NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html

I thought Harper was supposed to suck the dick known as the United States.

Damn you Paul Martin!

I'm glad he did it, but thanks to the Liberals (and previous governments including Conservative ones) we can't really defend the Arctic.

Canadians don't seem to realize that if we were more like Australia, with two-tier health care, we might actually be able to afford a proper military. Not just a "peace keeping" one.

I'm glad he did it, but thanks to the Liberals (and previous governments including Conservative ones) we can't really defend the Arctic.

Canadians don't seem to realize that if we were more like Australia, with two-tier health care, we might actually be able to afford a proper military. Not just a "peace keeping" one.
One of the awesome advantages of living next to the US is not needing a real military :D

I still think we should have a greater military budget for peacekeeping, however, and I completely concur about Canada needing a two-tier system desperately.

EDIT: And we should still kick America's ass out of our Arctic territory. It's just the goddamn principle of the thing.

Canadians don't seem to realize that if we were more like Australia, with two-tier health care, we might actually be able to afford a proper military. Not just a "peace keeping" one.
Australia can't afford a real military either (or better said, they don't want to because the simpleton voters actually believe a government surplus means that they are doing a good job...).

One of the awesome advantages of living next to the US is not needing a real military :D

I still think we should have a greater military budget for peacekeeping, however, and I completely concur about Canada needing a two-tier system desperately.

EDIT: And we should still kick America's ass out of our Arctic territory. It's just the goddamn principle of the thing.

You don't train a military just for peacekeeping. They are also trained to blow things up and kill people. We must always be prepared for anything.

One of the awesome advantages of living next to the US is not needing a real military :D

Exactly. The US is militant enough for the both of us, which also conveniently takes all of evil's attention away from Canada.

You don't train a military just for peacekeeping. They are also trained to blow things up and kill people. We must always be prepared for anything.
Our military is trained to defend Canada, it just doesn't have to use those skills at the moment.

You don't train a military just for peacekeeping. They are also trained to blow things up and kill people. We must always be prepared for anything.
If anyone in the world needs blowing up, the US will take care of it, so why waste our tax dollars and lives?

Canada City']http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html

I thought Harper was supposed to suck the dick known as the United States.

Damn you Paul Martin!
This here is a classic example of the game of politics. Harper gets elected, makes a determined stand to defend the north, and brushes of the US bark. It didn't cost anything and quickly gives Canadians an impression that Harper truly means business. The dick slurping will come later.

Canada City']http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html

I thought Harper was supposed to suck the dick known as the United States.

Damn you Paul Martin!

Does Harper understand that there are limits to Canadian Sovereignty in the Artic Ocean?

Does Harper understand that there are limits to Canadian Sovereignty in the Artic Ocean?
Ummmm what limits?

Does Harper understand that there are limits to Canadian Sovereignty in the Artic Ocean?
How does Canada have limits to sovereignty over the water within its territory?

Canada City']http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html


Woah.. that has to be the most Canadian-looking guy I have ever seen.. :eek: Is that an un-doctored picture?

How does Canada have limits to sovereignty over the water within its territory?
All your Canadia are belong to the US!

Surely no one can tell the US-Americans what to do when Corny is around.

But just make sure that you don't end up spending money on your military to defend an empty space of water that will soon be warm enough to have a swim in.

How does Canada have limits to sovereignty over the water within its territory?

Where do they own the enter Artic Ocean and the Beaufort Sea? The only thing they can claim fully are:

Viscount Melville Sound
Hudson Bay
Foxe Bason

They do not have full soveriegnty over Beaufort Sea, the Artic Ocean, Baffin Bay, and the Davis Strait.

Under International Law, they only have like 12 to 24 miles (I will check the mileage) from their coast that they can claim as their soveriegn waters.

All your Canadia are belong to the US!

Surely no one can tell the US-Americans what to do when Corny is around.

But just make sure that you don't end up spending money on your military to defend an empty space of water that will soon be warm enough to have a swim in.
If the passage does indeed become the new Panama Canal, and if it does indeed have a great deal of hidden oil resources, I say it's more than worth it to spend money now to show that it's ours.

Where do they own the enter Artic Ocean and the Beaufort Sea? The only thing they can claim fully are:

Viscount Melville Sound
Hudson Bay
Foxe Bason

They do not have full soveriegnty over Beaufort Sea, the Artic Ocean, Baffin Bay, and the Davis Strait.

Under International Law, they only have like 12 to 24 miles (I will check the mileage) from their coast that they can claim as their soveriegn waters.
I was thinking that was what you were going to say.

