[VitaminC]

I think we all know treaties aren't worth the paper they're printed on these days.....

[Wullu]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Wullu Wullu:

The Bertrand H. Snell and Dwight D. Eisenhower locks are entirely with the US as you get out into the Thousand Islands.

Locks yes. Do the states control them as US territory or are they "international"? You must agree there is a difference between manufactured passages then natural waterways. The US has (justifiably so) asserted the right of control over all people passing through there territory including the those of Canadians airlines transitting (but not landing) their airspace while they fly from Canadian point A to Canadian point B.

We can assert the same. We can demand full cargo/passage manifests and assert national security to deny whatever and whomever we decide may threaten that.

Fair is fair right?

Hey Derb your the one suggesting shutting down the Seaway to US traffic, not the US.

$1:

Perhaps its time we closed the St. Lawrence to all US sea traffic.

I am just pointing out you are dealing with a double edged sword.

[DerbyX]

Wullu,

You aren't seeing the purpose of my posts.

It is meant entirely to remind mindless-pro-US fuckwits that they depend upon Canada for a large percentage of their lifestyle.

If Canada wanted to we could most certainly decide that travel through the St. Lawrence is allowed only at our permission. The US would certainly do so if the circumstances were reversed as they state about CDN flights through US airspace.

If they can do it then so can we. Black-letter logic.

[Wullu]

The problem Derb is that you actually read posts by Yankgreat.

[DerbyX]

Wullu Wullu:

The problem Derb is that you actually read posts by Yankgreat.

Of course he's just an alter-ego of constantinople. The trick is not to let him con you into insulting the US but if you can point out ways where Canada can "fight back" then its all the sweeter. Given that many in the US are claiming "US security" as an argument for asserting punitive measures of trade/movement across the border I think its very reasonable to remind them that massive US sea trade travels through what can only be considered CDN waters. Its just tweaking his nose is all. I don't propose mining the seaway or anything ......... yet.

[gstang23]

I honestly didnt know how tough the border patrols were on the US/Canadian border. Thats just insane.

[Newfie Scott]

This entire thing is silly - they've been armed since 2004 when the Rush-Bagot Treaty interpretation was amended by both Canada and the United States to allow both countries to arm their coast guard vessels on the Great Lakes with a weapon up to .50-calibre in size. The ban on military vessels remains in effect. It's a smart and prudent move, one which Canada should match given the uselessness of our Coast Guard (as it isn't a paramilitary force like the RCMP) - not to mention the border guard.

Armed coast guard vessels on the Great Lakes? Those Americans are so warmongering and pigheaded, what will they do next? Have armed fighter jets patrol their skies? It's not like terrorists are ever going to fly planes into buildings.

Oh, and the St. Lawrence Seaway is the legal property of both Canada and the United States. We initially were going to pay for it ourselves and have sole ownership, but the Americans ponied up their share of the cash so that Canada wouldn't be able to claim the seaway as an internal waterway - and Canada was more than happy to accept that offer as it saved us a lot of money better spent elsewhere.

Canada has no jurisdiction, legally or internationally, to bar the United States from using the SL Seaway and vice versa. Contrary to the arguments of DerbyX, Canada nor the US could ever bar the other from using the seaway - the country that did so wouldn't have a leg to stand on internationally. It really is an international seaway, though exclusive to two parties instead of the entire world.

[DerbyX]

Newfie Scott Newfie Scott:

Canada has no jurisdiction, legally or internationally, to bar the United States from using the SL Seaway and vice versa. Contrary to the arguments of DerbyX, Canada nor the US could ever bar the other from using the seaway - the country that did so wouldn't have a leg to stand on internationally. It really is an international seaway, though exclusive to two parties instead of the entire world.

Why? Look at its geography. We should very much have the ability to control it as countries control their waters and airspaces. We should certainly be allowed to police the vessels transitting the waterways and conduct security operations. Its one thing to claim that the NW-passage is international but its an entirely different thing to do when a waterway cuts directly through a large portion of heavily populated area for 1 country and is ultimately shared by only 2 countries. Canada can agree to certain things but we should also retain the right to take measures to protect ourselves or respond likewise if Canadian passage is being denied elsewhere. It only makes sense.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

can't, it's an international seaway according to treaty

A treaty between who besides the US & Canada? We would have a pretty strong case considering the river travels directly through the heart of Canada and we could justifiably make it a security issue.

The states, while demanding other nations respect the 10 mile off-shore limit to territory are very bad when it comes to their waters. Would they have ever let a soviet battlegroup conduct drill outside the 10 mile limit in the gilf of mexico?

It is a 12 mile limit and, yes, Soviet battlegroups have operated close in to the US coast, mostly on the Atlantic side. The US Navy still does conduct freedom-of-the-seas operations in the Sea of Okhotsk just as the Soviets did so close in to Florida on the Gulf. Those were the good old days when liberal Democrats in Washington, D.C. appreciated the military as they often had to confront the fact of a Soviet nuclear-armed battlegroup within 15 minutes striking distance of the capitol.

The International Treaty of the Sea sets the 12 mile limit as the extent of anyone's territorial waters for navigational purposes. Fishing grounds have been allowed out to 200 miles.

It is the 12 mile limit clause of the treaty that makes the Northwest Passage possible as a ship can navigate the passage without coming closer than 12 miles to Canadian territory along it's route. I do trust, then, that you'll stand on your good principles and acknowledge the rights of other nations to use this passage.

[BartSimpson]

Canada also has the unfettered right, under the Treaty of Ghent, to navigate the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico & back via the Chicago River Sanitary & Ship Canal. Granted, the canal did not exist at the time, but the Treaty reserved Canada's rights on the river and the canal allows those rights to be fulfilled.

[BartSimpson]

VitaminC VitaminC:

I think we all know treaties aren't worth the paper they're printed on these days.....

In WW2 the Allies needed to use the Portuguese Azores as a marshalling point for Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa. Portugal was neutral in the war and would not allow the use of the islands. Britain then invoked a clause from a treaty from 1383 that provided for such a use while not involving Portugal in British affairs.

The Portuguese honored the then five hundred and fifty-nine year old treaty and the invasion went forward.

[PJB]

I see it is obvious that YankGreat or whatever the hell his name is appears to be a true (rabid) American patriot.

[Christy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

VitaminC VitaminC:

I think we all know treaties aren't worth the paper they're printed on these days.....

In WW2 the Allies needed to use the Portuguese Azores as a marshalling point for Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa. Portugal was neutral in the war and would not allow the use of the islands. Britain then invoked a clause from a treaty from 1383 that provided for such a use while not involving Portugal in British affairs.

The Portuguese honored the then five hundred and fifty-nine year old treaty and the invasion went forward.

Ohmigod, how do you even know this? This is like the littlest detail of the BBC thing on Churchill!!!!