Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Stupid Cdn Politicians
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

cypher

Joined: 08 Nov 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:

Although I generally think Harper is a a$$ of unparalleled size and Canada will be in deep shit if he gets elected (well...even if he doesn't), I find myself agreeing with him on this. Not that we would refuse the US entry, or could force the issue if it came to that, but really...would the US accept this kind of treatment, if the situation were reversed?

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:32 am Post subject:

Wrench wrote:

There is nothing stupid about standing up for Canadian sovereignty.

I refer you to Gopher's enforceability comment.
It IS stupid because it's nothing more than another empty election promise.
I could elaborate but I think the logic of the situation speaks for itself.

Last edited by Bulsajo on Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:38 am; edited 1 time in total

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:37 am Post subject: Re: Stupid Cdn Politicians

VanIslander wrote:

Bulsajo wrote:

Both Liberal and Conservative
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/22/elxn-harper-dfens.html

I read that and thought "Kuddos to both parties."

It's an undercurrent of Canadian nationalism that doesn't touch all Canadians (like Bulsajo).

There's A LOT at stake in the Canadian North, especially in a generation or two, when global warming's effects become quite pronounced and affect access, transportation, not to mention property rights for resources.

For the record, 3 (Conservative) or 1 (Liberal) new Icebreakers stationed in Iqaluit is the only concrete proposal. I'd love to hear how that will prevent further incursions of foreign vessels into Canadian territorial waters. OH wait! But the icebreakers will be ARMED!

Rolling Eyes

Gotta love those crazy election promises.

I'm all for a sensible plan on arctic development. At the moment neither major party is proposing anything like one.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:14 am Post subject: Re: Stupid Cdn Politicians

VanIslander wrote:

It's an undercurrent of Canadian nationalism that doesn't touch all Canadians (like Bulsajo).

The politicans are being very smart here, short term (win some votes - not Bulsajo's) and long term (future access to the region).

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:21 pm Post subject:

Wrench wrote:

Canada obeys international laws which our southern neighbour doesn't...

More moral superiority. Canada obeys international laws and the U.S. does not.

Canadians, Castro, and Hugo Chavez calling the U.S. a rogue state is getting old, is totally predictable, and utterly boring, not to mention, entirely inaccurate.

Assuming or implying that the U.S. might have territorial ambitions in the Arctic is absurd.

Wrench wrote:

Imagine a foreign state now being able to build a Militarybase in the international water so close to North America, IE Ruskies, Chinese.

The U.S. doesn't need to imagine this. In October 1962 the Soviets planted intermediate-range strategic nuclear weapons, multiple SAM cites, sold MiG aircraft, and stationed approximately one reinforced brigade of Russian troops, not to metion running ELINT intelligence ops and stationing subs on Cuba.

Wrench wrote:

By the way Canada trains American Pilots, the biggest NATO air force base is in Canada.

Canadian infantry schools train American Rangers, SEALS, and other spec op troops. Canada trains probably more American soldiers then America Canadian. I have a lot of Reg force buddies back home.

As I said, there is a military relationship between the U.S. and Canada. Given Canadian hostility to the U.S., it's high time we rethought this relationship.

By the way, you seem to take cross-training operations and imply, by innuendo, of course, that the U.S. is somehow dependent on Canadian training, which is not only inaccurate but laughable.

The U.S. military -- and I am a former Marine -- has cross-training agreements and runs combined training ops with multiple countries. Usually, it is a courtesy from us to you, particularly in the Canadian case.

If you want to credit the nation that has had the most influence on the U.S. military, and to which we owe the greatest debt, you're going to have to look at Britain (British Intelligence practically created the OSS in WWII; the SAS very much helped us create Delta and helped us with the entire Spec. Forces concept, to cite another example; and our Marine Corps and Navy very much continues British Royal Marine and Navy traditions).

Last edited by Gopher on Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:33 pm; edited 2 times in total

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:30 pm Post subject:

Bulsajo wrote:

Wrench wrote:

There is nothing stupid about standing up for Canadian sovereignty.

I refer you to Gopher's enforceability comment.
It IS stupid because it's nothing more than another empty election promise.
I could elaborate but I think the logic of the situation speaks for itself.

There is nothing wrong that Canada might want to change its own rules with respect to its own territory, particularly with respect to warships that may or may not be assuming passage rights in the Arctic areas. This is traditionally a very valid issue in international relations. (Remember when Reagan had to fly bombers all the way around France to get to Lybia?)