If the passage does indeed become the new Panama Canal, and if it does indeed have a great deal of hidden oil resources, I say it's more than worth it to spend money now to show that it's ours.
Oil, you say....

but those are two pretty good reasons to do it.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Part 1
Section 2
Article 3

Breadth of the territorial sea

Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.

Unless we get within those 12 nautical mile limit, Harper can't do a thing.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Part 1
Section 2
Article 3

Breadth of the territorial sea

Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention.
Who the hell is saying we want the whole Arctic Ocean? Do you know how big the Arctic Ocean is? The issue is whether we have sovereignty between the Arctic Islands, which are ours. Look at a map and see whether it makes sense to you for us *not* to have sovereignty there.

Who the hell is saying we want the whole Arctic Ocean? Do you know how big the Arctic Ocean is? The issue is whether we have sovereignty between the Arctic Islands, which are ours. Look at a map and see whether it makes sense to you for us *not* to have sovereignty there.

Yes you do have sovereignty over those. I saw a part in regards to Submarines?

Article 20 of UNCLOS: Submarines and other underwater vehicles

In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.

My Geography is fine. However, you still legally have only a 12 nm limit from those islands as well.

Now shall we have a look at what the duties of the Coastal State are?

Yes you do have sovereignty over those. I saw a part in regards to Submarines?

Article 20 of UNCLOS: Submarines and other underwater vehicles

In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag.

My Geography is fine. However, you still legally have only a 12 nm limit from those islands as well.

I'm fairly sure that even that would cut a slice through the arctic passage at some point.

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know where the arctic islands were; I was only trying to clarify that Canada wasn't trying to do something as ridiculous as take over the whole ocean, which is what the article implies.

I'm fairly sure that even that would cut a slice through the arctic passage at some point.

Yep it does since Queen Elizabeth Islands and Banks Island boarder the Artic Ocean. However, you only have 12 nm from the coast or so. Now there is a Contiguous Zone that "cannot extend past 24 NM from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured."

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know where the arctic islands were; I was only trying to clarify that Canada wasn't trying to do something as ridiculous as take over the whole ocean, which is what the article implies.

I figured as such but I thought I jump in because of what it implied :D

Besides, I'm having fun looking at the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea or UNCLOS if ya prefer :)

I hope I didn't sound to condescending. It was not my intent to be such.

Yep it does since Queen Elizabeth Islands and Banks Island boarder the Artic Ocean. However, you only have 12 nm from the coast or so. Now there is a Contiguous Zone that "cannot extend past 24 NM from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured."
Translation into English, anyone? :D

Translation into English, anyone? :D

Yea I know what ya mean. Even I still have trouble with this and I actually had to look at it for a class last semester.

I hope I didn't sound to condescending. It was not my intent to be such.
No, no, I just thought I may have accidentally insulted you there when you're actually one of the most intelligent posters here :headbang:

No, no, I just thought I may have accidentally insulted you there when you're actually one of the most intelligent posters here :headbang:

I'm sure there are a few posters here who would disagree with that however I will take it as it was offered: A compliment.

*hands you a cookie*

I'm glad he did it, but thanks to the Liberals (and previous governments including Conservative ones) we can't really defend the Arctic.
Yet.

Under International Law, they only have like 12 to 24 miles (I will check the mileage) from their coast that they can claim as their soveriegn waters.

I believe they can take up to 200nm for an exclusive economic zone, but canadian law won't apply beyond 12 nm in general and 24 nm in respect of smuggling &c.

I don't imagine that covers the entire area however.

Defend the Arctic? I know there’s probably oil or something up there, but the entire concept still makes me laugh.

Hell, the entire concept of Canada is funny to me.

Canada City']http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html

I thought Harper was supposed to suck the dick known as the United States.

Damn you Paul Martin!Wow, did we just transformed Harper into a Liberal? :eek: :D

Btw, this is the first sign Harper kept his promised. Even more like it, he tells Americans to go fuck with a goat, pretty unusual for a conservative but perfect.:D

If anyone in the world needs blowing up, the US will take care of it, so why waste our tax dollars and lives?
Uhm, in case American are the ones you inwisely try to piss off?

I believe they can take up to 200nm for an exclusive economic zone, but canadian law won't apply beyond 12 nm in general and 24 nm in respect of smuggling &c.

I don't imagine that covers the entire area however.

