U.S. to Require Passenger Lists for Flights

[Guest American Woman]

It is a reciprocal agreement as far as I can remember.

http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefinitionF...detailsE_en.pdf

Yep. Looks that way. Thanks for the link.

Again, I can understand why some of you would feel the way you do. Canada was taking a big risk when you took in our planes on 9-11; that was a big risk to Canadians and your country.

Maybe this will never even go through. But I have to disagree with the idea that we shouldn't do something just because it pisses off our allies. If that were the case, you'd be listening to the U.S. regarding decriminalizing pot, as an example, and I sure don't expect your country to act according to our wishes; I don't expect your government to act in a way that doesn't piss of my government. Furthermore, you would have agreed to go into Iraq with us. Surely your staying out of it pissed off the U.S., your ally.

Edited October 17, 2007 by American Woman

[Wilber]

I don't expect your government to act in a way that doesn't piss of my government. Furthermore, you would have agreed to go into Iraq with us. Surely your staying out of it pissed off the U.S., your ally.

You forget that going into Iraq was your idea, we weren't consulted in the matter. Would the US go to war under those conditions? We are in Afghanistan as your allies because the people who attacked you came from there.

[Guest American Woman]

You forget that going into Iraq was your idea, we weren't consulted in the matter. Would the US go to war under those conditions? We are in Afghanistan as your allies because the people who attacked you came from there.

What difference does it make whose idea it was? You said pissing off your allies wasn't the right way of dealing with them. So if we should never do anything that pisses you off, you should never do anything that pisses us off. Shouldn't it be a two way street?

[guyser]

Again, I can understand why some of you would feel the way you do. Canada was taking a big risk when you took in our planes on 9-11; that was a big risk to Canadians and your country.

Normally when the SHTF , we will both do what has to be done and sort the rest out later. It was a risk at the time, but I would bet there is no one who would have done otherwise , in either country.Lets not forget that it was people being saved or billited out of harms way , not govt officials.

Maybe this will never even go through. But I have to disagree with the idea that we shouldn't do something just because it pisses off our allies. If that were the case, you'd be listening to the U.S. regarding decriminalizing pot, as an example, and I sure don't expect your country to act according to our wishes;

How about heavy influence then. Because that is exactly what the US ambassador implied re Canada decriminalizing pot. Heavy delays at the border , slowing down of the economy etc. Thhis is where the elephant crushes the mouse, even if the mouse owns the house.

I don't expect your government to act in a way that doesn't piss of my government. Furthermore, you would have agreed to go into Iraq with us. Surely your staying out of it pissed off the U.S., your ally.

Yes it did. Big time. But neither leader was good at diplomacy and did nothing to ensure the right people were talking.

[Wilber]

What difference does it make whose idea it was? You said pissing off your allies wasn't the right way of dealing with them. So if we should never do anything that pisses you off, you should never do anything that pisses us off. Shouldn't it be a two way street?

Where were you in 1914 and 1939 in that case. We reserve the right to make up our own minds when we are going to send our people out to get killed. Just because you have decided it is a good idea to invade someone doesn't mean we have to agree. I'm sure you reserve the right to make the same determination. The US has never gone to war on someone elses say so.

[bush_cheney2004]

Where were you in 1914 and 1939 in that case. We reserve the right to make up our own minds when we are going to send our people out to get killed. Just because you have decided it is a good idea to invade someone doesn't mean we have to agree. I'm sure you reserve the right to make the same determination. The US has never gone to war on someone elses say so.

Where were "we"?....mainly minding our own business strongarming the Americas. Dying for king and queen and their messy empires was a decidedly un-American thing to do. It would seem that Canada has gone to war specifically when someone else says so (Boer Wars, WWI, WW2, etc.).

To the point at hand, powerful nation states have interests, and that includes "pissing off" allies and foes alike. That's how they get "powerful".

Edited October 18, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Where were "we"?....mainly minding our own business strongarming the Americas. Dying for king and queen and their messy empires was a decidedly un-American thing to do. It would seem that Canada has gone to war specifically when someone else says so (Boer Wars, WWI, WW2, etc.).

To the point at hand, powerful nation states have interests, and that includes "pissing off" allies and foes alike. That's how they get "powerful".

Not WWII but the others yes.

The more you badmouth the overbearing pushy Brits of the colonial days and tell us what supposedly makes you different, the more you imitate them. Seems you aren't much different after all.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not WWII but the others yes.

The more you badmouth the overbearing pushy Brits of the colonial days and tell us what supposedly makes you different, the more you imitate them. Seems you aren't much different after all.

Likewise I'm sure.....the difference is that we can still do it...without a king or a queen.

[Wilber]

Likewise I'm sure.....the difference is that we can still do it...without a king or a queen.

I guess you haven't noticed but the subjects of the Queen of England went to Iraq. The subjects of the Queen of Canada did not.

At the time we were also British subjects which meant we could live, travel and work anywhere in the Empire. Max Aitken and Samuel Cunard among many others were Canadians who ended up peers so it was worth something at the time.

Yes you can but you have been doing it on VISA for the last 5 years. Your namesakes have squandered a mountain of post 9/11 good will, pissed off most of your allies, your esteem and currency are at historical lows. Great stuff for the anti Americans but it worries me. Should worry you to but probably not.

