[fatbasturd]

Ruxpercnd Ruxpercnd:

Just want to clarify... Even if Canada's territorial claims are defended and recognized.... international law still provides for rights of passage.

Even though the subject channels have normally been locked up with ice, the U.S. has still made passages on a regular basis. These passages do nothing to harm Canada. So, cool off guys! You have a lot of other problems to attend to without having to make up more.

For me it has nothing to do with the rights of passage.I am fine with that , it's the fact that our territorial claims are not recognized ,that leaves a sour taste.

[Tman1]

Ruxpercnd Ruxpercnd:

Just want to clarify... Even if Canada's territorial claims are defended and recognized.... international law still provides for rights of passage.

Even though the subject channels have normally been locked up with ice, the U.S. has still made passages on a regular basis. These passages do nothing to harm Canada. So, cool off guys! You have a lot of other problems to attend to without having to make up more.

$1:

These passages do nothing to harm Canada.

Yes it does. It harms our sovereignty and questions are ability to defend it.

$1:

You have a lot of other problems to attend to without having to make up more.

It wasn't a problem until the US started to whine about it. Your Ambassador Wilkins was the one complaining about Harpers plans to defend the North.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Arctic

$1:

Since 1925, Canada has claimed the portion of the Arctic between 60°W and 141°W longitude, extending all the way north to the North Pole: all islands in this region are Canadian territory and the territorial waters claimed by Canada surround these islands. This claim is recognized by most countries with some exceptions, particularly the United States; Denmark, Russia, and Norway have made claims similar to those of Canada in the Arctic and are opposed by the EU and the US.

Interesting no? I don't think it's a matter of Americas freedom of the seas, it's about who recognizes what. Hypocritical to think that America has similar objectives in the North but digs out the UN articles of law that the US ignores already.

[Ruxpercnd]

Seems like Russia, Canada and Denmark all want to claim the North Pole. I think I want to claim it also. Please check with me if you want to visit my North Pole. - rux

Those darn Chinese :
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/032100-01.htm

$1:

...But now, Alaska-based cruise ships are starting to ply sections of the passage, sometimes asking Canadian permission - sometimes not. In a weird episode last summer [1999], a Chinese government vessel landed at the tiny fishing port of Tuktoyaktuk without notice. A few crew members disembarked, wandering about and snapping photos until the local constable of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police started asking questions. The Chinese then reboarded and steamed away.....

[JacquesStrap]

Stephen Harper to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic ??? military icebreakers, where have they been hiding? perhaps the Coast Guard not the Canadian Military, duh.

bootlegga bootlegga:

U.S. envoy dismisses Harper's Arctic plan

Last Updated Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:09:54 EST
CBC News

The United States opposes a plan by prime minister-designate Stephen Harper to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic in order to assert Canadian sovereignty, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

"There's no reason to create a problem that doesn't exist," David Wilkins said Wednesday as he took part in a forum at the University of Western Ontario in London.

"We don't recognize Canada's claims to those waters... Most other countries do not recognize their claim."

During the election campaign, which culminated with Harper's win this week, the Conservatives promised to spend $5.3 billion over five years to defend northern waters against the Americans, Russians and Danes.

"Sovereignty is something, you use it or you lose it," Harper said at the pre-Christmas announcement in Winnipeg.

His plan included the construction and deployment of three new armed heavy icebreaking ships, as well as the eventual construction of a $2-billion deepwater port in Iqaluit and an underwater network of "listening posts."

Harper wouldn't say whether he would order military action if the ships or port detected an unauthorized submarine in Arctic waters.

In an interview, Wilkins said he doesn't think that kind of military buildup is necessary in the Far North.

"We are simply having a disagreement on this," he said. "We have agreed to disagree, and there's no reason ... to say, 'There's a problem that's occurring and we gotta do something about it.'"

Wilkins also said he expects less anti-American sentiment from Harper's new minority government, and added that he called Harper to offer congratulations on his election victory.


Arctic plan

I figure this is Harper's first real test. Will he still go through with his plan, or will he back down in face of American opposition? Personally, I hope he has the stones to go trhough with it (the only real part of his platform I liked was the defence spending), but the Cons traditionally have such a lovefest for the States you never know.

Your thoughts?

[B]

[Tman1]

Ruxpercnd Ruxpercnd:

Seems like Russia, Canada and Denmark all want to claim the North Pole. I think I want to claim it also. Please check with me if you want to visit my North Pole. - rux

Those darn Chinese :
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/032100-01.htm

$1:

...But now, Alaska-based cruise ships are starting to ply sections of the passage, sometimes asking Canadian permission - sometimes not. In a weird episode last summer [1999], a Chinese government vessel landed at the tiny fishing port of Tuktoyaktuk without notice. A few crew members disembarked, wandering about and snapping photos until the local constable of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police started asking questions. The Chinese then reboarded and steamed away.....

