Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOff To War... With Canada?
Could the United States and its neighbor Canada ever go to war?
Never a likely prospect, and yet an a mounting conflict over the use of the North West Passage, lying in Canada's territorial waters, and offering a water connection between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans , is in prospect. Thus far it has done little more than spur political debate. But in the past month the stakes in this dispute have been increased, and significantly.
First, on July 9, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that Canada was planning to build eight new armed vessels to reassert its sovereignty over the region.
A day later, a U.S. Admiral, Rear Admiral Timothy McGee, pledged to increase its fleet of ships , contending as the Canadian action created implications for national energy security
Even more attention-getting was Admiral McGee's response to a reporter's question that the U.S. Navy could consider sending an aircraft carrier to the area, along with aircraft and other vessels.
It is perhaps far-fetched to suggest that there could be a military response here, the U.S. with a population base of 300 million, Canada at 33 million, the U.S. with more military hardware than the rest of the world combined, and yet there could be a military skirmish.
With receding ice packs and floes, it is expected that use of this long water route will increase dramatically in the years immediately ahead. And it addition to the commercial value of an easier path between the oceans, there are other high stakes. Oil.
The Beaufort Sea which lies off the Canadian coast is believed to hold major resources of the sought-after liquid and already U.S. spokesmen are laying claim to some of its riches.
In recent days another major player in the northern stakes , Russia, laid a flag on the ocean bottom in the North Pole of Arctic, thus laying claim to its entitlement. Sweden, Norway and Denmark will doubtless also deal into the game but are seen as minor players.
Canada will ultimately, despite current protests, seek a compromise with the Russians as the two countries are seen as having the most legitimate control over the area. Canada would probably agree that Russia have territorial control to the Arctic territory off its huge coastline but would make the same claim for the northern waters on its coastline. Many feel that an agreement between the two big countries, one and two in the world, Russia number one, would be advantageous to both. At the moment, however, they are in dispute with Russia claiming the waters of the North Pole.
The North West Passage, officially now referred to in Canadian reports as Canada's Internal Waters, is a sea route through the Canadian archipelago connecting the two oceans.
Although the United States recognizes Canada's ownership of the lands and islands surrounding the Passage, it claims that it is an international waterway. And consistent with its policy relative to other such waterways the U.S. contends that its ships should have unimpeded movement. It has long been the practice, however, for U.S. and other ships entering the Passage to notify Canadian authorities in advance. There have been several instances though when U.S. ships gained access without notification. The most recent of these reports of U.S. nuclear-powered submarines passing through the waterway. This not only brought an official response from the Canadian government but an angry outcry from many of its citizens.
Canada has seen any unauthorized intrusion in the Passage as an attack on Canadian sovereignty. Prime Minister Harper shortly after the submarine penetration , this in recent days, announced construction of six to eight armed patrol ships to assert Canada's authority and has as well indicated a deep sea port would be constructed and that the country's military presence would be strengthened. Igaluit is expected to be the site of the first deep water port established in the Arctic.
Recently this was a sharp division of opinion about the U.S. stance on the Arctic lands. A former Canadian Ambassador, Paul Cellucci favored Canadian control of the Passage, arguing that it was in the best interest of security for North America to have Canada assume that role which it in fact has carried out for years. Within a day, however, David Wilkins, the current U.S. Ambassador, a strong supporter of President Bush's policies, was insistent that the route was innovational waters and open to travel by U.S. ships without impediment. He said both the security and private business interests of his country must be protected.
Rear Admiral McGee, head of naval oceanography ,said the U.S. would pursue a "international coalition" approach to solving differences. Another Rear Admiral, Brian Salerno supported this approach. .
U.S. studies indicate that one-quarter of the world's untapped oil and gas reserves rest within the disputed Arctic waters. Prime Minister Harper said the northern resources were crucial to Canada"s future and the government would strongly make its case.
A University of British Columbia professor, Michael Byers said Canada "would experience of loss of sovereignty if foreign ships were to use the Passage . " he added " currently (without a stronger presence) the welcome mat is out for fly-by-night companies."
Global warming is largely responsible for the new rhetoric from both sides as climate change could produce a reduction of sea ice in the Arctic within a century. This would open up the Passage for substantial commercial traffic, especially if there are the expected oil and natural gas finds in the Beaufort Sea.
Questions about Canada's control of the waterway goes back for years and following the unauthorized entry of the U.S. Manhattan in 1969, Canada under then Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau proposed in 1970 unilateral action that would claim the waterway as internal Canadian waters.