There is everything wrong in doing so with a chip on one's shoulder, however, particularly addressing it to "a southern neighbor" that one wants to continue to do business with.

It's not Canada's issues. It's its style, or lack thereof.

Do Canadians want to enjoy a friendly relationship with the U.S. or not? Would you raise such an issue with a friend this way, say, about his dog going into your yard, or would you be more diplomatic about it?

Wrench

Joined: 07 Apr 2005

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:30 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Wrench wrote:

Canada obeys international laws which our southern neighbour doesn't...

Wrench wrote:

Imagine a foreign state now being able to build a Militarybase in the international water so close to North America, IE Ruskies, Chinese.

Wrench wrote:

Canada doesn't offer training marines since we have no large naval bases in Canada. Canada doesn't have any marines either.

I was trying to make a point about the cross training, and that is that US enjoys a very good partnership with Canada. Canada's alliance with the US is extremely good. Canada has the Americans do a lot of thing in Canada that no other country would have done. (Testing of Agent Orange)

Oh and on the whole Cuban missile crisis, I agree with what the Ruskies tried to do. You did the exact same thing to Russians. People extremely ignorant when it comes to the Cuban incident. Any way the Russians won that bout.

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:35 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Wrench wrote:

Canada obeys international laws which our southern neighbour doesn't...

Except that it's not. The US has ambitions there along with every other country with a border up there. Once ice recedes and there is usable land there countries start making claims, and I think there are two possible ways of drawing up the north, one by drawing a direct line from one's east and west border in a triangle going towards the north pole, and another way that I can't recall. There's also surveying going on that can prove that a country's continental area extends further than previously thought, which is going on right now.

(first quote from NYTimes, next from Wikipedia)

Quote:

The exclusive economic zone controlled by a country generally extends 230 miles from its shores. But under Article 76, that zone can expand if a nation can convince other parties to the treaty that there is a "natural prolongation" of its continental shelf beyond that limit.

The shelf is the relatively shallow extension of a landmass to the point where the bottom drops into the oceanic abyss. But in many places, the drop-off is a gentle slope or is connected to long-submerged ridges that, if precisely mapped, might add thousands of square miles to a country's exploitable seabed.

Claims of expanded territory are being pursued the world over, but the Arctic Ocean is where experts foresee the most conflict. Only there do the boundaries of five nations - Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States - converge, the way sections of an orange meet at the stem. (The three other Arctic nations, Iceland, Sweden and Finland, do not have coasts on the ocean.)

"The area does get to be a bit crowded," said Peter Croker, chairman of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which assesses claims. It is composed of experts appointed by countries that ratified the treaty.

Disputes over overlapping claims must be worked out by the countries involved, but the commission weighs control over areas that would otherwise remain international waters.

Countries that ratified the treaty before May 13, 1999, have until May 13, 2009, to make claims. Other countries have 10 years from their date of ratification.

Russia adopted the treaty in 1997, and four years later laid claim to nearly half the Arctic Ocean. The commission's technical panel rejected the claim, and now Russia hopes the recent voyage of its research ship Akademik Fyodorov to the North Pole will yield mapping data in its favor.

In June, Denmark and Canada announced that they would conduct a joint surveying project of uncharted parts of the Arctic Ocean near their coasts.

Denmark is particularly interested in proving that a 1,000-mile undersea mountain range, the Lomonosov Ridge, is linked geologically to Greenland, which is semiautonomous Danish territory. If it finds such a link, Denmark could make a case that the North Pole belongs to the Danes, Danish officials have said.

Canada could also claim a huge area, and then face challenges from the other Arctic nations. The United States could petition for a swath of Arctic seabed larger than California, according to rough estimates by Dr. Mayer and other scientists. But while the government financed Dr. Mayer's survey, it has not made a definitive move toward staking a claim.

American ratification of the Law of the Sea treaty has repeatedly been blocked by a small group of Republican senators, now led by Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma. They say, among other things, that the treaty would infringe on American sovereignty.

In a Senate hearing last year, Mr. Inhofe said, "I'm very troubled about implications of this convention on our national security." The deadlock has persisted even though the Bush administration in 2002 described ratification of the Law of the Sea and four other treaties as an "urgent need."

Many proponents of the treaty, including the Pentagon, the American Petroleum Institute and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, say this paralysis leaves the United States on the sidelines while others carve up an ocean.

