The US as Canada's best friend

[ctjj.stevenson]

Okay, here is a little history class for everyone here about how politicans say that other countries are "friends." Firstly, countries are not friends. No country is. Countries act for their own good, and not for the good of other states. Just look at the United Kingdom's rule over Canada. For the Brits, they allowed Confederation for one reason: to get ride of Canada because it was to expensive to protect it from the United States. However, the transition to full independance actually ended in 1982.

In the late 1800s, Washington was contesting Canada's claim over some islands near Alaska on the BC coast. The Yankees said that if Canada would not give them the islands, they would take it by force. What happen afterward was that a commission was organised to look into the subject of these islands. The Americans were represented by 3 Americans, the Canadian side was represented by 2 Canadians and 1 British (since Canada had really no right to deal on international issues on its own). Seeing that the British wanted to get ride of us, the British rep voted on the American side, and we lost those islands.

Another example of the American respect of their "Canadian Friend" is the issue of the North-West passage. Seeing the this area is a valuable sea-route, the American don't want to respect it as under Canadian soverignity. They believe that it is actually international waters. Wow, what a friend.

Therefore, never believe anyone saying that another country is a friend, because the other country will go against us, if they actually want something that we are not willing to give. And this means if they have to fight a war to take over our resources, the American will.

[DMCorrigan]

Be aware that there are Americans on this site and they may not like having their country being what they may percieve as insulted, sir.

-Corrigan

[jgoguen]

I'd say he's taking the side of a lot of people who don't like the way the Americans are thinking of the Northwest Passage and being outraged by it. Likely, all the same people outraged by the Danes raising their flag over one of our islands. Instead of looking at what the Canadian government isn't doing to protect our sovereignity way up there, they're looking at how wrong and horrible the Americans and the Danes are treating us. Well...yes...that's true...but if Canada would actually stand up for themselves and protect their soverignity up there we might not have these problems. Like, how often do Canadian ships sail that area? There isn't much to say "hey, this is our territory" other than a few maps.

Here's another one for you. Fairly close to NL, there's an island owned by the French. It's in Canadian waters, close to Canadian soil, and the island itself used to be Canadian soil. Now, you have to have a passport to go to the island, because you're entering French territory. Do you see anyone outraged about that? Those horrid Frenchmen took a Canadian island, raised their flag over it, and call it their own...{!} But it was such a long time ago, and Canada never stood up and took it back from the French when they could have, and these days hardly anyone even knows about it. Food for thought...if you're going to hate the Americans for talking about the Northwest Passage as international waters, then why not hate the French for taking that island and the Danes for raising their flag over an island in the north? My answer...instead of being all upset about how horrible we're being treated by these big mean countries, make it an issue with your MP. Even having a ship go up north once or twice a month just to say "hey, we're here, this is ours" would be better.

[Juice]

I'd say he's taking the side of a lot of people who don't like the way the Americans are thinking of the Northwest Passage and being outraged by it. Likely, all the same people outraged by the Dutch raising their flag over one of our islands. Instead of looking at what the Canadian government isn't doing to protect our sovereignity way up there, they're looking at how wrong and horrible the Americans and the Dutch are treating us. Well...yes...that's true...but if Canada would actually stand up for themselves and protect their soverignity up there we might not have these problems. Like, how often do Canadian ships sail that area? There isn't much to say "hey, this is our territory" other than a few maps.

Here's another one for you. Fairly close to NL, there's an island owned by the French. It's in Canadian waters, close to Canadian soil, and the island itself used to be Canadian soil. Now, you have to have a passport to go to the island, because you're entering French territory. Do you see anyone outraged about that? Those horrid Frenchmen took a Canadian island, raised their flag over it, and call it their own...{!} But it was such a long time ago, and Canada never stood up and took it back from the French when they could have, and these days hardly anyone even knows about it. Food for thought...if you're going to hate the Americans for talking about the Northwest Passage as international waters, then why not hate the French for taking that island and the Dutch for raising their flag over an island in the north? My answer...instead of being all upset about how horrible we're being treated by these big mean countries, make it an issue with your MP. Even having a ship go up north once or twice a month just to say "hey, we're here, this is ours" would be better.

Definitely, it's all in the past. Instead of blaming other countries for taking our territory as their own, we should be blaming ourselves and our government for not standing up and defending what is and should be rightfully ours. Instead of letting other countries walk all over us and take things from us, let's put other people in their place by defending what is ours. Diplomatically of course, I'm not being a war monger here, lol :p

[jgoguen]

Oh neither am I. I say use violence only as a last resort if you can't possibly get the same end result any other way. I don't mean to say send a ship up to the island to blast the Danes there into oblivion, or totally destroy any ship trying to use the Northwest Passage, but rather work with the other country to straighten things out. Remember...war's expensive ;)

[Juice]

Oh neither am I. I say use violence only as a last resort if you can't possibly get the same end result any other way. I don't mean to say send a ship up to the island to blast the Dutch there into oblivion, or totally destroy any ship trying to use the Northwest Passage, but rather work with the other country to straighten things out. Remember...war's expensive ;)

Oh yeah...I wasnt referring to your previous statements, I was just defending mine from any war mongering scrutiny, lol, but I totally agree with what you said, work things out.

[Thib]

Here's another one for you. Fairly close to NL, there's an island owned by the French. It's in Canadian waters, close to Canadian soil, and the island itself used to be Canadian soil. Now, you have to have a passport to go to the island, because you're entering French territory. Do you see anyone outraged about that? Those horrid Frenchmen took a Canadian island, raised their flag over it, and call it their own...{!} .

Wich Island are you talking about?

[Feeloo]

Wich Island are you talking about?

St-Pierre et Miquelon

[Thib]

St-Pierre et Miquelon

I taught it was those two, but the way jgoguen presented it he seems it couldn't be those two. He said they use to be Canadian soil, but in fact they where never. Those 2 Islands where the only territory in what is now know has Canada that France was allowd to keep in 1763. But they where never Canadian soil. So the French never took the Island from the Canadian.

[ctjj.stevenson]

St-Pierre et Miquelon

These islands have belong to France since 1763. Before that, Canada was New France, and therefore, the territory was French.

[Feeloo]

I know, they're the only parts remaining of our first colony :)

[jgoguen]

These islands have belong to France since 1763. Before that, Canada was New France, and therefore, the territory was French.
I stand corrected. Merci :)

[Logan]

Coutries don't have friends, they have interests. if your interests are directly tied to another country's then your "their new best friend" so as to fulfill your interests

[SLt T. Clausen]

"Nations have neither friends nor enemies. They only have interests."

and,

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Just to quote a few old adages.

[Zipperhead]

I don't mean to say send a ship up to the island to blast the Dutch there into oblivion,

Poor poor Dutch. You are slighting the good people of the Netherlands.

The island in question has been claimed by the Danish. Since they have sovereignty over Greenland, this island is being debated.

If you have a real hard-ship over protecting our Northern Assets, I hope those of you of voting age voted for a party that wishes to strengthen the CF. We currently do not possess adequate assets to visit the Northern Passage during all seasons (ie our FFG's are not outfitted for ice).

Cheers

[jgoguen]

Oops...Danish...got it. Post edited. Thanks sir.

[ctjj.stevenson]

"Nations have neither friends nor enemies. They only have interests."

Here is a little course of correct political science terms that politicans don't seem to know.

A nation is a group of people that have the same traditions, languages, culture, history, ex cetera. Therefore, no one should say that Canada is a nation, because Canada is not a group of people to start with. Therefore, the Bloc and the PQ can not say that Québec is a nation because Québec is not a group of people either. However, there is a Québécois nation, because the Quebeckers do have a same tradition, language, culture, etc.

Language is a powerful tool, use it correctly!

[Thib]

Here is a little course of correct political science terms that politicans don't seem to know.


Bonjour,

In the dictionnary there is different version to what a Nation mean. Also, yes the way you descrive nation is usuly the definition we gave to it in french. But a nation can also be use to represent a group of people who have sovreignty of their territory/state. I don't know wich one is the "first" one in english

[ctjj.stevenson]

A nation sir is a group of people.

A state is a territory that has sovernignty over that said territory.

In every poli sci class that I've taken since CEGEP, the professors have always said that a country is not a nation.

[Thib]

A nation sir is a group of people.

A state is a territory that has sovernignty over that said territory.

In every poli sci class that I've taken since CEGEP, the professors have always said that a country is not a nation.
Same here,I took those classes to, but if you look at le petit Larousse illustré they gave different definition. So it depend at wich one we are looking right. But your right Canada isn't a Nation-state

[Bos'n101]

Poor poor Dutch. You are slighting the good people of the Netherlands.

The island in question has been claimed by the Danish. Since they have sovereignty over Greenland, this island is being debated.

If you have a real hard-ship over protecting our Northern Assets, I hope those of you of voting age voted for a party that wishes to strengthen the CF. We currently do not possess adequate assets to visit the Northern Passage during all seasons (ie our FFG's are not outfitted for ice).

Cheers
On the contrary, Our Coast guard does have ships specifically designed to handle the arctic region, They're called Ice Breakers. While I agree that our Navy needs to be able to enforce our borders, our Coast Guard is fully able to go. Maybe until they next generation of ships are ready, we should simply outfit these ships with the armaments they need to show our presence seriously!