All the more reason to build bases up there.

[Woodland-Realm]

I personally dont think we need it right now. Eventually, in a decade we could start it but I think we are just wasting time if the Canadian government goes ahead with this plan now. Its just going to cost more money is we don't use any of the bases or equipment that they put up there. I say we should start it in 10 years, it will just be a waste right now.

[Jaime_Souviens]

$5.3 Billion to guard what?

[Jaime_Souviens]

I think this is a complete set-up.

Harper takes a position,
the U.S. Ambassador feigns being upset but isn't really,
Harper fakes standing tall,
U.S. backs down over something it didn't care about,
Harper looks like a hero.

The Bush administration wants to show good feelings toward the Harper government, so it will allow Harper to score a meaningless victory, and will even set up the ball for him to kick it.

It makes Harper look like a world leader, and it will allow for all sorts of cooperation later on if Harper starts off winning a (bogus) contest of wills right at the start.

[Tman1]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

I think this is a complete set-up.

Harper takes a position,
the U.S. Ambassador feigns being upset but isn't really,
Harper fakes standing tall,
U.S. backs down over something it didn't care about,
Harper looks like a hero.

The Bush administration wants to show good feelings toward the Harper government, so it will allow Harper to score a meaningless victory, and will even set up the ball for him to kick it.

It makes Harper look like a world leader, and it will allow for all sorts of cooperation later on if Harper starts off winning a (bogus) contest of wills right at the start.

I must admit it does sound a little too good to be true but consider this. Paul Martin said the same thing about fixing relations between the US and Canada but then all of a sudden goes on a "It's all the Americans fault, blame them" routine. Doesn't that sound convienent as well? It's the Americans agenda to get rid of the Liberal government so thats why they had Paul Martin use anti-America in his campaign slogans. Maybe, maybe not. It's all conspiracy theories so far. Besides, Harper isn't even in office yet and already we got "bend over for Bush" theories.

[Tman1]

lily lily:

As I said earlier... even the hard-core Con sites figure this could well be a set-up.

Perhaps. Unless we have wiretapping and a copy of the phone call between the two, nobody will ever know. Of course if Harper reins on his promise to do as he said than we can start the bashing. I'll provide the clubs..

[Jaime_Souviens]

I don't buy the deal with Martin, that was just grasping desperation.

But the CBC News was just broadcasting that the American Ambassador says the whole softwood issue can be settled in a year for an undisclosed cash amount.

a) shows what the Bush administration thought of Chretien/Martin.
b) shows that they don't jive a rat's patootie over this Arctic stuff, because otherwise they wouldn't be playing nice on softwood.
c) any softwood settlement $$$ may go to balance a budget.

This Summer, Harper gets to visit George and Laura at the ranch in Texas, bank on it.

[Jaime_Souviens]

Tman1 Tman1:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

...

It makes Harper look like a world leader, and it will allow for all sorts of cooperation later on if Harper starts off winning a (bogus) contest of wills right at the start.

...Maybe, maybe not. It's all conspiracy theories so far. Besides, Harper isn't even in office yet and already we got "bend over for Bush" theories.

You mean me? How is this "bend over for Bush"???

Knowing how to play ball to get what you want isn't the same thing as giving in. ---If you can't tell the difference...

[Tman1]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Tman1 Tman1:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

...

It makes Harper look like a world leader, and it will allow for all sorts of cooperation later on if Harper starts off winning a (bogus) contest of wills right at the start.

...Maybe, maybe not. It's all conspiracy theories so far. Besides, Harper isn't even in office yet and already we got "bend over for Bush" theories.

You mean me? How is this "bend over for Bush"???

Knowing how to play ball to get what you want isn't the same thing as giving in. ---If you can't tell the difference...

$1:

You mean me? How is this "bend over for Bush"???

No I don't mean soley you. Considering that people are saying this is all too convienent (I said it look suspicious as well) is that it is all rhetoric, no proof. People are passing this off as a bum buddy situation for Bush and Harper who isn't even in office. Maybe Harper does have balls and is standing up, albeit in a more civilized and open manner than Martin. Why is that so hard to understand? It is possible to have more friendly relations with the US while at the same time criticizing their ambassador who can't keep his mouth shut?

$1:

Knowing how to play ball to get what you want isn't the same thing as giving in. ---If you can't tell the difference...

Indeed which is what I just said in a more or less simplistic manner.

[Tman1]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

I don't buy the deal with Martin, that was just grasping desperation.

It's no more desperate than some other things said on here.