Ser Reptitious Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 Tempra, Genuinely curious why Canada makes a big deal about this, but does nothing to prevent it. I know you guys aren't going to attack any of us, so the rhetoric from Ottawa seems like little more than a hollow campaign promise to gather votes. You hit the nail on the button. Our current government seems quite obsessed with that, and not just on this particular issue either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I didn't realize rhetoric included building a training centre and refurbishing a deep-water port up there. Sounds like action to me so do the patrol boats being made specifically for the North. As for the treaty seriously? The US ignores treaties whenever it is convenient and realistically so does Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 I didn't realize rhetoric included building a training centre and refurbishing a deep-water port up there. Sounds like action to me so do the patrol boats being made specifically for the North.Seems token to me. There are many reports of foreign subs diving under the ice. Do you think Russia, US, or China would tolerate such actions on their internal waterways? As for the treaty seriously? The US ignores treaties whenever it is convenient and realistically so does Canada.I agree that this particular treaty is meaningless. Still, I think it is a workable solution: we do not contest Sovereignty but get unlimited access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Seems token to me. There are many reports of foreign subs diving under the ice. Do you think Russia, US, or China would tolerate such actions on their internal waterways? We don't really tolerate it either it's just at this point there isn't much we can do about it, when russia sends planes into our airspace we scramble fighters to deal with them, and once the port and ships are ready we will send ships to deal with the subs and any ships. I agree that this particular treaty is meaningless. Still, I think it is a workable solution: we do not contest Sovereignty but get unlimited access. Why should the US be treated so special? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Why should the US be treated so special?Because we are. (And, you don't want everyone contesting your claim.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairparavel Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Why should the US be treated so special?The US and Canada have many special arrangements between themselves, from immigration to trade and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Because we are. (And, you don't want everyone contesting your claim.) Everyone in this case is 3 countries who are in fact contesting our claim. So what exactly is you point? The US and Canada have many special arrangements between themselves, from immigration to trade and on. That doesn't mean we always have to have special arrangements, especially when this one only really benefits the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Everyone in this case is 3 countries who are in fact contesting our claim. So what exactly is you point? That doesn't mean we always have to have special arrangements, especially when this one only really benefits the US.It is quite a bit more than 3. Once the ice recedes and the passage becomes a viable shipping lane, quite a few more countries will want their ships to benefit from the significantly shorter route.As for how it would benefit Canada, it always benefits having people back your claim. How do you feel about your chances of winning any potential court cases in a situation where it is Canada vs every North Atlantic / Pacific power? Your claim is already dubious on the merits. A special deal with the US is far better for Canada than having those waters declared international waters, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 It is quite a bit more than 3. Once the ice recedes and the passage becomes a viable shipping lane, quite a few more countries will want their ships to benefit from the significantly shorter route. Ya but by the time that happens this mess wil have been dealt with. As for how it would benefit Canada, it always benefits having people back your claim. How do you feel about your chances of winning any potential court cases in a situation where it is Canada vs every North Atlantic / Pacific power? Your claim is already dubious on the merits. A special deal with the US is far better for Canada than having those waters declared international waters, no? All I need to do is look at a map to see our claim is just fine.The islands up there means that any ship passing through the NWP willl have to pass through Canadian territorial waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Ya but by the time that happens this mess wil have been dealt with. All I need to do is look at a map to see our claim is just fine.The islands up there means that any ship passing through the NWP willl have to pass through Canadian territorial waters.I can understand why Canadians think that, but it is not necessarily true. By law, all nations "own" up to 22 km of ocean off their coast. The problem for Canada, however, is that the NWP is often 100km wide or more, which means most countries can (rightfully) argue that there is a nice lane of international waters that is outside your jurisdiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 The problem for Canada, however, is that the NWP is often 100km wide or more, which means most countries can (rightfully) argue that there is a nice lane of international waters that is outside your jurisdiction. As long as there is a significant part that is more narrow than 44km from coast to coast, then I don't see what the problem is, as any vessels will then have to pass through Canadian waters to get to those international waters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 As long as there is a significant part that is more narrow than 44km from coast to coast, then I don't see what the problem is, as any vessels will then have to pass through Canadian waters to get to those international waters.Possibly. There are of course exceptions to every rule. Canada could not block access if the NWP is deemed a "strait for international navigation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noroldis Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 A news that will probably surprise no one on this thread, the Conservatives have already started smearing the first declared leadership candidate for the NDP as a power-hungry stooge of unions: http://www.theglobea...article2163793/ This, coming from a party led by a power-hungry stooge of the oil companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 Hey now, they've also decided to re-introduce the DRM bill from a year or 2 back:Canada's majority Tory government is poised to reintroduce its disastrous DRM-friendly copyright law, formerly Bill C-32, without any further public consultation.http://boingboing.net/2011/09/12/canadas-tories-set-to-reintroduce-drm-friendly-copyright-bill-without-consultation.html You know, the one that got torn apart because it's a fucking appalling piece of shit literally written by US media companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted September 13, 2011 Share Posted September 13, 2011 That really sucks I have enough problems with the American DMCA I don't want to have to deal with it in Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Oop North Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Why are we renaming our Air Force and Navy? Am I supposed to start kissing the Queen's Ass, and serving crumpets at tea time? How about we rename our Prime Minister to the Royal Pain in Our Ass? Sounds fucking splendid, eh chaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 We are? To What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 We are? To What? The Royal Canadian Air Force and the Royal Canadian Navy. This is one decision I like from the Conservative government. We should have never changed it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 So we're just changing the names back? Alright cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noroldis Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Lord of Oop North: How about we rename our Prime Minister to the Royal Pain in Our Ass? Sounds fucking splendid, eh chaps? Not bad. Or how about Royal Bootlicker of Corporations? TrueMetis: So we're just changing the names back? Alright cool. Don't forget the 30 billion we'll be spending to buy just 65 F-35s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.