The proposed Canadian move caused serious concern in the U.S's Foreign Affairs office. In a memorandum to Secretary of State Henry Kissenger, Theodore Eliot Jr., an executive secretary, wrote " this proposed action is unjustified under International Law, and is a serious danger to private U..S. interests." Eliot wrote " this seriously degrades the entire U.S. Law of Sea posture on which our military mobility depends." He added the Canadian action was prompted by inflamed nationalists opposed to a second excursion into the Passage by the massive Manhattan.
The Canadian delegation was headed by the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., Marcel Cadieux,Alan Beesley, legal adviser to the Minister of External Affairs, and Ivan Head of the Prime Minister's office. Eliot wrote that the delegation through the Ambassador made a flat assertion of Canadian sovereignty over a large area of the high seas. He said the Canadians considered the Passage as an internal waterway and were going to impose a 100mile pollution zone.
Rather surprisingly the usual polite Canadians Eliot wrote " are not interested in our comments, suggestions or alternatives." The Ambassador said Trudeau was under "tremendous pressure" to take steps to protect the country's sovereignty over the Arctic properties. The delegation said, however, that the right of passage would be conveyed to those seeking to use the waterway but subject to Canadian law. Eliot said Canada wanted to enforce its own laws over the myriad channels so as a means of protecting the environment from unsafe ships and accidental oil spills.
With global warming and the prospect of a massive oil and gas patch, the Canadian Arctic is seen as an area that will undergo major growth in the years ahead.
The late Prime Minister Trudeau was firm in his resolve to establish Canadian control. I heard him years later, and with a laugh, say " the best way for us to stop unauthorized foreign ships is to send a Mountie (RCMP) to arrest them."
Doubtlessly Canada will need much more in the way of police protection should the U.S., as warned by a U.S. navy Admiral that the dispatch of an aircraft carrier to the region could be considered.
Canada as the second largest country in the world spans 3400 miles from Cape Spear in Newfoundland-Labrador to the Alaskan border. The country could house eighteen countries the size of France and is 400 times as large as California.
One thing the Canadian will have going for it should the dispute fester is public opinion. Canadians clearly see it as a fight over their sovereignty. There is concern in Canada that President Bush, who they see as an aggressive bully, would be impossible to deal with on a consultative basis.
Arnie Patterson is a veteran Canadian journalist and broadcaster. A former Principal Press Secretary to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Patterson is a columnist for the Halifax Daily News and a retired radio stations owner.
43 Comments so far
Show AllI know how to defeat any attempted invasion of Canada.
We will just do what we did last time the US invaded us. Well take your soldiers to a bar, get them so drunk they can't stand on Canadian beer (6% alcohol compared to 2 or 3%), take away their guns, strip them to their skivvies, and march them back across the border.
And then we might just come on down and burn the Whitehouse to the ground. Again.
It's not even the Euro-Canadian colonial settler Parliament's land/water, it is on temporary loan from the original people who lived here before them and who are letting them use it for as long as the rivers run and the sun shines.
besides if they delay too long in taking Canada over The U.S.A. will have collapsed already as its economy is fluctuating too rapidly and the premises of the society's systems are based on unsound and unsustainable premises.
watch that inflation rate in the next few years folks, Canada has married an Addict and the house is already falling down, falling down, falling down, infrastructure falling down, my fair lady-O.
what will happen when all the post traumatic stress, trained to kill and seen too much of it, spent so long stifling the call of their consciences soldier come home to take part in the society already at a state of stress and self delusion?
it will no longer be enough to complain about the war, vote democrat and pretend that is all that is our responsibility, it will no longer be enough to protest the next war and the next war and the next war.
it will be time to do some healing and some intentional peace building from the grassroots up and take a hard look at how we can make a better society not addicted to affluence and willing to sacrifice our people for plastic wants, willing to kill for the matenance of our callow ignoring of the world around us.
"Could the United States and its neighbor Canada ever go to war?
Never a likely prospect..."
Ever go to war? I thought we already did, in 1812.
I seem to remember your generals thought it would be a cake walk and you'd be greeted as liberators.
Admiral McGee's ships would be another excuse for corporations to suck a few more billions from the US treasury.
Nightwatch August 8th, 2007 12:17 pm ...
According to the following link NAFTA has the final say ...
http://policyalternatives.ca/Editorials/2006/10/Editorial1452/index.cfm?pa=b56f3a15
Stop the war. Ditch NAFTA. Ditch WTO. Vote Kucinich.
annemarie j wrote: "Pardon my cynicism, but this goddamned avalanche that is the "new world disorder" is almost a done deal. That is excepting some divine, or alien, or other miraculous intervention."
Can you say "peak oil?" Cheap energy is what powers globaloney. That giant sucking sound you hear is the multinationals increasingly having to withdraw their tentacles as it becomes too expensive to support world-wide resources and markets.
At least I hope that's what will happen...