But there are limits on the Exclusive Economic Zone. That's spelled out in Part V of UNCLOS :D

But there are limits on the Exclusive Economic Zone. That's spelled out in Part V of UNCLOS :D

I don't disagree. But I assume it is for economic exploitation that the canadians want it in the first place.

In any event, they only get 200nm. And even within the 12nm limit, soveriegnty is not absolute, right of innocent passage &c.

I don't disagree. But I assume it is for economic exploitation that the canadians want it in the first place.

If I'm reading Articl 56 right, it is only for the seabed and its subsoil.

In any event, they only get 200nm. And even within the 12nm limit, soveriegnty is not absolute, right of innocent passage &c.

People do have the Rights of Innocent Passage but there are limits to that rights. The Nations who pass through have to follow certain protocals otherwise, the coastal state can stop the ship.

Translation into English, anyone? :D

Learn to read. It's not that hard.

As for Harper, hmm. He's exceeded my expectations thus far. Let's see if he can keep this up.

Canadians don't seem to realize that if we were more like Australia, with two-tier health care, we might actually be able to afford a proper military. Not just a "peace keeping" one.2-tier health care won't work and yes we need a better military. Also I think our troops in Afghanistan aren't "peacekeeping" any longer since the Taliban are regaining strength and more attacks on Canadian troops, they're going to have a different role. But still we should put more money on peacekeeping and DART, we're famous for it.

You don't train a military just for peacekeeping. They are also trained to blow things up and kill people. We must always be prepared for anything.eh? you mean kill any people? innocent ones?

eh? you mean kill any people? innocent ones?
Whoever they're told to kill.

Does Harper understand that there are limits to Canadian Sovereignty in the Artic Ocean?Now there's one angry American who thought Harper is going to be USA friendly.

And as for "limits", do I like like to see off shore American oil drills taking our natural resouce away or ruining the arctic enviroment up north? Yeah, I do like to see polar bears turn black.

2-tier health care won't work and yes we need a better military. Also I think our troops in Afghanistan aren't "peacekeeping" any longer since the Taliban are regaining strength and more attacks on Canadian troops, they're going to have a different role. But still we should put more money on peacekeeping and DART, we're famous for it.

2 Tier health care is present in most countries, so don't give me the BS about it not working. A military needs to be trained to fight and peacekeep, not just one.

If anyone in the world needs blowing up, the US will take care of it, so why waste our tax dollars and lives?

To protect and ensure our sovereignty.

To protect and ensure our sovereignty.
Protect from what?

Protect from what?
I bet Novoga is going to say "terrorist" or "Kimmy's nukes". :p

Now there's one angry American who thought Harper is going to be USA friendly.

Nope not angry at all. Just pointing out that under UNCLOS, he has a 12 nm limit to how much territorial water he can claim.

I'll refer back to the earlier poster: we get 200 nm for economic stuff, don't we? (How much control do we have over this economic zone, by the way?)

The Arctic is definitely very valuable-there's a little fish, plenty of minerals, and at least some oil up there. Since we own most of the frozen islands up there, we have a good claim.

As far as various debates about peacekeeping and the role of the military:

I do not believe that Canada requires much offensive capacity. Unless serious changes happen in international politics, those few who would want to invade us are not capable.

What we can do (and what we were known for doing) is helping out wartorn hellholes. Many see it as our moral duty as a rich country to preserve human life overseas. That is what our military should be doing.

I'll refer back to the earlier poster: we get 200 nm for economic stuff, don't we? (How much control do we have over this economic zone, by the way?)

According to UNCLOS, only thing you truly have control over is the seabed and the subsoil. Part V of UNCLOS goes into details of it.

The Arctic is definitely very valuable-there's a little fish, plenty of minerals, and at least some oil up there. Since we own most of the frozen islands up there, we have a good claim.

No one is disputing the islands. Those are yours. However, the sea around it is another matter.

As far as various debates about peacekeeping and the role of the military:

I do not believe that Canada requires much offensive capacity. Unless serious changes happen in international politics, those few who would want to invade us are not capable.

Watchout for Al Qaeda. They can invade you :D

What we can do (and what we were known for doing) is helping out wartorn hellholes. Many see it as our moral duty as a rich country to preserve human life overseas. That is what our military should be doing.

THEN GO INTO IRAQ and help us preserve the lives of the Iraqis.