"We need to be in the game, at the table, talking about fisheries management, mineral extraction, freedom of navigation," said Adm. James D. Watkins, a retired chief of naval operations who is chairman of the United States Commission on Ocean Policy.

Mr. McCain said, "I think what it would require really is a hard push from the president."

Treaty or no, territorial disputes ultimately imply questions about a country's ability to defend its interests. Here, too, the United States has shown less urgency while Canada has acted more aggressively to ensure sovereignty over a fast-changing domain it had long neglected.

Already, oil tanker traffic is rising and fishing boats are going farther north. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned that melting seaways could make it easier for narcotics traffickers to reach indigenous communities, and for organized crime to exploit the growing diamond trade. And the United States , which disputes Canada's control over parts of the petroleum-rich Beaufort Sea, has in the past sent vessels unannounced through other Arctic waters that Canada claims.

Three years ago Canada began patrolling the most remote Arctic reaches with army rangers, a mostly Eskimo force of 1,500 irregulars. Next year the military plans to launch Radarsat 2, a satellite system that will allow surveillance of the Arctic and sea approaches as far as 1,000 miles offshore.

The military is also buying three reinforced tankers to supply ships patrolling the north. The fleet of Twin Otters, the primary surveillance and transport planes in the north since the 1960's, will be replaced with bigger, faster transports. And senior officials are touring places that offer little but symbolic value.

Canada 's aim is not only to tighten control of its territory, but also to establish a strong posture in future talks over the Northwest Passage, the long-sought shortcut from Europe to Asia across the top of Canada.

Bill Graham, the defense minister, said, "I don't see the Northwest Passage as something for another 20 years, but at the rate of present global warming, we know that it will be within 20 years and we have to get ahead now." This summer he made a point of visiting Hans Island, a two-mile-long rock claimed by both Canada and Denmark.

The Pentagon has focused elsewhere. The Navy spent up to $25 million a year on polar research in the 1990's, and in April 2001 produced a report warning that weapons and ships were not designed with arctic conditions in mind, and that charts, navigational systems and support networks were inadequate for the north.

"Safe navigation and precision weapons delivery capability," the report said, "may be significantly constrained unless these shortfalls are addressed."

But in the budget shake-up after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Navy severely reduced spending for polar research.

At the same time, America 's three large icebreakers are deteriorating. One of them, the Polar Sea, is inoperable and docked in Seattle, where it is being readied for a year or two of repairs. No replacements are planned.

Quote:

Until 1999, the North Pole (Arctic) had been considered international territory. However, as the polar ice has begun to recede at a rate higher than expected (see global warming), several countries have made moves to claim the water or seabed at the Pole. Russia made its first claim in 2001, claiming Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater mountain ridge underneath the Pole, as a natural extension of Siberia. This claim was contested by Norway, Canada, the United States and Denmark in 2004. Denmark's territory of Greenland has the nearest coastline to the North Pole, and Denmark argues that the Lomonosov Ridge is in fact an extension of Greenland. Canada claims sovereignty in a sector continuing to the North Pole between 60��W and 141��W longitude, a claim that is not universally recognized. In addition, Canada claims the water between its Arctic Islands as internal waters, a claim that is not recognized by the United States (Denmark, Russia and Norway have made claims similar to those of Canada and are opposed by the EU and the United States). The potential value of the North Pole and the area around resides in any possible potential petroleum and gas below the underlying sea-bed, the exploration for which in the near future might become more feasible after the opening of the Northwest Passage.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:36 pm Post subject:

the russians won that bout?? Eh how? Because we removed missles from Turkey? OH NO! Please elaborate.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:01 pm Post subject:

Wrench wrote:

How are you going to defeat the U.S. and British submarine forces, then? No large naval forces? Do you think the captains of these warships are just going to let Dudley Do-Right and Snidley Whiplash take their ships with lassos?

International law is great, but how do you think things are out on the high seas?

Moreover, I think you are viewing this in the typical, anti-American, one-sided manner.

Does the U.S. enjoy a good partnership with Canada? Yes.

But does Canada also enjoy a good partnership with the U.S.?

(Your ref to Agent Orange is interesting. It's not my specialty, but I'd like to see some cites on where you're getting your data. Not that I'm challenging you on the claim, just interested to do some reading on it.)