WWII was dieing for the messy Empire? Whether you like it or not, that messy Empire gave you your language and common law.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess you haven't noticed but the subjects of the Queen of England went to Iraq. The subjects of the Queen of Canada did not.

Different queen..different results? Who is Australia's queen?...they went to. Does the queen thing work like the Holy Trinity?

At the time we were also British subjects which meant we could live, travel and work anywhere in the Empire. Max Aitken and Samuel Cunard among many others were Canadians who ended up peers so it was worth something at the time.

I'm sure your reasons for war in far off lands are as good as ours.

Yes you can but you have been doing it on VISA for the last 5 years. Your namesakes have squandered a mountain of post 9/11 good will, pissed off most of your allies, your esteem and currency are at historical lows. Great stuff for the anti Americans but it worries me. Should worry you to but probably not.

That's how we paid for WW2 as well.

WWII was dieing for the messy Empire? Whether you like it or not, that messy Empire gave you your language and common law.

And tyranny...so we jolly well booted them in the ass. Loyalists fled to Canada.

[Wilber]

Different queen..different results? Who is Australia's queen?...they went to. Does the queen thing work like the Holy Trinity?

The Queen has nothing to do with it. That's the point.

I'm sure your reasons for war in far off lands are as good as ours.

They were, that's why we insist on picking our own now.

That's how we paid for WW2 as well.

Us to.

And tyranny...so we jolly well booted them in the ass. Loyalists fled to Canada.

Tyranny my backside. Stupidity mostly. Basically they wanted you to help pay for your own defense. They picked a dumb assed way of going about it. Should be lesson there.

[bush_cheney2004]

Tyranny my backside. Stupidity mostly. Basically they wanted you to help pay for your own defense. They picked a dumb assed way of going about it. Should be lesson there.

Of course, those old men in Philadelphia were so silly to interpret that as tyranny!

Regardless, it has worked out quite well for both....the queen can still count her gold, and the Americans can count barrels of oil. Canada can do whatever it wants to do as well.

I love a happy ending.

[Agaric]

It is a pretty hefty amount of information that has to be gathered 72 hours before a fight. Passenger itinerary? Doe everyone have to have that? Will they deny someone a flight in Canada to Brazil if they don't give a complete itinerary? Will this eventually extend to flights from Canadian destination to Canadian destination?

It seems the issue of privacy is being pushed ever further in the name of security.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Give me a Canadian government that tells the u.s. to F OFF !!!

This is insane, they steal our resources, they lie and cheat us, they pressure our army to let Canadians DIE for american mistakes, they come into our country and try to extradite Canadians on offenses that our own government wont charge them on, they hold back and threaten us when we work to bring in progressive, intelligent laws, they buy up our businesses and want to buy up our power and water, ....

Now they want to violate our right to travel so they can gather even more information about us !!!

They already have our pathetic government bending over for Bush, why not annex the whole Fing country and call it AmeriCanCo !

Uh Oh ! http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title..._American_Union

Kiss Canada goodbye guys ...

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe this will never even go through. But I have to disagree with the idea that we shouldn't do something just because it pisses off our allies. If that were the case, you'd be listening to the U.S. regarding decriminalizing pot, as an example, and I sure don't expect your country to act according to our wishes;

How about heavy influence then. Because that is exactly what the US ambassador implied re Canada decriminalizing pot. Heavy delays at the border , slowing down of the economy etc. Thhis is where the elephant crushes the mouse, even if the mouse owns the house.

I don't think the U.S. should attempt to strong-arm Canada into doing what we want. But in the final analysis, even if our wishes are playing into Canada's actions regarding decriminalizing pot, it's not because we are your ally and as such you don't want to piss us off. It's because in the long run, Canada thinks doing so will be more beneficial to Canada.

So that's my point. Nations don't go against what they feel is in their best interest just because they don't want to piss off an ally.

Likewise, I don't think Canada should have gone into Iraq with us because it pissed off the U.S. government that you didn't. And Canada didn't go along with us just because we are your ally.

So I don't go along with the 'the U.S. shouldn't be asking this information of Canada because we shouldn't piss off our ally' thought.

Edited October 19, 2007 by American Woman

[Wilber]

So that's my point. Nations don't go against what they feel is in their best interest just because they don't want to piss off an ally.

Likewise, I don't think Canada should have gone into Iraq with us because it pissed off the U.S. government that you didn't. And Canada didn't go along with us just because we are your ally.

So I don't go along with the 'the U.S. shouldn't be asking this information of Canada because we shouldn't piss off our ally' thought.

Despite my dislike for Chretien and what I believe to be his questionable motives for keeping us out of Iraq, I think a great majority of Canadians now believe he did the right thing. I was inclined to support our involvement until WMD's were shown to be a fairytale.

Occasionally one should ask themselves whether pissing someone off and alienating them is worth what they are trying to achieve by doing so. One should also ask why anyone should meekly accede to something that pisses them off.

It is my understanding that you are not "asking" for this information. If in fact you are, our response should be a polite, "we'll think about it" until we decide if it is in our best interests and if so, under what conditions, then respond accordingly.

Perhaps this is actually happening and we are engaging in much ado about little, but it didn't come across that way.