Watchout for Al Qaeda. They can invade you :D
Yeah, I can feel the Talibans are starting to hate us right now. Why? Afghans love Canadians more than the Talibans. :D

Yeah, Talibans are very jealous right now. I think they're planning to bomb our new container port. :p

Geez, go fuck a donkey Mr. Taliban. :D

THEN GO INTO IRAQ and help us preserve the lives of the Iraqis.No. :p

Yeah, I can feel the Talibans are starting to hate us right now. Why? Afghans love Canadians more than the Talibans. :D

Yeah, Talibans are very jealous right now. I think they're planning to bomb our new container port. :p

Geez, go fuck a donkey Mr. Taliban. :D

No. :p

LMAO!

Yea! Canadians have been coming under increasing assualt lately. I wonder when the cries of bring the troops on home will start there.

Protect from what?

You never know what could happen.

LMAO!

Yea! Canadians have been coming under increasing assualt lately.
It's wierd

Terrorists hate America because they're WTFing Iraq.

Terrorists hate Canada because Afghans love Canadian troops.

I wonder when the cries of bring the troops on home will start there.
hmmm... dunno

Compared to what the US does?

Harper looks like a Democrat and Wilkins looks like a Republican.

One of the awesome advantages of living next to the US is not needing a real military :D

Isn't that what the Isrealites used to say about the Romans?

Actually, I think the exact quote was "Oww! We're damn lucky to live under the Romans sir, thank you!!!"

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7428/min1wf.png


Har har har.

THEN GO INTO IRAQ and help us preserve the lives of the Iraqis.
:lol:

Oh, wait, you were serious?

No, you made the bed, you lie in it. None of this dragging sensible countries who stayed the hell out into it. I really get the feeling that more innocent lives have been lost because the U.S. went into Iraq (which it has no business in) than would have been lost otherwise.

Canada City']http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html

I thought Harper was supposed to suck the dick known as the United States.

Damn you Paul Martin!
That's just ... weird. So weird. :eek:

I'll admit that I wasn't too keen on Harper (I'm still not terribly keen on him) but I'm glad that he's making an effort to toss other nations out of our waters. Hopefully he'll crack down on the americans, spanish and french fishing in canadian waters off the east coast too. I think one of the few things I've ever agreed on with that man is that we do need to improve the military a bit... not so much for offensive purposes, but for issues such as this, keeping our borders safe and free from intruders and well defensive purposes. It would also be nice if we could get some better equiped peace keepers.

Oh, however, I doubt that most of the stuff he'll be doing for the next while will truly reflect what he actually would like to do. Since he's in a minority government, he can't go about getting his way all the time.

:lol:

Oh, wait, you were serious?

No, you made the bed, you lie in it. None of this dragging sensible countries who stayed the hell out into it. I really get the feeling that more innocent lives have been lost because the U.S. went into Iraq (which it has no business in) than would have been lost otherwise.

Well if you care about human beings so much then why aren't you in there?

Just a curious question.

Well if you care about human beings so much then why aren't you in there?
We're already helping you guys out in Afghanistan, remember, the place that terrorists who attacked your country actually came from.
I doubt we have the men to send to Iraq, and like I said, the U.S. shouldn't be there either. If you want to fight your unjust wars, then you go ahead, I don't see why you expect others to follow you in.

We're already helping you guys out in Afghanistan, remember, the place that terrorists who attacked your country actually came from.
I doubt we have the men to send to Iraq, and like I said, the U.S. shouldn't be there either. If you want to fight your unjust wars, then you go ahead, I don't see why you expect others to follow you in.

We really don't. Frankly, all we want is for the rest of the world to either offer to help, or get out of the way.

I find it amusing to constantly see the "unjust war" or that we have "no business being there". Compared to many of the wars we've gotten involved in, this was one of the most just. As for the "no business being there", that's really not up to anyone but us to decide. A state is pretty good at determining what is and isn't in its own interests.

According to UNCLOS, only thing you truly have control over is the seabed and the subsoil. Part V of UNCLOS goes into details of it.


You get control of the living and non-living reasources. So the Fisheries are under canadian control as well.

Probably that is what all this is about.

We're already helping you guys out in Afghanistan, remember, the place that terrorists who attacked your country actually came from.

And here I thought the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia :D

I doubt we have the men to send to Iraq, and like I said, the U.S. shouldn't be there either.

Not surprised that you doubt you have the men considering the state of the Canadian Military. I'm surprised you still have manpower to help with NATO.

BTW: How is Canada holding up to being shot at by the Taliban? Any calls to bring them home yet?

If you want to fight your unjust wars, then you go ahead, I don't see why you expect others to follow you in.

Last time I checked, the Iraq war is a just war as it brought an end to decades of tyranny and bringing a war criminal to justice.

You get control of the living and non-living reasources. So the Fisheries are under canadian control as well.

Probably that is what all this is about.

It'll be interesting to see what Harper is really rambling about.

We really don't. Frankly, all we want is for the rest of the world to either offer to help, or get out of the way.

I find it amusing to constantly see the "unjust war" or that we have "no business being there". Compared to many of the wars we've gotten involved in, this was one of the most just. As for the "no business being there", that's really not up to anyone but us to decide. A state is pretty good at determining what is and isn't in its own interests.
Wait, so how is invading a country that was no threat to you in any way shape or form a just war in any way?

See, I'd think that maybe you know, getting into world war 2 after being attacked, that's justified. The war in Afghanistan, that's justified.

And also, despite what you may believe, the world is a community, it's not just one civilized nation and a bunch of barbaric terrorists.

It'll be interesting to see what Harper is really rambling about.

Honestly, if I were a betting man, I'd think that he expects that eventually they'll be able to drill for oil up there, and if they don't exercise their sovereignty over that territory, they're going to lose drilling rights.

I don't think the fishing is enough to justify getting into a shooting match with your next door neighbor, who happens to have the most powerful navy in the history of the world.

It'll be interesting to see what Harper is really rambling about.

Or something about submarines. Now I've actually read the article.

It's a none event anyway. It's all frozen and shit up there. They need ice-breakers to patrol it for "unauthorized" activity. Think about it. I guess they are looking for other people in ice-breakers. Jesus, I am sure if they wanted to borrow some recon planes for that, we'd lend them to them.

And here I thought the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia :D
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, he was responsable for planning the attacks on September 11th. That's why Canada got involved in Afghanistan.

Not surprised that you doubt you have the men considering the state of the Canadian Military. I'm surprised you still have manpower to help with NATO.
:rolleyes:

BTW: How is Canada holding up to being shot at by the Taliban? Any calls to bring them home yet?
Oh, I see, so when you go to help your allies fight a war that has some justification, this is how you get treated? There aren't calls to bring the canadians in Afghanistan home because well, first of all, it's a rotating military force in the country, so we're not there all the time and secondly, we had an actual reason to be there... none of this "oh, there are these weapons of mass destruction that we're allowed to have but they aren't allowed to have and we think they have any and won't let the UN inspectors continue their work..." bullshit.

Last time I checked, the Iraq war is a just war as it brought an end to decades of tyranny and bringing a war criminal to justice.
Last I checked, not only are there worse dictatorships in the world, but the U.S. went into Iraq under the pretense that Iraq could cause harm to the U.S.. Short term memory loss?

Wait, so how is invading a country that was no threat to you in any way shape or form a just war in any way?

Ever hear the fact that he was terrorizing his own citizens? Started 2 wars and lost 1 of them. Signed a cease-fire and violated that too. Once that was violated, we had the legal authority to go back in.

See, I'd think that maybe you know, getting into world war 2 after being attacked, that's justified. The war in Afghanistan, that's justified.

Here, I'll agree.

And also, despite what you may believe, the world is a community, it's not just one civilized nation and a bunch of barbaric terrorists.

True but then the rest of the world apparently did not care about the removal of a despotic dictator.

Wait, so how is invading a country that was no threat to you in any way shape or form a just war in any way?

The humanitarian angle alone is enough to justify it. It justified us going into Somalia and the former Yugoslavia without causing this kind of angst.

And the determination of who or what is a threat to the US is best left up to our elected leadership. They believed Iraq was a threat, and it was dealt with. You may not agree that Iraq was a threat, but we did.

See, I'd think that maybe you know, getting into world war 2 after being attacked, that's justified. The war in Afghanistan, that's justified.

What about World War I? What about Vietnam? What about Korea? What about the Spanish-American War? The Mexican War? The War of 1812? The Indian Wars? Were all of those justified? Where was Europe's righteous indignation then?

And also, despite what you may believe, the world is a community, it's not just one civilized nation and a bunch of barbaric terrorists.

I don't think anyone thinks that way. I don't believe the world is a community, more a bunch of different communities that happen to live in the same place. The barbaric terrorists are just a small, vocal minority that need to be stamped out.

Or something about submarines. Now I've actually read the article.

It's a none event anyway. It's all frozen and shit up there. They need ice-breakers to patrol it for "unauthorized" activity. Think about it. I guess they are looking for other people in ice-breakers. Jesus, I am sure if they wanted to borrow some recon planes for that, we'd lend them to them.

