james rahn

I agree, but I still don't see the words "doomed to failure" anywhere in the report and that certainly doesn't seem like the thrust of it. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=255563

Not trying to be obtuse here, but if the AWPPA in no way claims the NWP as Canadian, then that seems to support M. Dancer's point that Canada in fact has no federal legislation claiming the passage. If the AWPPA is struck down by a UN court, then it would seem difficult to claim any control over the passage if it is't officially recognized as Canadian Cheers

I don't think anyone is happy with the present circumstances. I'm not sure Manley said the mission was doomed to failure, but I think he said just leaving was the least preferable option. What I think the future of the mission hinges on is the federal liberals. They're in a sticky situation. If they can manage to somehow support the findings of the Manley Report while still maintaining credibility as the official opposition (and not alienating their voter support base), then I think theres a good chance Canadians will still be in Afghanistan after 2009 in one capacity or another.

The problem is that the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea supercedes the Arctic Waters Poluution Prevention Act. As such, the AWPPA is not automatically void, but becomes challengeable in an international court. An international court can rule it illegal under the UN Convention.

I think the Manley Report is a fairly accurate assesment of what the situation is for Canada's role in Afghanistan. I think there is room for further debate, especially on the issue of NGO's operating there. But from groups that oppose our involvement, I would like to actually see a comprehensive alternative strategy from what Manley has proposed. We can't just leave. If we do we break faith with those who died believing in the mission, and the Taliban wins.

The problem is that the Northwest Passage is not completely surrounded by Canadian Land. Both ends of the passage lead to open sea. Similarly, neither is the province of Alberta completely surrounded by Canadian land, bordering on the United States to the south. If you don't agree that Alberta should be a part of Canada (which maps and atlases show as being fully Canadian territory), how can you claim to defend the Northwest Passage as Canadian? If Alberta ever does separate from Canada, it will become part of the US alot sooner than the Northwest Passage will. Economically Alberta won't have any other alternative than complete economic if not political union.

I agree...

I'm not a card-carrying liberal or conservative (or any other party either) and I'm not from Calgary, but I just want to see what kind of reaction this generates. Bronconnier, the next Alberta Liberal leader and the next Premier of the province. Thoughts...

I agree: Lets get some of those nifty Ukranian Antonov AN70s and forget about 4 billions dollars for C17s for the air force. Sure they're completely incompatible with anything were now using, but they're also really cool planes.

I agree, but there's still the issue of consistency. Compare downtown with unbridled urban sprawl of the area around South Edmonton Common and the west end. Besides, the problem with revitalizing downtown is the blasted parking rates! GO OIL KINGS!!!

You know that should be true, but I'm not sure that it is. The US has done a lot to develop the Canadian Arctic. Motivated out of self-interest of course, but still....

So...were the reasons for getting involved in WW1 and WW2 as confounded as our reasons for getting involved in Afghanistan? You need to clarify your position here, because if it is valid, it must be able to bear the weight of scrutiny. The reasons don't seem confounded at all: national self-interest, plain and simple. And I think there are times when that is a valid reason. Forgive me for being dense, sometimes I'm just not the sharpest knife in the drawer. But why -- if as you say,you question everything that is put before the public -- would you question the history of the first World War (which has borne historical scrutiny for almost a hundred years now) while at the same time coming out so powerfully for isolationism when it comes to current events in Afghanistan that have not yet been examined by history? How can you question issues related to the first World War (almost a century ago) and concurrently be so certain regarding what's happening in Afghanistan now? It would seem a direct comparison by your own criteria between WW1 and Afghanistan should not be possible for another hundred years. On another note, why the concern with the United States possibly invading Canada? That is the last thing that one would ever expect to happen, even with often-strained relations between the two nations. Why wouldn't you take a lesson from history here? It seems world events would show that as being almost impossible: if the US&A and coalition forces still haven't been able to put down the insurgency in a nation the size of Iraq, how on earth would they manage to occupy a nation with the land mass of Canada? You seem to be fairly articulate but your arguments are weak, and because of that you are coming across as cynical, which is the antithesis of open-mindedness. cheers

What purpose is that? So the Oilers have a nicer stadium to not win the Stanley Cup in? At least with a tower we could go up to the top and think, Gee, maybe losing the Stanley Cup isn't so bad, we still have all this wonderful 70's architcture across the city to look at.

I know I said a few posts back that sovereignty is the responsibility of DND and the RCMP, but I think they should give the coast guard some sort of ex-officio status. Sidearms and personal protective armour for boarding parties. You never know what type of situation a vessel might run into, and they should have a least a basic self-defence capability.

"Cause it's cheaper than a new stadium and I really miss the 70's. Can't help it, I'm getting old I guess.

Ask any AME (or parachutist), there's no such thing as a perfectly good airplane. I'm just glad I never signed a mantenance release for one that went down.

Okay, here's the long answer. Bear with me... If what you mean when you say 'island continent' is that we are geographically separated from many of the world's hot spots by vast oceans, yes, you are correct. The pertinent question is, so what? We might not be in danger form foreign invasion, but nuclear weapons can cross oceans quite easily. The vastness of the Atlantic Ocean did nothing to stop 9/11. Just because we are surrounded by water doesn't mean we are isolated socially, politically or economically from the rest of the world. In fact with modern technology, the world is getting much smaller. Sometimes there is very little that can be done to improve a bad situation in world affairs, but that doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to the rest of the planet and the people who live on it to at least try. With regard to the age of empires being behind us, that won't happen until tyranny itself becomes just a part of our past. From quick scan of world news headlines, that hasn't happened yet -- isn't anywhere near happening -- and political isolationism won't make it happen. The people in Iraq, Palestine and in Afghanistan who are committed to blowing up anything they interpret as being western (and often themselves in the process) must be given other options. We've got soldiers fighting to bring stability to Afghanistan and hopefully to reduce the threat of terrorism here in North America. You cannot separate the two interests. It takes military action and also economic reforms and both will take time. Canada developed over several centuries into the relatively peaceful society it is today, and part of the reason for that is that we did get involved in two world wars and fought them before the turmoil could reach our own shores. Neither can we expect Afghanistan or Palestine or Iraq to magically turn into peaceful, tolerant societies overnight or even over a single decade. It takes a high level of involvement over a long period of time. It'd be nice if we could fly off to Mars and leave everything behind, but right now that isn't an option. We're all pretty much stuck here on this planet. Even if we could go to Mars, how long do you think it would be before we'd have the same problems there? So instead of focusing on the oceans that separate us, the solution, I believe, is to focus on the things that bring nations together. I've always felt that people in the Middle East, Africa, People's Republic of China, etc. all ultimately want some of the same things out of life as we do: a certain level of personal significance and perhaps a better life for our children. At least that way, we have a starting point for change. Finally, there is no need to speculate about history, for it often repeats itself. Former Prime Minister Lester Pearson's words concerning the Second World War take on new significance in the light of Septeber 11, 2001. He said, "Until the last great war, a general expectation of material improvement was an idea peculiar to Western man. Now war and its aftermath have made economic and social progress a political imperative in every quarter of the globe." ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke

You know, you might be right. It might not be as expensive as I thought. I'll have to check the EJ news article indexes. I think a multi-use facility rather than a stand alone hockey arena is the plan though, and I think the conservative estimate is over 1 billion for that. It might be cheaper just to build a tower like Calgary has, only taller. It's not like the Oilers will ever win the Stanley Cup again. The series against Carolina was their swan song.