The US is running out of both oil and water. Canada has plenty of both. As caretaker of these precious resources for the Canadian people, the government of Canada has a duty to protect. The best scenario for both countries is for a deal to be struck for trading these resources --- on Canadian terms.
That's easier said than done. Canada's people will not part with their oil and water easily nor should they. Pay up, Uncle Sam, big time. Vile US bullying on trade deals under both Dems and Repugs have soured Canadians. Pisspot comments by pipsqueak navy men will not help. Moreover, oil sands extraction is terribly polluting with current technology and Canadians are not supportive of soiling their nest to give profit to Yankee traders. Arctic oil extraction will have even a bigger ecological imprint and Canadians will not tolerate it.
Hence the secret negotiations for a secret deal to cede sovereignty in North America under new terms of trade. This impending robbery is well described by Linda McQuaig in a recent column in the Toronto Star. PM Harper's recent antics in the North may be just cover for a giveaway. Cosying up to Dubya has been a feature of the Harper Government. Make it appear that you are fighting for Canada while secretly giving away the treasure trove. Canadians will explode with anger if that happens. Harper must know this, surely, and his minority government's fate depends on putting Canada first.
However bizarre it might seem, Canadians do worry about the American bully swaggering up north and the writer is not out to lunch.
I can't believe no one has mentioned that great movie "Canadian Bacon" by none other than Michael Moore. All about how easy it is to whip up sentiment for a war with anyone. With whom? With Canada! One of the late John Candy's finest performances. I highly recommend it. It's so funny, it'll make you cry.
Forget about Canada. Mexican army personnel have crossed the southern border of the us to assist drug smugglers and have gotten into gun fights with us police.
Cheryl R: I didn't mean to imply that PEI was "exactly like" the US, but it's on the dangerous path. I'm sure that the Confederation Bridge will greatly speed up that process. In my own 38 years on this planet here in Minnesota, I've seen whole townships transform from rural quaint pastoral settings into cookie-cutter template/franchise Nowhere, USA. Woodbury, Minnesota comes to mind. Anoka County just north of Minneapolis is another example. Within a 1000 feet or so you can find light industry, residential, a prison, and an elementary school. It's insane -- no order, no aesthetics to speak of, pedestrian-unfriendly, and whatever new businesses pop up tend to be corporate franchises. You can see Walmarts in Quebec also.
Here in the US, anyway, banks have become a place where the poor get penalized for being poor (paying interest to take out a loan), and the wealthy are rewarded for being rich (getting interest for their savings). Banks, in a nutshell, are economic injustice exacerbators. Identity is perhaps the last to go, economic self-determination is among the first.
I've been to Canada perhaps a dozen times or more. What I see changing the most is exactly what I see changing the most in the US: big boxification. It's the places off the beaten path, in both countries, that still retain local identity. For instance, at the northern tip of PEI, north of Tignish by the windmill research centre, you can still see a unique primary labor sector occuption -- harvesting of irish moss -- but that too is on the decline.
In the US, we're shifting from a secondary to tertiary and quaternary labor economy. an in doing so, we're being stripped of real estate equity and self-determination. The same will undoubtedly happen in Canada. What's a house cost in Vancouver relative to the median salary? In Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa? It's always priced a little beyond reach. How about empty/vacant land? You've got an awful lot of it -- it should be dirt cheap to get some acreage in a rural area and start a hobby farm. But is it? Why or why not?
canuckchuck, I took a look at some maps etc of the Northwest Passage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage
http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm
and yep, you're right. The comparative waters in the US would be the strait between Katmai National Park and Kodiak Island.
http://www.paleoresearch.com/Maps/USA States/Pics/Alaska.gif
Nuff Sed!?
Canada's Plan to save the USA
Provoke the USA to attack Canada, we would all immediately surrender, and Canada would instantly become part of the USA.
Then there would be an further 30 million votes against the Republicans next election
BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!
Paul Bramscher said:
"ezeflyer: Hmm…. Some conservatives (Buchanan) advocate isolationism, and some Democrats (LBJ) got us into Vietnam."
That's only if you assume isolationism brings peace and that Democrats (LBJ) are liberals, my friend. Here we go again:
Conservatives Deconstructed
by Joel Bleifuss
In These Times magazine, October 2003
Are they nuts?
Have you ever wondered about those ubiquitous conservatives?
Why do they support tax breaks for the rich when so many of their fellow citizens are in dire straits? Why do they applaud John Ashcroft and his post-9/11 curtailment of civil liberties? Why do they oppose laws that address historic wrongs and enforce constitutionally guaranteed rights? Why do they respond to a societal drug problem with incarceration and expanded prison construction? Why do they gut regulations that are meant to protect the environment? Why do they invest more than half of our tax dollars in the military? Why are they so meanspirited? In other words, why do conservatives do what they do? Are they nuts?