[Zipperhead]

... we should simply outfit these ships with the armaments they need to show our presence seriously!

While I concede the fact that our Coast Guard brethren do have ice breakers, I do not fully agree with the rest of your comment. The CCG does not have the mandate nor the training required to perform any such tasks. For all intents and purposes, the CCG is a Federal agency staffed by civilians. It is akin to having Air Canada conduct aerial sovereignty patrols of Canadian Skies, just because they have the fleet and ability to do so.
Mayhaps if the CCG is absorbed in the CF, we will see Navy grey ice breakers plowing our northern ocean.

[Bos'n101]

I disagree, they are more akin to the Canadian Rangers, who aren't soldiers per say, but do enforce Canadian law and sovereignty in remote regions. What I was thinking was that the CCG could do a temporary joint operation with the CF, in order to fill the gap between now, and the time where the Navy has the ability to patrol the arctic region. (rumour has it that the replacements for the DDH's will have a reinforced bow, capable of handling the ice) The ships would remain CCG, but have a Naval presence on board, for purposes such as boarding parties, etc. Please excuse my posting of an incomplete thought.

[M Lambert]

Oh neither am I. I say use violence only as a last resort if you can't possibly get the same end result any other way. I don't mean to say send a ship up to the island to blast the Danes there into oblivion, or totally destroy any ship trying to use the Northwest Passage, but rather work with the other country to straighten things out. Remember...war's expensive ;)
yup wars expensive, and ever thought of trying to fight the americans? their marine corps is bigger than the british army! it aint a fight worth getting in to unless you have one hell of a big gun, or a thousand of them!

[M Lambert]

also, for the more recent posts:

someone reads too much tom clancy books.

how likely is it a govt is going to begin border patrols in their waters, with armed ships, think of cost, and how much cost matters to politics. hell, if it was up to me, i would have national service back, a mobilised expeditionary force complete with marines, an air force and army doubled in size, and the british CG part of the armed forces. but i dont, and i dont think many people would like it, some would, but not everyone.

of course, in the stealing of the island by danes, it could be related to the falklands incident, which resulted in the brits borrowing civi ferries to get enough guys there to re-claim the place.

there is nothing wrong with defending your country, but having mobilised military forces armed and ready to assault craft in your sovereignty isnt the best way to avoid making the other side pretty angry, and if its americans, the other side is bigger than you and perfectly capable of causing some trouble.

actions can be read in many ways, the arming of a civ organisation could be read as an act of prepping for invasion.

[Bos'n101]

Just because the CG isn't CF, it doesn't mean they are civ. Coast Guard. As in the Guardians of our coastal regions! They are a federal organization, just like the RCMP, CSIS, or yes, DND!
Also, how could arming ships whose job is to patrol the arctic, then deploying them to
(heaven forbid) the arctic, be considered preparation for invading the country on our southern border?

[Zipperhead]

how likely is it a govt is going to begin border patrols in their waters, with armed ships, think of cost, and how much cost matters to politics

Ummm.... Pretty likely, especially since that is what the CF is doing as we type. We have warships at sea, armed aircraft in the air and soldiers on the ground at varying times throughout the week.

Canadian Rangers are indeed members of the CF, they are Reservists, very much like CIC or Militia. The Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for maintaining Nav Aids on the water ways and ensuring the safe operation of vessels, they also have a SAR role. They do not have their own branch of law enforcement. Bos'n101 you bring up some valid points about how we can overcome our shortcomings (ie CF pers or RCMP on CCG vessels).

Warning to all coming out to Quadra this summer, we are currently experiencing a heat wave of Southern Ontario proportions, bring fans. :eek:

[SLt T. Clausen]

Language is a powerful tool, use it correctly!I used the term purposefully. I have also taken political science classes, and like to take everything taught to me with a slight grain of salt (as in I like to take what I'm taught and draw my own conclusions). As was mentioned earlier, there are other textbook definitions of the term "nation," and while Canadians may not necessarily share "the same traditions, languages, culture, history," et cetera, they do share goals, values, and moral opinions, which I find to be equally as important.

[Bos'n101]

Canadian Rangers are indeed members of the CF, they are Reservists, very much like CIC or Militia. The Canadian Coast Guard is responsible for maintaining Nav Aids on the water ways and ensuring the safe operation of vessels, they also have a SAR role. They do not have their own branch of law enforcement. Bos'n101 you bring up some valid points about how we can overcome our shortcomings (ie CF pers or RCMP on CCG vessels).

I stand corrected :) I guess I thought they did because of the role played by the USCG