Wrench wrote:

Oh and on the whole Cuban missile crisis, I agree with what the Ruskies tried to do. You did the exact same thing to Russians. People extremely ignorant when it comes to the Cuban incident. Any way the Russians won that bout.

Ridiculous.

The Soviets were called on a lie and had to withdraw something they were attempting to do covertly. It was a public humiliation, particularly with respect to Stevenson's presentation before the UN.

The missiles, they were medium-range, Jupiter-class missiles, if my information is correct, in Turkey were obsolete and overt. They were on their way out anyway. We were developing long-range capabilities, including bomber forces, and shifting our emphasis to Western Europe, at the Europeans' insistence, I might add, as they were terrified the Red Army would swallow them whole in the 50s and 60s.

On the Soviets' claim that the missiles in Cuba were intended to discourage or prevent a U.S. invasion of Cuba and where the U.S. protested that there was no invasion planned, the Soviets were more or less right and the U.S. was more or less lying. (There were no overt invasion plans that anyone was considering implementing, although Washington attempted to overthrow Castro for years to come.) But your taking sides with the USSR and Havana against the U.S. is duly noted.

And you're moralizing, so I have to ask: where do you stand on the Soviet suppression of Prague in '68? They, too, it turns out, were concerned about developments within their sphere of influence, and they, too, intervened in a neighbor's affairs. (And, of course, this doesn't even start to get into Afghanistan...)

In any case, like I said above, there is no greater bed of anti-U.S. hatred in the western hemisphere than what we see coming out of Canada, Cuba, and Chavez's Venezuela.

And maybe I'm arrogant about it, but if I were you, I'd be pretty careful calling me ignorant on anything that pertains to Latin American and Caribbean affairs, esp. where the Cold War is concerned.

supernick

Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul

Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject:

Quote:

In any case, like I said above, there is no greater bed of anti-U.S. hatred in the western hemisphere than what we see coming out of Canada, Cuba, and Chavez's Venezuela.

In that order?

America is clearly out on it's on in the western hemisphere. In a few short years, America has successfully paved its own road to its new demise, and instead of looking inward, you would rather blame others.

Maybe some Canadians hate the U.S., just like people in other countries.

You said before that you would do some research into Canadian high school history books to see if they have slanted views of the U.S. How did this go? What did you find? Are the history books wrong and give a distorted opinion of the U.S. that encourages hatred?

Any opinions or information I have read about the U.S. comes from U.S. sources. Should I stop reading Time, watching CNN or Fox news?

Countries that share borders often have problems. Canadians do tend to be vocal and it does bother me to some degree, though you seem to think that it belongs to some plan of some sorts. It kind of sounds a little paranoid on your part.

Canada tries to have a good relationship with the U.S. and other countries, and we would expect the same from the U.S., but as relationships involve trust, and that trust was clearly broken by the U.S. in NAFTA with the lumber dispute.

Politicians often say anything in order to get re-elected, and just a year or so ago, try to remember what Bush and the boys were saying. In order to get re-elected, they played the fear game. If it's not the fear game it's a smear campaign.

Then there were all the comments made that some of the terrorist of 9-11 entered from Canada and that Canada was a safe heaven for terrorists. That was the thanks Canada got for helping you guys clear your air space. A great risk to us for your own protection and ingratitude would be an understatement.

Canadians know that most or all Americans do not hold comments that are like this, but when we hear them it hurts. Before you point the finger north, and blame Canadian media or text books, take a closer look at the broader picture, as the information that many Canadians gather comes directly from the U.S.

Wrench

Joined: 07 Apr 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 6:17 am Post subject:

Code:

Where does it say large naval forces??????????? I never said that. It looks like your making things up again...

Yes Canada has a navy, so yes we could sink a sub if it came down to that.

As far as the Cuban missile crissis goes, Russians reached the goal of Americans pulling missiles out of the balkans.

Agent Orange.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/clients/sub.cfm?source=services/pensions/orange

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-1413-9130/conflict_war/vietnam/clip9

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:06 am Post subject:

Wrench wrote:

As far as the Cuban missile crissis goes, Russians reached the goal of Americans pulling missiles out of the balkans.

You said people are ignorant about the Missile Crisis and now you allege that the Soviets' goal in placing missiles in Cuba was to force the U.S. to remove it's missiles from Turkey that it was going to replace in less than five years anyway?

Turkey was a face-saving gambit, and for all parties.

