Canada Vs The Us

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by W.Anchor, Jan 28, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Canada's new prime minister tackles US over Arctic rights
    By Francis Harris in Washington
    (Filed: 28/01/2006)

    Canada's new Conservative prime minister, accused by opponents of cringing pro-Americanism, has fallen out with Washington.

    Just three days after his election, Stephen Harper attacked statements by the American ambassador suggesting that Canada's iceberg-strewn Arctic seaways are "neutral waters".

    Stephen Harper: Canada will defend its sovereignty
    Within hours the Conservative leader raised the issue with journalists, although he had not been asked to comment. Emphasising his new government's commitment to increase defence expenditure in Canada's Arctic, Mr Harper said: "I was very clear about this in the election campaign. The United States defends its sovereignty. The Canadian government will defend our sovereignty."

    He continued: "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."

    Canadians interpreted the Tory leader's words as a signal to the public that he would be a dogged negotiator for Canadian interests with President George W Bush's administration.

    "It let him show he's tough on the Americans," said Scott Anderson, editor of the conservative Ottawa Citizen.

    But there are also serious issues at play now that the once-frozen waters of the North-West Passage are opening up for shipping and oil exploration.

    Mr Harper has pledged to build three armed ice-breakers to underline Canada's claim to the waters running between the innumerable Arctic islands.

    He also intends to construct a deep water port at the Baffin Island settlement of Iqaluit and to deploy powerful sensors on the ocean floor to detect incursions by foreign navies.

    American, French and Royal Navy submarines are all believed regularly to use waters that Canada says it owns.

    The American ambassador, David Wilkins, emphasised when he spoke that he was merely reiterating a longstanding policy on the Arctic. "Our position is very consistent. We agree to disagree. We don't recognise Canada's claims to the waters.

    "There's no reason... to say, 'There's a problem that's occurring and we've got to do something about it'," he said.

    But experts believe the days when Canada and America could bury the issue are almost at an end.

    Ships have begun to navigate the waters of the North-West Passage as the ice recedes. The route would cut 4,500 miles off the passage through the Panama Canal.

    It has been speculated that Canada will one day out-produce Saudi Arabia once new fields are discovered in the Arctic.

    25 January 2006: Canada's Conservatives back after decade in cold
  2. Cue South Park :lol:
  3. dey gonna be marchin' south an torchin' da whitehouse again!
  4. Now Blair has a problem ... back our special friends interests or a member of he commonwealth :)

    Oh there is a god ................

  5. why shouldn't we be allowed to use canadian waters? Not only did well sell the canadians most of their navy (submarines anyway :p ) but they're commonwealth, that means they should do as we say :)
    Canada is perfectly entitled to claim part of the artic, 200 miles of the coast of any country. America has very little claim excluding the area around alaska. They can't just lay claim to an area because they're bigger than most. It's a bit like when we tried to lay claim to water which iceland quite rightly thought belonged to them (cod wars in 70s).
    However arming themselves when the main threat is sure to be the yanks seems a wee bit strange, increased defence spending for oversees commitments, anti-terrorism operations etc would surely be more appropriate???
  6. Yeah and i bet they love us for it!
    Lieutenant Chris Saunders
    HMCS Chicoutimi
  7. There is no evidence that was our fault, yet I think I should make it clear that I don't find what happened funny and the loss of any member of the armed forces (the "good guys" anyway) is sad and regrettable.
  8. Your Avatar does you justice, a perfect Gentleman. I didnt think you meant any malice in it anyway. The Canadians have had it a little shite of late. Three still very badly injured after the Afghan incident (15th Jan) which killed Glyn Berry a Brit ex pat who was the Canadian Envoy out there i think.
    They are not in Iraq tho' (more sense than South of the border)
  9. And to throw into the melting pot the little reported fact that the Canadians are the only ones so far who have signed up to our Helmand expedition, 2006.

    I wonder just what is Harper's view on that little adventure? :wink:
  10. Denmark and Russia have arctic claims as well.
  11. So?

  12. Wonder when Dubya, Rumsfeld, and Cheyney will claim that Canada has WMDs?
  13. This isnt a Canada-US issue exclusively, the title of the thread is misleading.
  14. The originator of this thread may choose whatever title he deems appropriate. The article he then quotes, speaks entirely of US v Canada. Thus it appears his own choice of title dovetails with that of the article.

    It is not for you to tell him what he should, or should not, choose. The only 'misleading' that is going on is your attempt to divert the discussion away from the topic in question: Canada v US over Arctic 'rights'.

  15. I have not made a comment one way or the other. I am just trying to point out that the issue is alot bigger than the US. In fact I think when Condi visits Ottawa the issue with the US will be taken up and settled to Canada's satisfaction.