No, not according to a fascinating new study in Psychological Bulletin, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition." Conservatives do, however, possess certain psychological traits and motives that no one in their right (or is that left?) mind would want to share.
The study's four authors, John T. Jost, Jack Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Frank J. Sulloway, write, "People embrace political conservatism (at least in part) because it serves to reduce fear, anxiety and uncertainty; to avoid change, disruption and ambiguity; and to explain, order and justify inequality among groups and individuals." To come to this conclusion the authors examined 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries. They boiled that information down into a number of psychological attributes that are closely associated with people who are politically conservative.
Rigid and closed-minded
"Dogmatism has been found to correlate consistently with authoritarianism, political-economic conservatism, and the holding of right wing opinions," write the authors. Conversely, studies have found that conservatives in general have little tolerance for ambiguity. A fact that helps in decoding this statement that George W. Bush made in Genoa, Italy: "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right."
Such thinking could explain why the Bush administration officials ignored those intelligence reports that failed to support going to war with Iraq. "[Conservatives'] intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic clichés and stereotypes," write the authors.
Numerous studies have also shown that conservative policymakers entertain less cognitively complex thoughts than their liberal or moderate counterparts. A study of speeches made in the House of Commons in 1984 found that "the most integratively complex politicians were moderate socialists." Their complexity of thought was found to be significantly higher than that of extreme socialists, moderate conservatives or extreme conservatives. Similarly, in the United States, a study of speeches on the floor of the Senate in 1975 and 1976 found that senators with liberal or moderate voting records exhibited significantly more complex thinking than their conservative counterparts.
That explains a lot, doesn't it. Bush again comes to mind. As he told a British reporter, "Look, my job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think."
Further studies show that conservatives have been found to shun new, stimulating experiences and to avoid situations where the outcome is uncertain.
The authors write that the fact that conservatives are "less tolerant of ambiguity, less open to new experiences, and more avoidant of uncertainty. may help explain why "congressional Republicans and other prominent conservatives in the United States have sought unilaterally to eliminate public funding for the contemporary arts."
From an early age, conservatives demonstrate a personal need for order and structure. One study has shown that conservative teens are more likely to say they are "neat, orderly and organized" than are liberal adolescents. The authors note that this desire for set rules correlates with the examples of mental rigidity mentioned above, and can be seen in the political realm when conservatives attempt to order their own and other's lives by advocating drug testing, core educational curriculum, controls on people with AIDS, and strict parental control of children.
Impulsively aggressive
R.A. Altemeyer, a psychologist who has extensively studied people with right-wing beliefs, has observed:
[Right-wing authoritarians] see the world as a dangerous place, as society teeters on the brink of self-destruction from evil and violence. This fear appears to instigate aggression in them. Second, right-wing authoritarians tend to be highly self righteous. They think themselves much more moral and upstanding than others - a self perception considerably aided by self-deception.... This self-righteousness disinhibits their aggressive impulses and releases them to act out their fear-induced hostilities.
George Will seems steeped in that fear. To illustrate that point the authors quote this passage from an essay by Will: "Conservatives know the world is a dark and forbidding place where most new knowledge is false, most improvements are for the worse." Psychological studies back Will up. People with right-wing personalities hold more pessimistic views and left-wing personalities hold more optimistic ones. And that pessimism and optimism appears to inform how conservatives and liberals view their fellow humans. A 1984 survey of "emotional reactions to welfare recipients" found that conservatives "expressed greater disgust and less sympathy" than liberals.
While this propensity of conservatives to be threatened and fearful does not appear to induce neurotic behavior, one study of dream lives discovered that Republicans had three times as many nightmares as Democrats, indicating that fear, anger and aggression might be a factor in the subconscious motivations of conservatives.
The authors speculate that this susceptibility to fear "may help explain why military defense spending and support for national security receive much stronger backing from conservative than liberal political leaders."
Afraid of loss
It has long been known that conservatives resist change while progressives accept change. Indeed, according to studies, this is the most common way that people from both groups self-define themselves.
"To the extent that conservatives are especially sensitive to the possibilities of loss-one reason why they wish to preserve the status quo-it follows that they should be generally more motivated by negatively framed outcomes (potential losses) than by positively framed outcomes (potential gains)."
Consequently, conservatives respond better to threats. In a study conducted five days before the 1996 presidential election, researchers presented voters with persuasive arguments that stressed either the potential rewards of voting ("it is a way to express and live in accordance with important values") or the potential losses from not voting ("not voting allows others to take away your right to express your values"). More generally, the authors suggest that "framing events in terms of potential losses rather than gains leads people to adopt cognitively conservative, as opposed to innovative, orientations."
Haunted by death
Of course, the greatest personal loss is death. Studies demonstrate that the people who most fear death are the most conservative. More generally, the fear of death and the resulting protective posture that such a threat engenders cause people to become conservative and to strongly "defend culturally valued norms and practices" and "to distance themselves from, and even to derogate, out-group members to greater extent." Similarly, the fear of death has also been linked to "system-justifying forms of stereotyping and enhanced liking for stereotype-consistent women and minority group members" and "greater punitiveness, and even aggression, toward those who violate cultural values." Applying that knowledge, the authors write, "High profile terrorist attacks such as those of September 11, 2001, might simultaneously increase the cognitive accessibility of death and the appeal of political conservatism."
While trying to retain the impartiality of scientists, albeit social ones, the authors warn that the available evidence indicates that governments can manipulate people's conservative tendencies by raising the specter of death. They write, "Priming thoughts of death has been shown to increase intolerance, out-group derogation, punitive aggression, veneration of authority figures and system justification."
That is what we have seen in the wake of 9/11 as public opinion and media coverage took a sharp turn to the right, setting the stage for pre-emptive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The authors acknowledge what has long been assumed by sociologists, economists, and political scientists: people adopt conservative beliefs to serve their own self interests. They agree that this helps explain the conservatism of "upper-class elites." However, the authors hold that the personal need to "reduce fear, anxiety, dissonance, uncertainty or instability" better explains why a vastly greater number of people who are not part of the elite, and particularly those who are disadvantaged or from low-status groups, "might embrace right-wing ideologies."
The authors also take issue with the common notion that people inherit ideological beliefs from their parents. A statistically significant correlation exists between the two, but it is far from overwhelming. The authors maintain, "Conservative ideologies, like virtually all other belief systems, are adopted in part because they satisfy various psychological needs."
Conservatives have not taken kindly to "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition." Will, perhaps fearing the truth, ridiculed the study in the Washington Post, making fun of the authors' academic jargon.
Yet this delineation of the psychological needs that motivate conservatives provides progressives with lessons on how they might communicate with a wider audience. For example, when speaking to the problems of the PATRIOT Act, administration critics could reach out to a conservative audience by emphasizing that the act presents a radical infringement on the Bill of Rights, and should therefore be opposed by all who value the precepts on which America was founded.
"Paul Bramscher August 7th, 2007 12:09 pm
And yet they voted (assuming the ballots weren't just as cooked as ours have been down here) for Stephen Harper. He seems to be cut from the same mold as Bush.
..."
The only thing they have in common is being spoiled, bratts.
"punkassbeeotch August 7th, 2007 12:23 pm
Speaking of Canada/U.S.A. relationship:
Dooes anyone know anything about the "North Atlantic Union"?
This is all I have heard about it: ..."
I don't know yet what Carolyn Baker says, but if she refers to 'North Atlantic Union', then she's not a reference on the topic, for it [IS] 'NORTH AMERICAN UNION'; between the U.S., which'll be boss, as usual, and Mexico and Ca, both of which will see their sovereignties totally disappeared, and FAST.
" colleen August 7th, 2007 12:45 pm
Yes I think most Canadians would strongly oppose a US domination of the arctic passage. ...
..."
Canadians, maybe, Canadian govt, unlikely.
"colleen August 7th, 2007 1:19 pm
Paul Bramscher
...
Harpur is sucking up to Bush, but then look at what he has to deal with and you can see why he would find it difficult to oppose the Bush administration. Harpur imo is a very skilled politician, but may be out of his league with the US
..."
That's NO excuse, and yes, Harper's sucking up to the [Cheney]-Bush administration.
"Canadians seem to be unsure about backing America with troops in Afghanistan. They want to help the people in Afghanistan imo but are concerned about American policies. Most breathe a sigh of relief they are not in Iraq."
I DO NOT KNOW where that observation is from, for Quebec has been seriously criticized because Quebecers are not only unsure but opposed. The rest of Ca has been criticizing Quebecers because of this, and that does not strike me as being unsure of siding with the US in the war of definitely criminal aggression on Afghanistan and the nasty bunch known as the Taliban.
"In Canada when one soldier dies there is a feeling of deep sadness that is expressed, as opposed to the US where for a long time the deaths of soldiers were hidden."
There is some of that, but it's still superficial enough.
"locust
There is some movement in Canada to help what they call the First Nation or the indigenous people of Canada.
..."
Want resource websites on Aboriginals in Canada, then the following are some of the very best.
MNN, MohawkNationNews.com,
http://www.mohawknationnews.com
http://www.grahamdefense.org
http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org
CFAR, Canadians for Aboriginal Rights Forum,
http://cfar.proboards104.com
I've read enough from the above to know that they are good resources. MNN is really a news website, but also has plenty of historical information, including on laws of Aboriginal peoples of Ca. CFAR has a very sharp host or moderator, Connie Kidd, aka grannysaga; very sharp, a very good resource person.
I have plenty of other sites bookmarked but will just provide the above. Other sites can be found the way that I found them, via websites I was using and Web searches. It doesn't take a lot of imagination.
As for 'day of action' matters, I suggest verifying with MNN, because there isn't uniformity in Ca among all Aboriginals. The Indian Affairs ministry in the Canadian govt is NOT honest, and is sucking up to white man imperialists, etc., f.e.
That there are poverty-stricken aboriginals in Ca having drug use problems is not something of aboriginal culture; it's because of white man's imperialism and perpetual, relentless injustices most of all.
Ms Horn at MNN will provide you with the best of the best of information, although also CFAR. At MNN, just select the news section from the homepage, and then browse around from there. There's a lot of information there, and CFAR is very good for asking questions, getting further informed.
HiddenFromHistory is also very important resource, but of a different kind; as you'll learn if check out this resource. I hope you have good, healthy heart if you do read there, for it has some [shocking] history to tell about. It's a must read, imo, but some people might be unable to go through such history; it is NOT ... but very shocking. However, there's also lesser, easier to take content.
GrahamDefense is an activist website for or on behalf of an aboriginal man who's very wrongfully accused and persecuted; particularly by the U.S. govt. The U.S. wants him extradited to the U.S., and we already know what the U.S. has done with Leonard Peltier, so Graham definitely must not be extradited. Besides, they, as far as I'm aware, are both Canadian aboriginals, so ....
Leonard Peltier has never been proven really guilty, yet he's serving over his 30th year imprisoned, now. Some members of the U.S. Congress, two different times I believe to recall, wanted to work to have him released, but both times failed. Yet, and again, Leonard Peltier has never been really proven to have been guilty. He was at the scene of the "heat", when some violence occurred, but he's never been proven to be guilty.
Graham must remain in Ca.
As for the NAU, the North [American] Union matter, it's all about the U.S. govt again going after natural resources. Alberta has the world's second richest oil resources in terms of easiest extraction, with the oil sands, and Ca is, if I recall correctly also, the world's greatest water or fresh water resource country. There're also minining resources, and one I read about not long ago is uranium. Mexico also has petrol, and I suppose other resources.
The U.S. govt would not be interested in pushing for something like the NAU if it was not for exploitation. It's NOT the U.S. way to do otherwise; the U.S. has NO history of being benevolant, only invader, aggressor, ..., and exploiter. Nope, the U.S. govt and its behind-the-scenes controllers and profiteers want the natural resources.
EVERYONE should be already well aware of and considerably informed about the NAU, SPP, etc. Those who aren't can do Web searches, while one very reasonable website is GlobalResearch.ca .
If you don't know about the NAU, SPP, ... yet, then you best get well read up on this matter; if you are resident and/or citizen of any of the three North American countries anyway. NAFTA was very bad, harmful, though there were, are the profiteers, some profited, many LOST. NAU is SUPER-NAFTA, and [will] see sovereignties, particular Canadian and Mexican going ... bye-bye, ended.
It's amazing that CD has not provided ANY articles at all on the NAU, and I wonder why.
Paul B. can you honestly say that Prince Edward Island (WalMart or no WalMart) was like any place you'd ever been in the US? I was there in June and I thought it was wonderfully unique. Because of the people. They have a heart and spirit I've not encountered anywhere else. Yet across the rest of Canada, it is also the people that make this Canada. Their hearts. Their spirit. Even if we are someday completely controlled, Northwest Passage to 49th parallel, by the American corporate machine, we will remain every bit as Canadian as we are now. Anyone who assumes we will become Americanized by economic or military means does not know Canadians. Just ask a Quebecois how stubborn Canadians can be about their identity.
I agree, Paul, that not all Americans believe in plundering the world, and I hope that right-thinking Americans will see the obvious justice of Canada's right to protect her territory and will voice support for our sovereignty whenever possible.
commonman03,
The problems you have with America are perhaps only 25% America, and 75% the Bush mob and their Democrat hawks. Be careful not to blame all of us for the active failure of the few, or the passive apathy of the many.
No military war, but there may be a more pervasive, economic & ideological war. You'll be dominated by the same Big Boxes, you'll have your health care system slowly -- but surely -- privatized, you'll slowly find it virtually impossible to afford real estate or start a small business. You'll need to leave the small towns and find work in the bigger cities, you'll see your civil service and universities increasingly politicized and corporotized.
Though American, I bet I've seen more of Canada than many Canadians (having roadtripped from Calgary to Cape Breton, NS). When I saw a Walmart on otherwise quaint and pastoral Prince Edward Island last summer I knew the score. The war is of local economics and self-determination vs. the corporations based in Nowhere, Nocountry.
To our American neighbours (friends?):
There will not be a war. Though Bush may not honour the Rule of Law, we Canadians do and the matter will have to be litigated in International Courts. The issue of whether it is an International Waterway or a Canadian Internal Waterway will be determined by due process.
Harper was elected by accident though he only has a minority government - we in Canada have more than two parties. He can't do much without passing close scrutiny by all the parties (unlike Bush who operates as though there were no legislative branch of government, only the executive).
Harper is wasting our money buying those ships, they will be purely a symbolic gesture, but it would be a compelling sight to see a little Canadian vessel take on the might of the U.S. navy. World opinion would prevent such a faceoff - but then remember, Canadians are pretty good at faceoffs, eh?
There is much more at stake for the U.S. in the development of the Alberta tar sands which promises to supply all the oil the U.S. will need before we all plunge into a global warming crisis. Then the fight will be for habitable land closest to the pole.
Just remember, you can fit the entire Canadian army into one medium sized hockey arena. There won't be a war. And Canada (to my knowledge) is still America's largest trading partner. There won't be a war.
Does anybody remember the term "Anschluss?"
Look out, Canada. One of these days der Bush is going to look at your natural resources and determine that Canada is just a corridor between Alaska and the lower 48, and that you really should be a part of America. Of course the new "Greater North American Co-Prosperity Sphere" that the three dictators are pushing would make it even easier. It is designed to make us all one nation, with Canada's resources raped by US business, using cheap Mexican labor, all to be oppressed by Homeland Security, backed by US troops if necessary.
I think the U.S. government wants the northewest passage to be international so long as they hold the keys as to who gets to use it.
kelmer, you are totally right
at the same time there is nothing to worry about untill Canada is holding the bully's coat
Eh, canuckchuck? What is Canada doing with all that American oil under your NWP? ;-)
Canada is 24 times the size of California (not 400 times bigger).
Whats wrong with those canadians, don't they know that whatever it is, no matter where it is,
the USA has a God given right to take it? Just give it to us and your our good friend, if you
don't hand it over, you've got yourself a war. It's happened a dozen times, you think they
would have learned by now.
ezflyer: Hmm.... Some conservatives (Buchanan) advocate isolationism, and some Democrats (LBJ) got us into Vietnam.
If we have to use metaphors, let's use "hawks" and "doves". Some believe that thievery on a national scale is ethical, some don't. Some mistake defense for offense, some don't.
Conservative leaders take us to war. Liberal leaders keep us out of war.
annemarie,
As dictators Bush & Cheney could arrange a union with Canada without the people's consent. That's the nature of dictatorship. Most of the Austrian people hated the idea of anschluss with Germany, but after the assassination of Dolfuss, the way was open and Nazi troops marched in. You Canadians had better think about this seriously. Sometimes history repeats itself, especially when a certain U.S. president's grandfather was a Nazi collaborator.
I read some things on a Stephen Harper website about building ships to defend the Canadian north. Against what? An army of polar bears? Is Joe Sixpacks in Iraq going to throw in the towel on his family business as a poor storekeeper, cross the North Atlantic in a rowboat, navigating by stars, set up training bases in the Arctic, eventually get a million man army established, then come down in streaming hoardes on horseback?
Puhleese. There isn't going to be any out-and-out war between Canada and the U.S.! In fact, Homer J. is correct about Canada being America Jr., for the most part. Canada has long been "owned", by the Yanks and other globalists.
If there is a confrontation over the area and its waters, and there may well be (water wars, why not! grrr) it will primarily be between the Russians and the Yanks. Any actual Canuck "opposition" will be grandstanding, bleating, and pseudo-macho posturing on the part of our Pols. Any and all protests from nationalist Canadians will be drowned out, or summarily ignored.
The North American Union? It has been long in the works. Manifest Destiny by any other name! Look it up.
Pardon my cynicism, but this goddamned avalanche that is the "new world disorder" is almost a done deal. That is excepting some divine, or alien, or other miraculous intervention.
Just bend over some more, take that digital chip that'll soon (few years?) be "offered" to you, and practice saying just how much you love Big Brother!
If there were to be a war it will be for the usual reasons - the rich sobs who pull the strings are feeling threatened. When did the arctic stop belonging to the Inuit? As far as I know they have never signed any treaties. As they presently slouch both the USA and Canada are piss poor examples of nationhood. They should both be dissolved, with all non aboriginals being repatriated back to their surname's point of ethnic origin. Barring this impractical wish the powers of corporations need to be reduced to that of a kitchen chair. Actions attributed to a corporation must be resolved to the human that made the decision for the corporation to act. This is called Accountability which is the handmaiden of Freedom.
Hey Canuckchuck vote for Harpo & Co he and his ilk certainly don't mind providing the shit in the White House an excuse to bring "democracy" to Canada. Yes like the other guy said "Find something else to worry about". Nationalism is the last bastion of a scoundrel!
If and when there is another terrorist attack in the USA Bush & Cheney will automatically become dictators, after which, like Hitler's anschluss with Austria, Bush in his arrogance might desire a union with Canada and Mexico to form a corporate North America without government oversight and without borders.
you'll notice that the North West Passage runs right through the middle of the Canadian Territory of NUNAVUT, which is an ancient Canadian Inuit word that means:
You yankees ain't getting "NONE-OF-IT"
if the North West Passage, surrounded by Canadian lands on all sides, in an "International Waterway", then so is the Mississippi River.
Kepp your dirty hands off of our oil, Yankees.
correction
Aboriginal Day of Action
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Day_of_Action
Homer Simpson: Canada? Why would I want to leave America to visit America Jr?
Talk about a tempest in a teapot. The Northwest passage was not even traversed by a ship until 1903, after 350 years of trying. It is not a practical route to anywhere for the U.S.
As far as the nuclear submarine Charlotte traversing the passage, this was solely based on a photo of the submarine near the pole. Since the passage is east-west, not north-south, it doesn't make sense for U.S. subs to use this route to go under the pole. Why not use the Bering strait as we have done in the past. Find something else to worry about.
Paul Bramscher
I think Harpur got in because of tradtional political corruption in the Liberal party with the criminal misuse of money ( Gomery Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomery_Commission )
Harpur is sucking up to Bush, but then look at what he has to deal with and you can see why he would find it difficult to oppose the Bush administration. Harpur imo is a very skilled politician, but may be out of his league with the US
Canadians seem to be unsure about backing America with troops in Afghanistan. They want to help the people in Afghanistan imo but are concerned about American policies. Most breathe a sigh of relief they are not in Iraq.
In Canada when one soldier dies there is a feeling of deep sadness that is expressed, as opposed to the US where for a long time the deaths of soldiers were hidden.
locust
There is some movement in Canada to help what they call the First Nation or the indigenous people of Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations
They have a high percentage of crimes and drug related problems. How to address these problems is a point of discussion and Canada has some special programs to help the First Nation people.
There are also some protests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Day_of_Act
Yes I think most Canadians would strongly oppose a US domination of the arctic passage. If there were US companies that offered money to some Canadians that might sway some of them to support a US control.
But Canadians are quietly strong for their nation. How many more alliances can the US destroy with over reaching into other nations? Canada is a very liked nation around the world. There would be world wide support for Canada imo.
Even a large segment of the US population would oppose a confrontation like this with Canada. It would probably be hidden as a confrontation with Russia and that the US was "protecting" Canada.
Imo it belongs to Canada.
Hey, Canada is South of the United States in Detroit!
Well let me see, Canada does not have armed border guards along the 49th parallel, but we will and it will take ten years to train our people who man the border crossing. Ten years. Now we are told by our government that we are going to build eight new ships to defend the north. How many years will that take, any guesses out there.
I don't like to be critical of our armed forces up here, but I can't help but laugh. And maybe cry, because it is very sad.
Please be kind and gentle, whoever takes us over.
Speaking of Canada/U.S.A. relationship:
Dooes anyone know anything about the "North Atlantic Union"?
This is all I have heard about it:
http://www.carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/60/
And yet they voted (assuming the ballots weren't just as cooked as ours have been down here) for Stephen Harper. He seems to be cut from the same mold as Bush.
This will be a subtle ideological and economic takeover, not an military one. With the loony and USD almost 1:1, only a face of border security, NAFTA, proliferation of Walmarts, etc. little or nothing separates powerful US interests from Canada. From a top-down perspective, it's already basically a single country, eh?
Canada need only look to the behavior of the USA towards the indigenous peoples of the continent to see what happens to anybody being in the way.
Global warming will also open up lots of Canadian territury to exploitation, especially water and food resources.
Canada should consider building a wall along their border to keep the southerners out.
Stilba,
You imagine I favor such events?! I detest Bush & Cheney as the corporate fascists they are! But anyone who dares to think beyond their eyeballs can see the Bush agenda. I'm trying to warn people. All our lives are in danger as the Constitution and democracy are nullified.
entelechey: "If and when there is another terrorist attack in the USA Bush & Cheney will automatically become dictators, after which, like Hitler's anschluss with Austria, Bush in his arrogance might desire a union with Canada and Mexico to form a corporate North America without government oversight and without borders."
I thought this was a site for progressive-liberals, not stupid-hyperboles? (I'll head to oreilly.com when I want that, thank you)