I actually thought Bombardier did have a SAR version of the 415, but that it was a bit limited range-wise and more suited to a marine environment. http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0.../3_3/3_3_0.html Glad to hear the 138's in Yellowknife will be replaced with new ones. That little airplane does a whole lot for Canadian sovereignty in the high arctic. Worth it's payload in gold, IMO. Sure with the CG had some of those when I was in Hay River.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" lol As long as they stay under the ice, there isn't really a problem. US subs aren't a threat to Canadian Sovereignty any more than the NORAD agreement is. The United States is still a strategic military ally. Besides, it's easy to say the Rangers can't do anything about submarines, but it's not like the Canadian Navy would do anything about it either. When it comes to submarines the issue becomes one of strategic importance. US subs should be up there in the event Russian or Chinese subs might be there too. There is a written cooperative agreement between the Canadian and US Coast Guards that allows the two agencies to work together, while also specifically stating that such cooperation not be construed as having anything to do with issues of sovereignty. Apparently there is also a similar agreement in principle between Canada and the United States with regard to US submarines that says their simple presence in the arctic doesn't negate any claim Canada might make under international law. I know the Canadian government is looking at placing an array of SOSUS sensors on the Arctic seabed (I think in Lancaster Sound somewhere), but unless the technology has improved exponentially in recent years, it would be a waste of money. Even if relatively soft first year ice (predominant in the sound) covers the surface, the sensors become very sensitive to something called ice scouring, and can't effectively detect a submarine passing over top. So even if the sensors did pick something up, another nation (Russia, China, US) could simply deny the whole thing because the technology isn't 100% accurate. If the US should ever say to Canada, "We will not accept your claim to the waters of the Arctic Archipelago unless Canada also has nuclear submarines", then they are effectively saying to the world that they will not respect a nation's sovereignty unless that nation has some type of nuclear capability, even a passive one. THAT is something I'm sure both the Iranian and North Korean governments would love to hear the US Administration come out with, so I don't think the Americans will ever bring nuclear submarines into the equation when it comes to the Arctic. Also under international law (Fisheries Case, 1951) a nation only has to take reasonable measures to claim sovereignty over disputed waters. There is no requirement for nuclear submarines. Canada does however, have a secret training camp specifically for it's arctic anti-submarine forces, shown here on an interdiction exercise. http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/i...ges%5Chono2.gif

I agree with you on the River Valley. It's just gorgeous! But hey, Calgary has this really cool tower and a Paddleboat at Heritage Park. Canada has the Edmonton stuck-in-the-mud Queen. With regard to the light rail extension. Why should I be happy my tax dollars are paying for that? I don't live on the South Side, I live on the North Side near CastleDowns, and it doesn't do a thing for me. The money that's going to pay for that LRT to the deceased Heritage Mall and the yet-unbuilt Century Park could be used to clear the snow away from the sidewalks around my son's school. And you say the LRT is next going to Mill Woods? Great! Why is extending the LRT way out there a priority? If that's true, we won't see any effective snow removal, adequate policing or enough affordable housing in Edmonton for the next 15 years! You want to talk about brown? Talk a look at our streets. There's brown sandy slush all over the place. The city is out there sanding like crazy and doing nothing else. As far as that new stadium, they'd better hold a plebiscite on that one. That's a multi-billion dollar project. IF they go ahead on that, the city might as well just stop sanding and grading the streets in winter (and repairing them all summer because the snow was never removed in the first place) and sell the police force -- we won't be able to afford either for the foreseable future. Mayor Stephen Mandel is a former land developer and his priorities since taking office have been clear...multibillion dollar pet projects and the heck with anything else. I love Edmonton and the people here, but I'm not blind to the problems it's facing. Edmonton has all the resources to be a great city but it has small-minded leadership with delusions of grandeur.

It would be nice if the world worked that way,. Sounds like you have very high moral expectations for the human race , but unfortunately if that had been the predominent attitude 60 years ago, I think we would've lost the Second World War. Non-interference is commendable, but I think interference and involvement are two different things, and it's important to differentiate between the two. Although it's often hard to make a distinction, trying to establish a consensus among nations can be helpful. If that doesn't work, then a nation must act in its' own interest; it simply doesn't have any choice. Not every threat is an internal threat, and if you wait until a conflict reaches your own shores, it could too late.

Is it because the Hercs are to large and not manoevrable enough over BC's type of terrain? I thought the problem with the TO was that it was too small to carry the equipment the SarTechs need. I have to admit though, I hope DND replaces the YK twin otters with new ones. Kenn Borek Air flys a couple dozen of them up in the north and its a fantastic little airplane. Like to see the CG with a couple of them up there.

Dang...You tricked me! Actually, with the 8 A/OPVs in the water, I think a half dozen frigates would be enough. Not to change the subject or anything, but my biggest concern with reducing the number of frigates or destroyers would be the loss of an area air defence capability, which is something I think a warship venturing off to the Persian Gulf should have. But I think that's a capability only the remaining three Iroqouis' have on board.