are in place in Syria.” Mathews briefly worked at the Desert Army Chemical Depot in Tooele, a desert town bracketed by mountains outside of Salt Lake City where 43% of the nation’s chemical weapons were once stored. The rest was stored at eight other sites around the country. The weapons were first warehoused at the Tooele facility in 1942, during World War II, and grew over time. At one point, the United States once housed the majority of its chemical arsenal –13,000 tons — and a million munitions at the facility. Former inspector: Timeline not practical Syria said to be ‘cooperative’ Weapons inspectors face difficult task Tooele was chosen because military leaders figured Japanese warplanes could hit the West Coast but not fly over the mountains to Utah without refueling, said Richard Trujillo, who spent 40 years working at the facility. “There was mustard gas originally … a lot of smoke-type bombs, smoke pods,” Trujillo recalled. Then, in the 1950s, a lot of nerve gas was transported to the facility, he said. Eventually, the United States signed the international chemical treaty in the 1990s and got serious about getting rid of the chemicals in a way that would not harm the environment or the people working at the plant or living in the area. While the process was slow and expensive, Trujillo said there was not a single casualty despite the volatility of some of the chemicals. “You know the whole task is nothing short of miraculous in my mind,” Trujillo said. “And I was part of it.” Today there are no weapons at the Tooele facility.