In his private correspondence to Kennedy, Khrushchev made it very clear that the Soviets were placing missiles in Cuba to deter a U.S. invasion there. They were new to the region, they were taking Castro's anti-U.S. hysteria at face value, the Bay of Pigs invasion was an undeniable fact, and they didn't understand that, politically, it would have been impossible for the U.S. to invade Cuba, or anywhere else in the hemisphere, at that time.

I won't assume that you've read the FRUS declassified dox on this event. But you should at least have read RFK's diary on the event, the standard versions of which almost always reprint the Khrushchev letters.

As far as I'm concerned, when the Soviets pulled out of Cuba, we all won, because had they not, things could have been much worse.

And thanks for the links on Agent Orange.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:35 am Post subject:

supernick wrote:

You said before that you would do some research into Canadian high school history books to see if they have slanted views of the U.S. How did this go? What did you find? Are the history books wrong and give a distorted opinion of the U.S. that encourages hatred?

I don't have the cite anymore, but last year two scholars reviewed several texts from several countries around the world, including Canada. It received some attn here, and it was featured on my campus in Southern California.

They do not claim there are "distortions," per se, only that there are strong anti-American trends that had previously gone unnoticed in places like Saudi Arabia and Canada. Historians look at perspectives and points of view these days, not necessarily some unattainable, undistorted, objective history.

Obviously, there were conflicting emphases on who did what and what occurred in the Second World War between, say, U.S., British, and French textbooks, for example.

The point was not to investigate Canada's institutionalized anti-Americanism. It was just an aside in a larger research methodology, and the authors reported on it and moved on. It was something that stuck with me, however.

People generally don't want to hear this because it clashes with their preconceived, extremely cynical views that everything any non-U.S. nation or writer says or claims is honest and virtuous, while anything the U.S. may say is an evil lie or a false history.

supernick wrote:

Countries that share borders often have problems. Canadians do tend to be vocal and it does bother me to some degree, though you seem to think that it belongs to some plan of some sorts. It kind of sounds a little paranoid on your part.

No. I never said or implied this. You are putting words in my mouth, creating a straw man, and then you knock it down.

There is no plan. But that doesn't mean it isn't happening and it isn't real. It's more unconsious and inertial. But it's still there.

I'd like Canadians to wake up, take a sober look around, and ask themselves if these anti-American views are beneficial to U.S.-Canadian relations. Do Canadians want to drive a permanent wedge between our countries? No? Then why is Canada moving in this direction?

supernick wrote:

Canada tries to have a good relationship with the U.S. and other countries, and we would expect the same from the U.S., but as relationships involve trust, and that trust was clearly broken by the U.S. in NAFTA with the lumber dispute.

Always Canada the virtuous, good-faith actor, and the U.S., the lying dealbreaker.

Maybe Canada is trying to interpret NAFTA in ways that are favorable to Canada, and the U.S. is trying to interpret NAFTA in ways that are favorable to the U.S., and, not surprisingly, Canadians like you side with Canada without really investigating the U.S. side? Maybe there are other issues going on under the surface that we are not seeing here? Maybe some in Washington have had enough of Canada's anti-U.S. posturing and are responding in less-than-professional ways? Maybe Canadians are stubbornly refusing to admit that they are 50% of the cause of these bad relations?

supernick wrote:

Canadians know that most or all Americans do not hold comments that are like this, but when we hear them it hurts. Before you point the finger north, and blame Canadian media or text books, take a closer look at the broader picture, as the information that many Canadians gather comes directly from the U.S.

There's no tendency in Canada to interpret news about the U.S. in a certain framework?

Really? And it's not formed by years of education? It just spontaneously occurs, and it really only occurs because of W. Bush? I disagree. Take a good look at what's going on there, and be honest with yourself.

Good friends do not always agree. Good friends can disagree and remain good friends. Good friends, hopefully, might tell their friends when they're off base on any issue. But they're still good friends and they do these things in a friendly manner and discretely, not on the floor of the General Assembly at the UN.

Canada, however, claims to be a good friend of the U.S. and is "hurt" as you say when the U.S. doesn't recognize this friendship, but it acts as a condescending parent, or worse, a judgmental priest. We don't hear much out of Canada these days apart from bitter criticism and the anti-U.S. news, for example, like the textbook study. Would you consider someone who treated you this way a friend?

quadra87

Joined: 28 Jun 2004

Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject:

edit Last edited by quadra87 on Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:58 am; edited 1 time in total

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe