Thread: has the U.S.A. gone too far

When we've gone too far, you'll be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. In the meantime, enjoy having a benevolent neighbor that keeps your shores and border safer than you keep ours.

Originally Posted by canadian boy

first of all they start a debate over our softwood, second they go against their word when they decide to drill in alaska when they have already agreed in a treaty not to do anything that will harm our herds. And third now they have subs entering our seas illegally.

What is going on here in one month they have managed to make many canadians their enemies (especially the environmentalists). I say that this is getting out of hand, what do you guys think

I can't speak to any of things you've pointed out. Particularly USN submarines entering your littorals illegally. Do you have any news article links you can post?

My problem is this: What exactly is your beef with the United States?
Since you've come onto this board, the vast majority of your posts has been asking others to confirm your very low opinion of the U.S on various subjects.

I don't have a problem with you expressing your opinion. Far from it, that's a big part of this board.

But is your opinion THAT shaky that you need a steady stream of assurance for it?

Here is his problem with drilling in Alaska.

U.S. House approves Alaska refuge drilling
The new softwood: Canada asks allies to block move in U.S. Senate

Sheldon Alberts
CanWest News Service


Tuesday, December 20, 2005


WASHINGTON - Ignoring vigorous opposition from Canada, the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly yesterday to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The controversial move, which risks triggering another showdown between the two countries, sent Canadian officials in Washington scrambling to find last-minute allies in the Senate to try to block the legislation before Congress recesses for Christmas.

"We are active on this," said Bernard Etsinger, a spokesman for Frank McKenna, the Canadian ambassador. "As we need to over the coming days we are going to stay on top of that file at senior levels and at working levels."

The Alaskan oil provision was approved in the House after pro-drilling representatives succeeded in attaching it to an unrelated $453-billion military-spending bill that funds troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The defence appropriations bill passed 308-106 amid outrage from drilling opponents who said they were forced, in effect, to choose between supporting U.S. troops or the northern caribou herds who live where the oil exploration is to occur.

"I have consistently and repeatedly opposed drilling," said Representative Mark Kennedy, a Wisconsin Republican. "However it would be the height of irresponsibility to vote against a bill that funds our troops and our military while our nation is at war."

Ottawa has repeatedly lobbied Washington to drop plans to drill for oil in the 600,000-hectare refuge, a sensitive wilderness preserve that borders the Yukon in northeastern Alaska.

In private meetings and telephone calls with George W. Bush, the U.S. President, Prime Minister Paul Martin has warned oil activity threatens the migratory Porcupine caribou herds that members of Canada's Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation rely on for sustenance.

Ottawa also maintains oil drilling would violate a 1987 bilateral agreement to forego any activities that could harm the herds or their habitat.

The White House argues drilling in the Alaskan refuge would help the United States reduce its dependence on foreign oil, but Congress has consistently blocked stand-alone legislation to allow oil activity.

The move to include Arctic drilling provisions in a military-spending bill was the brainchild of Senator Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican who had vowed to win approval for oil exploration before Christmas.

"I think that it's important for Canadians to understand that Sen. Stevens has always remained concerned about our wildlife," Courtney Boone, his spokeswoman, told CanWest News Service.

"He understands and appreciates Canada's concern but believes there are enough environmental precautions."

The size of caribou herds actually increased after oil and gas development in other parts of Alaska, she added.

Mr. Stevens, chairman of the Senate defence appropriations subcommittee, further enticed anti-drilling lawmakers by including US$3.8-billion in funding to fight avian flu and US$2-billion in new hurricane relief for Louisiana and Mississippi, do-good projects that are politically difficult to vote against.

By yesterday afternoon, it appeared Canada had allies in high-profile senators John Kerry, John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, who vowed to try to strip the drilling provisions from the military-spending bill.

"As somebody who supports the military, I am not going to allow this precedent to be set that every year we adopt a defence appropriations bill, somebody with a pet project who happens to be in a position of power is going to attach it at the last minute," Mr. Lieberman said.

Senator John McCain of Arizona called Mr. Stevens' tactics "disgusting."

"It's disgraceful that I have to be put in that position" of choosing between troop funding and oil drilling, he said.

Studies have estimated the Arctic refuge holds five to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, an amount Stephane Dion, the federal Environment Minister, has dismissed as insignificant compared to U.S. demands for energy.

"It would give them what -- six months of oil?" Mr. Dion said in October before a meeting at the White House on the issue.

An aide to the Minister said he was not available to comment on yesterday's vote.

© National Post 2005
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...cc33ea&k=78924

And I think this is his US subs entering Canada's seas illegally issue:

U.S. sub may have toured Canadian Arctic zone
'We don't have any idea what's going on up there': expert

Chris Wattie
National Post


Monday, December 19, 2005


A U.S. nuclear submarine cruised through the Arctic Ocean last month -- probably passing through Canadian territorial waters -- but the federal government is refusing to say whether it gave permission for the voyage.

However, experts say it is highly unlikely Canada was even notified of the USS Charlotte's northern tour, which included a Nov. 10 stop at the North Pole, because it has no way of tracking what goes on beneath the Arctic ice.

And that could threaten Canada's claim to hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of the North, including the Northwest Passage route across the Arctic, said Michael Byers, who holds the Canada research chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia.

"This is very important -- it's crucial," he said. "Any unauthorized passage could have a serious effect on our claim."

Prof. Byers said potentially lucrative oil and gas resources off the Queen Elizabeth Islands could slip out of Canadian control if foreign navies are operating in the Arctic without our permission. "The fact of the matter is that we've spent nothing on Arctic sovereignty over the past 20 years."

Pierre Leblanc, a retired colonel and former commander of the Canadian Forces' northern command, said foreign submarines have been travelling through the Canadian Arctic for decades, but the federal government usually finds out about it only by accident.

He said the nations controlling the submarines -- the Americans, British and French -- usually do not tell Canada when their vessels enter the Arctic. "We're relying on their goodwill to know if they're in our waters or not."

The latest underwater trip through the Arctic came just before the federal election call last month. USS Charlotte, a Los Angeles-class fast attack submarine, left its home base in Pearl Harbor, sailed through the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia and cruised under the Arctic ice pack to the pole.

The nuclear-powered sub spent more than 24 hours at the top of the world, giving its 154 crew members the chance to walk on the windswept ice and even play a quick football game in the -45C temperatures.

The Charlotte then submerged and headed to Halifax for a port visit, en route to a refit at the naval base at Norfolk, Va.

U.S. Navy spokesmen would not give details about the Charlotte's route, but the shortest southerly course would have taken it past Ellesmere Island, through the Nares Strait and into Canadian waters.

Col. Leblanc doubts the Americans informed the Canadian government of the trip, let alone sought permission for it. "I don't think they told us a thing: I don't think they told anyone," he said.

"In the submarine world, they don't tell anyone anything about where they go or when they go there unless they have to."

If the Charlotte did sail through Canadian territory en route to Halifax, the U.S. submariners likely believed they were fully entitled to do so.

Canada and the United States have disagreed for decades about the extent of Canada's territorial waters in the Arctic.

Canada claims water 12 nautical miles out from the Queen Elizabeth Islands, and all the straits and inlets as its internal waters. The Americans say those are international waterways that are free for anyone to cross, including the Northwest Passage.

Lieutenant-Commander John Coppard, a spokesman for the Canadian navy, would not say whether the U.S. sub strayed into Canadian territory, nor would he confirm whether the Americans sought our permission if so, or even notified Ottawa if the sub was to sail through the Canadian part of the Arctic.

"We do not discuss the movements of allied [nations'] submarines," he said, adding: "One would expect that a naval vessel transiting Canadian waters would seek the appropriate diplomatic clearances."

However, Rodney Moore, a spokesman for Foreign Affairs, said any notification would have come through military channels. "It probably wouldn't come to us and we wouldn't comment on it even if it did," he said. "If anyone had it, it would be DND [the Department of National Defence]."

Bill Graham, the Defence Minister, did not return telephone calls seeking comment on the issue.

David Rudd, the president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said successive federal governments have for decades pursued a policy he describes as "out of sight, out of mind."

"It's an unspoken policy of willful ignorance," he said. "If the public doesn't know about it, they're not going to agitate for more spending to monitor the North and protect our sovereignty. And serious surveillance of the North is a very expensive proposition."

Prof. Byers said Canada has only five small and ageing icebreakers, none of which is capable of operating year-round. "We have the longest coastline in the world, much of which is under ice for most of the year, and we don't even have an all-weather icebreaker," he said.

"We don't even have a federal government helicopter north of 60 -- not a single one."

He warned that if Canada cannot keep watch on its vast northern territory, we could lose control over the Northwest Passage, a 5,000-kilometre sea route through the Canadian Arctic that climatologists say could be open to commercial vessels within the next 10 years as a result of global warming and the retreating northern ice pack.

"Our enforcement capability is embarrassing," he said. "[And] that sends a message to other countries that we aren't really serious about our sovereignty or about enforcing our laws in our own territory."

Col. Leblanc said Canada is not even spending the bare minimum on northern sovereignty. While he was military commander in the North, he said even the handful of flights over the vast Arctic territory claimed by Canada were cut sharply.

"The number of planned observation flights in 2000 was zero. In '99, there were two," he said. "And this is for an area the size of Europe."

"We don't have any idea what's going on up there."

© National Post 2005
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...477732&k=69493

Originally Posted by canadian boy

What is going on here in one month they have managed to make many canadians their enemies (especially the environmentalists). I say that this is getting out of hand, what do you guys think

Environmentalists are everyones enemy, Canada-Boy. They'll be over it in a few days and have moved on to find something else to whine about.

Originally Posted by TopHatsLiberal

Environmentalists are everyones enemy, Canada-Boy. They'll be over it in a few days and have moved on to find something else to whine about.

I think they should know by now we mean them absolutely no harm by patroling their skirting waters its not the first time this has happened because it is as they say ungarded waters but, they should have been notified prior to out of respect. Although they would still be concerned as one of our nuclear class subs in their waters and one cannot blame them for that. Maybe we/ they should discuss help in patrolling these waters that they are not able to and it keeps both of our countries safer. Hell why not sell them or help them construct the Icebreakers that they would require to do this if the need assiatance. Just a thought.

1) Northern Command is an Air Command responsibility - have absolutely no say on Maritime Command

2) The USN routinely notifies Maritime Command of when subs are in areas of concern, namely the entances and the exits to the Northern Passage - to avoid any misunderstandings

3) The US regards the Northern Passage as international waters and feel no obligations to notify Ottawa. The USN, however, do notify DND of entering and exiting the Passage as do all other allied countries.

OoE,

Do you think this decision of US to drill was a result of Canada's refusing any further participation in the controversial U.S. missile-defence shield, back in February? Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

When we've gone too far, you'll be reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. In the meantime, enjoy having a benevolent neighbor that keeps your shores and border safer than you keep ours.

LOL!

Originally Posted by Julie

OoE,

Do you think this decision of US to drill was a result of Canada's refusing any further participation in the controversial U.S. missile-defence shield, back in February? Just a thought.

What's controversial about it?

Anyone that wishes to die in a hail of nuclear missiles is free to move to a nation not covered by our new NMD shield.

Originally Posted by Julie

OoE,

Do you think this decision of US to drill was a result of Canada's refusing any further participation in the controversial U.S. missile-defence shield, back in February? Just a thought.

I don't think Canada was even a factor in that decision. It was strictly an Alaskan/American decision with maybe Canada as an after-thought after we complained.

Originally Posted by canadian boy

fhat is going on here in one month they have managed to make many canadians their enemies (especially the environmentalists). I say that this is getting out of hand, what do you guys think

I think you're a Liberal. The only thing listed in your tirade is the softwood issue (the Americans are wrong plain and simple) and you've missed the cattle trade. What evidence do you have that the caribou herds would be disrupted? Do you even know which herds are we even talking about?

You think too much of Canada to even think the Americans give us two thoughts.

If you want to complain about anything, tell them to bring back Baywatch and dump Survivor (I know this is a 180 but I've had enough of people whinning!). I rather watch mindless blond Canadians than big butt Americans saying life isn't fair.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I think you're a Liberal.

He's young and idealistic, he'll learn

here is my fact that the caribou will be affected

every year they gather in the exact area that the U.S.A. plans to drill in

And for the other factors i just talked of a couple and heres another banning BC chickens

and my problem with the states is that for around 60 years we have been abused by them, and have been cleaning up after them (not including WW2)

By the way that WMD shield will be obsolete in 2 years or so, so why bother joining it if your gonna end up payin 10,000,000,000 or more every 2 years