If this whole thing is about Submarines then it goes back to the Territorial Water provisions of UNCLOS.

I don't think the fishing is enough to justify getting into a shooting match with your next door neighbor, who happens to have the most powerful navy in the history of the world.

Oh yah? Cod Wars, this time it's personal! (http://www.american.edu/TED/icefish.htm)

Of course, that was back under PM Harassed Wilsods. It was widely rumored that he was senile by then.

If this whole thing is about Submarines then it goes back to the Territorial Water provisions of UNCLOS.

Meh. You prolly could always claim right of innocent passage anyway.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, he was responsable for planning the attacks on September 11th. That's why Canada got involved in Afghanistan.

True. But the terrorists came crom Saudi Arabia. Next time, specify who you are referring too.

:rolleyes:

Yes?

Oh, I see, so when you go to help your allies fight a war that has some justification, this is how you get treated?

Sorry! Anytime it seems that troops go into combat anymore and it gets heated, I hear the cries of "bring the boys home". Just wondering since the Canadians have been under more fire than they are used to lately, that canada would be screaming their heads off.

There aren't calls to bring the canadians in Afghanistan home because well, first of all, it's a rotating military force in the country, so we're not there all the time and secondly, we had an actual reason to be there... none of this "oh, there are these weapons of mass destruction that we're allowed to have but they aren't allowed to have and we think they have any and won't let the UN inspectors continue their work..." bullshit.

The inspectors had 12 years to do their work. Saddam had 12 years to comply with those same inspectors! Guess what? Saddam didn't fully comply. Didn't give them all the access they wanted. Stonewalled in a few cases and forbid them to search in other places. At other times, he made them wait and after awhile, let them in. What did he have to hide if he was doing all of this over 12 years? I guess people have a short memory when it comes to history.

Last I checked, not only are there worse dictatorships in the world, but the U.S. went into Iraq under the pretense that Iraq could cause harm to the U.S.. Short term memory loss?

No short term memory loss here. However, I'm not blind by biasness of the media. Unlike you, I have actually looked into it and found that Saddam has violated the embargoes, violated International law with Help from France and Russia. He has stonewalled the inspection process for 12 years and didn't allow them to search other areas as well.

Meh. You prolly could always claim right of innocent passage anyway.

Only if we were on the surface and showing our flag inside the 12 nm limit.

Canada has every right to patrol their sovereign waters. They have every right to defend their sovereign territory. ... From the evil invaders who want to conquer Northern Canada! Bwahahahahaha!!!! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/lachen/laughing-smiley-014.gif

Complete waste of money. Oh, feel free to waste it. It's your country, your military, your decision. But honestly, who the hell wants to invade Canada? Who the hell wants to invade Northern Canada?

You have no enemies! Certainly none with the means AND motive to threaten your arctic borders.

But it's your money. :p

Only if we were on the surface and showing our flag inside the 12 nm limit.

Doh!. Yeah that's right. In the 200nm zone we can fuck around in our subs all day long, and no-one can say shit.

Doh!. Yeah that's right. In the 200nm zone we can fuck around in our subs all day long, and no-one can say shit.

You have hit the nail on the head :D

Ever hear the fact that he was terrorizing his own citizens? Started 2 wars and lost 1 of them. Signed a cease-fire and violated that too. Once that was violated, we had the legal authority to go back in.
Not this "legal authority" crap again??????

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9047205&postcount=219

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9034289&postcount=177

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9919777&postcount=116

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9451390&postcount=258

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9853402&postcount=129

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9859455&postcount=191

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9925416&postcount=184

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9928038&postcount=214

Read'em and weep.

*snip*

*yawns*

When you actually know what you are talking about, look me up. Besides, we have moved beyond this point so it is relatively moot.

Do you have anything to add to what I've stated in regards to what I've stated about UNCLOS?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9047205&postcount=219

Opinions.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9919777&postcount=116

Still trying to figure this one out since 1) It wasn't me you quoted and 2) I never said it did.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9451390&postcount=258

More opinions.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9859455&postcount=191

Still stand by that are ya? Alwell. Your thoughts are not my concern. I also really do not care what you think anyway.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9925416&postcount=184

Its a German court that has no control over the United States so it was relatively moot and pointless.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9928038&postcount=214

Nothing but the same crap you have been spouting that is so ludicrous it isn't even funny.

Read'em and weep.

Get some facts and then talk to me. Go over their then talk to me.

Now what about UNCLOS?

did you know that russia and not canada owned alaska before selling to america.

did you know that russia and not canada owned alaska before selling to america.

I did :D

finally conservative.....i love those anti-harper commercials..."if conservatives are elected the streets of all canadian cities will have military occupation and marshel law or something."

fuking martin.

finally conservative.....i love those anti-harper commercials..."if conservatives are elected the streets of all canadian cities will have military occupation and marshel law or something."

fuking martin.
This is so last week...

Find another axe to grind, sonny. Paul Martin's as old as... well, Paul Martin.

Not this "legal authority" crap again??????


The only obligatio erga omnes in international law are prohibitions against the slave trade, genocide, piracy on the high seas and torture. There is no prohibition non-derogable prohibition on the use of agressive force.

Everything else depends upon how any particular nation state is bound by treaty, and what consitutes a material breach of said treaty.

It's certainly arguable that the United States is under no obligation to refrain from initiating the agressive use of military force against another nation in general - for a variety of reasons. Though a variety of treaties undertake that obligation with respect to certian specific countries. Iraq was not one of them.

(Failing to follow a UN resolution doesn't make anything illegal. God knows, the entire planet would be in material breech.)

Therefore the war was not illegal.

Not this "legal authority" crap again??????

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9047205&postcount=219

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9034289&postcount=177

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9919777&postcount=116

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9451390&postcount=258

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9853402&postcount=129

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9859455&postcount=191

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9925416&postcount=184

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9928038&postcount=214

Read'em and weep.
Good one CH! :D

Your thoughts are not my concern. I also really do not care what you think anyway.

Get some facts and then talk to me.Hi Bill O'Reilly. :D

Canada City']http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html

I thought Harper was supposed to suck the dick known as the United States.

Damn you Paul Martin!
That Harper guy still looks like a greasy bastard to me

[QUOTE=Corneliu]BTW: How is Canada holding up to being shot at by the Taliban? Any calls to bring them home yet?
QUOTE]

Well, I've struggled for half an hour to phrase a reply to this. I still dont know how.

No, there is no real calls to bring them home. Not likely to be either. I cant really explain it, but we are Canadian, you know? They are doing honourable work. When its time to come home, they will, and we will mourn our lost ones, and celebrate our heros. Thats how it is. We are Canadian.

Australia can't afford a real military either (or better said, they don't want to because the simpleton voters actually believe a government surplus means that they are doing a good job...).

Just a minor correction - nothing wrong with a surplus, it becomes a problem when the likes of Peter Costello start claiming that if they maintain a 2.5billion dollar surplus, through some voodoo magic, the interest rates won't go up - as he claimed during the election in which Mark Lathem/Labour lost.

As for Australian military spending, ever since GWB said that Australia is the 'deputy sherif in the South Pacific/Asian region', I think the whole concept has gone to their head.

Its quite pathetic to see the Australia defence force personal jump around US respresentatives like a small yappy dog as if to say, "he's my big strong master, isn't he so call, I'm so proud of him".

Thank god, for all New Zealands bad points, atleast we don't roll over and cave in everytime the US says 'boo'.

If Canadian icebreakers must patrol to guard their 12 nms of land up there, they might as well patrol it all. Its not exactly a straight coast, more like a jig saw puzzle. Besides, why does anyone but Canada need to go up there anyway, unless its for some sorta no good skulldudgery?

Oddly, I dont think the issue is about the subs at all, and apparently, the real backroom attitude in Washington is that Harper showed class and statesmanship with that maneuver. Washington is happy to hear Canada can stand up for itself. If only the rest of its "allies" would be so spirited.

If the rest of the world actually showed some spine towards America, you'd be a lot better respected. Just as in the playground, you can tell someone to "F" off, and you might earn some admiration, and maybe even get them to like you more.

Think about it: what would have happened if the Iraqis gathered up the inspectors and dropped them off at the nearest border and said dont come back? The world had already sanctioned the hell out of them. you know what? The UN woulda puss'd out, and the americans would have invaded just the same.

Saddam knew that. But hes a despot, a sadist, and a murderer. Even though he didnt have what you were looking for, for him and his ilk, its about fucking with people, lives and dignity. He knew damned well he might as well mess with you as long as he could; you'd never act, you'd hold back the americans, and he'd see another dawn. It was fun and thrilling for him. He likely giggled like a school girl.

Now what if after that, you'd sent those inspectors back, with an armed escort and a message to Saddam to back off? Do you really think the Americans would have invaded then? Why the hell did the inspectors have to rely on Saddams cooperation to look around? Why did anyone think that was going to be successful?

Half of being in the right is showing some intestinal fortitude.

BTW: How is Canada holding up to being shot at by the Taliban? Any calls to bring them home yet?


Well, I've struggled for half an hour to phrase a reply to this. I still dont know how.

No, there is no real calls to bring them home. Not likely to be either. I cant really explain it, but we are Canadian, you know? They are doing honourable work. When its time to come home, they will, and we will mourn our lost ones, and celebrate our heros. Thats how it is. We are Canadian.

Our own nation can learn from you.

Harper rocks! Go Harper! Its super he told america off like that! They think they rule the world! Well, sorry you dont!

The Iraq debate, while a fascinating one, is somewhat off topic. Saddam Hussein is a son of a bitch, the legality is questionable, people are dying, people were dying before, we've heard it all before.

Moving back some distance, on the question of overfishing: that's definitely a huge issue. Speaking as a Newfie, we really do need somebody with the guts to stand up to foreign fishermen. Whether by diplomacy, or prosecuting ships that break the law (ours and theirs) it'd be really spiffy to have some cod left. Y'know, just so we can have the odd bit of employment.

Our own nation can learn from you.
It's as simple as this: you lot were completely justified in going into Afghanistan, and are completely justified in staying there. We're not going to go in and help you with Iraq - sorry, but we're not. The situation is too politically charged to justify sending in peacekeepers, and your reasoning for the war is iffy at best. But Afghanistan is our responsibility: we agreed to help them, and you, and casualties among the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan, however regrettable, will not shake our resolve in fufilling our duties. You can take that to the bank. Despite our differences, we remain your friend and ally. As long as you don't start nuking random countries to secure oil rigs, that's not going to change anytime soon.

America is a divided nation, politically (if not culturally in most ways) and as such, you'll always have differing, and rather vehement, opinions on most issues among yourselves. Iraq is included there. Calls for "bring the troops home" in the United States are based on ever-rising casualty lists and a sense of confusion about the purpose of the war itself. Whether that's justified or not is not my duty to say - I'm not American. I'm Canadian - and as such, am an observer, not a participant.

It's as simple as this: you lot were completely justified in going into Afghanistan, and are completely justified in staying there. We're not going to go in and help you with Iraq - sorry, but we're not. The situation is too politically charged to justify sending in peacekeepers, and your reasoning for the war is iffy at best. But Afghanistan is our responsibility: we agreed to help them, and you, and casualties among the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan, however regrettable, will not shake our resolve in fufilling our duties. You can take that to the bank. Despite our differences, we remain your friend and ally. As long as you don't start nuking random countries to secure oil rigs, that's not going to change anytime soon.

America is a divided nation, politically (if not culturally in most ways) and as such, you'll always have differing, and rather vehement, opinions on most issues among yourselves. Iraq is included there. Calls for "bring the troops home" in the United States are based on ever-rising casualty lists and a sense of confusion about the purpose of the war itself. Whether that's justified or not is not my duty to say - I'm not American. I'm Canadian - and as such, am an observer, not a participant.
http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

you realize the US is making reference to the possible military conflict between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island don't you... i didn't read all seven pages but that's clearly what the US is trying to get Canada to chill out about in the arctic, and no one seems to be talking about that aspect.

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

We're already helping you guys out in Afghanistan, remember, the place that terrorists who attacked your country actually came from.
I doubt we have the men to send to Iraq, and like I said, the U.S. shouldn't be there either. If you want to fight your unjust wars, then you go ahead, I don't see why you expect others to follow you in.

No. The terrorists mostly came from Saudi Arabia.

Plus, why are you trying to reason with a guy who thinks that a good response to someone who thinks that Iraq was a bad idea is "if you think that it's bad that the war in Iraq is killing people, then why aren't you there in Iraq helping to kill people?"

Seriously. The guy isn't just uninformed. He can't process information. Any computer literate person can tell you "put garbage in, get garbage out," but Corneliu would spit out garbage if he was handed the undiluted word of God.

you realize the US is making reference to the possible military conflict between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island don't you... i didn't read all seven pages but that's clearly what the US is trying to get Canada to chill out about in the arctic, and no one seems to be talking about that aspect.

Ah, Hans Island. We're Canada, my friend, we wouldn't invade them. EU aside, anyone who invaded Denmark would be just humiliating. (Imagine if we lost!)

Harper rocks! Go Harper! Its super he told america off like that! They think they rule the world! Well, sorry you dont!

The hell?

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060127/mackay.gif