Canada says NO to the USA!

Dithers · April 2, 2010

Can't really claim sovereignty over what you can't and don't use. We need to occupy the arctic regions that we assert claim to, rather than simply having vast uninhabited reaches of land. It's not an issue of other nations not respecting our sovereignty, its an issue of us not doing enough to assert our sovereignty.

That was the thrust of my argument to be honest. I do, however, believe that statements made by foreign officials should serve notice as to how certain other nations see artic development panning out.

Smallc · April 2, 2010

Can't really claim sovereignty over what you can't and don't use.

Well, that isn't really correct. The Arctic now has a combined economic output of about $9B, quite good for it's population. There is also a great deal of development taking place. Also, military activity is increasing, with several different annual operations, the formation of a reserve unit in Yellowknife, the expansion of the Canadian Rangers, the renewed commitment to CFS Alert, and the current environmental study being done to prepare for the construction of HMCS Nanisivik. There are also many other initiatives that are taking place, such as the mineral mapping, increase coast guard and Transport Canada enforcement activities, and the planning for a link between Manitoba and Nunavut. To say we can't or don't use the territory isn't really correct. We use it more and more all of the time.

Dithers · April 2, 2010

Well, that isn't really correct. The Arctic now has a combined economic output of about $9B, quite good for it's population. There is also a great deal of development taking place. Also, military activity is increasing, with several different annual operations, the formation of a reserve unit in Yellowknife, the expansion of the Canadian Rangers, the renewed commitment to CFS Alert, and the current environmental study being done to prepare for the construction of HMCS Nanisivik. There are also many other initiatives that are taking place, such as the mineral mapping, increase coast guard and Transport Canada enforcement activities, and the planning for a link between Manitoba and Nunavut. To say we can't or don't use the territory isn't really correct. We use it more and more all of the time.

It makes me happy to hear about this. I am not well versed on the issue.

It is one I expected the Tories to deal with, and it seems they are.

Bonam · April 2, 2010

Well, that isn't really correct. The Arctic now has a combined economic output of about $9B, quite good for it's population. There is also a great deal of development taking place. Also, military activity is increasing, with several different annual operations, the formation of a reserve unit in Yellowknife, the expansion of the Canadian Rangers, the renewed commitment to CFS Alert, and the current environmental study being done to prepare for the construction of HMCS Nanisivik. There are also many other initiatives that are taking place, such as the mineral mapping, increase coast guard and Transport Canada enforcement activities, and the planning for a link between Manitoba and Nunavut. To say we can't or don't use the territory isn't really correct. We use it more and more all of the time.

Of course stuff is going on in parts of the arctic. How much of the land in the arctic are we using though, and how much of it is left uninhabited? I don't have detailed info as you seem to but I would guess that vast tracts of the arctic go unused except perhaps by the occasional passing Inuit or adventurist. Of course, those areas where we do have economic or military activity going on, we are exerting sovereignty over. But what about all the rest? However, from what I've heard you are right, and our use of the north is growing. Perhaps in a decade or two Canada's arctic sovereignty will not be an issue as the area will be properly colonized.

Mr.Canada · April 2, 2010

Of course stuff is going on in parts of the arctic. How much of the land in the arctic are we using though, and how much of it is left uninhabited? I don't have detailed info as you seem to but I would guess that vast tracts of the arctic go unused except perhaps by the occasional passing Inuit or adventurist. Of course, those areas where we do have economic or military activity going on, we are exerting sovereignty over. But what about all the rest? However, from what I've heard you are right, and our use of the north is growing. Perhaps in a decade or two Canada's arctic sovereignty will not be an issue as the area will be properly colonized.

Bonam. What are talking about? You want major cities up there? Millions of people?

dizzy · April 2, 2010

That may very well be. I am just going off casualty numbers.

The UK and Canada about the same per capita KIA rates, both higher than the US, which is a function of their roles leading the combat in the two most volatile regions in Afghanistan (Helmand and Kandahar).

When you subtract out Navy, Air Force, and those in the Army who can not be deployed from the overall size of the Canadian Forces, you're talking about a very high contribution of soldiers from a relatively small organization.

DFCaper · April 2, 2010

Of course stuff is going on in parts of the arctic. How much of the land in the arctic are we using though, and how much of it is left uninhabited? I don't have detailed info as you seem to but I would guess that vast tracts of the arctic go unused except perhaps by the occasional passing Inuit or adventurist. Of course, those areas where we do have economic or military activity going on, we are exerting sovereignty over. But what about all the rest? However, from what I've heard you are right, and our use of the north is growing. Perhaps in a decade or two Canada's arctic sovereignty will not be an issue as the area will be properly colonized.

So there's parts all over the world that are still up for grabs? We should claim much of Greenland and regions in other countries that are not being used that are free for the taking?

Bonam · April 2, 2010

So there's parts all over the world that are still up for grabs? We should claim much of Greenland and regions in other countries that are not being used that are free for the taking?

Yup Greenland is a good example. It is nominally "claimed" but most of it is unused. If people from a different nation (besides Denmark) started migrating there in significant numbers, and it went unchallenged, the sovereignty situation there could change. This kind of stuff happened all the time throughout history, peoples migrate from one area to another, nominally under the control of another nation, and eventually borders can change to reflect this.

As for us, we have plenty of our own regions to properly claim before we need to look elsewhere. Canada has no shortage of land, and especially not of arctic land.

Bonam. What are talking about? You want major cities up there? Millions of people?

Sounds good. Why not? If anything it's supposed to get warmer and we can have some nice tropical resorts along the arctic coast ;p

bush_cheney2004 · April 2, 2010

...Our guys, very few in number, carried a tremendous weight.

Correct....made heavier without rotary winged aircraft.

dizzy · April 3, 2010

Correct....made heavier without rotary winged aircraft.

The decision to stick to the (cheaper) movement of soldiers by road has lead to a number of deaths, not just for CF Members but also for afghans who had to use the same road networks. Tactically speaking, I think it was our gravest mistake.

Smallc · April 3, 2010

The decision to stick to the (cheaper) movement of soldiers by road has lead to a number of deaths, not just for CF Members but also for afghans who had to use the same road networks. Tactically speaking, I think it was our gravest mistake.

The decision wasn't only about being cheaper. There are helicopters there now, but the reality is, you still have to be on the ground. You can't work from the air.

dizzy · April 3, 2010

The decision wasn't only about being cheaper. There are helicopters there now, but the reality is, you still have to be on the ground. You can't work from the air.

We sold our chinooks to the dutch during quieter times and then essentially had to rent them back during our mission in Eritrea. There is a need for ground patrol and attack, but moving large groups of soldiers from KAF to their fobs should have been happening by air. There was no reason other than expense (i.e. delaying the purchase of new chinooks) to justify this.

Smallc · April 3, 2010

Well, actually there is. There is a waiting list years long for Chinooks and large military contracts have to go through the proper channels. Now, you're right, we probably shouldn't have sold the ones we had in the first place, but that's a long time ago. Our new Chinooks, ordered a couple years ago, will not be delivered until 2013 - 2014. We ended up having to buy used ones from the Americans and renting from CHC for other uses to fill the gap. Also, the amount the has been spend on armour on the ground since we started isn't small.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Smallc

dizzy · April 3, 2010

Well, actually there is. There is a waiting list years long for Chinooks. Our new ones, ordered a couple years ago, will not be delivered until 2013 - 2014. We ended up having to buy used ones from the Americans and renting from CHC for other uses to fill the gap. Also, the amount the has been spend on armour on the ground since we started isn't small.

With all respect, this argument only makes sense in the short-sighted world of politics. A country the size of Canada will always have need for big lift capability of a helicopter like the chinook. The decision to give them up for a period exceeding a decade was big mistake, and having to wait for new ones is just one consequence. Ultimately, it was some of our troops who really covered the cost by unnecessarily sacrificing life and limb.

Smallc · April 3, 2010

Well, with all respect, it isn't only the lack of helicopters that contributed to deaths. We have them now, and people are still dying, because they have to be on the ground. It made sense in the past to cut defence and all other aspects of the budget because we had huge deficits and couldn't afford the levels of spending. Now we can, and we can rebuild...until some day when we again need to cut. Political considerations aren't unimportant.

dizzy · April 3, 2010

Well, with all respect, it isn't only the lack of helicopters that contributed to deaths. We have them now, and people are still dying, because they have to be on the ground. It made sense in the past to cut defence and all other aspects of the budget because we had huge deficits and couldn't afford the levels of spending. Now we can, and we can rebuild...until some day when we again need to cut. Political considerations aren't unimportant.

No, it wasn't only the lack of rotary airlift capacity that lead to deaths. But the reason we have them now is because not having them lead to unnecessary deaths.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/07/helicopters-military.html

Edited April 3, 2010 by dizzy

Argus · April 3, 2010

I don't get the opposition to our role in Afghanistan. We have honored our treaties with an ally that was attacked.

Yes, but the ally in question is the evil America, and the NDP, BQ and Liberals all despised them - well, until they elected a Black guy. Now they're still extremely suspicious, mind, but willing to grudgingly allow that not every American is entirely evil.

William Ashley · April 3, 2010

Too little too late.

I've been against the war since day one, the fact the US criminal investigation by the FBI didn't even have Osama as the person behind 911 and the Taliban offered to turn him over to justice in pakistan prior the invasion makes the causi belli totally false.

Digusting war, I don't see why the US is there. It was all a set up to keep the country in US interests just before the Northern Alliance was poised to fall.

Very unforunate over 100 Canadians have been killed and many more disabled to support senseless foreign policy.

This isn't me saying I think the Taliban are dickydee drivers - but really diplomacy is the best means to deal with foreign countries - even recognizing that country as de facto ruler of a territory might be a good start at that instead of just going in and killing people. Replacing a non democratic state with a foreign non democratic state with many of the same laws and wasting billions of dollars is as bright as posting against us foreign policy.

Dithers · April 3, 2010

Yes, but the ally in question is the evil America, and the NDP, BQ and Liberals all despised them - well, until they elected a Black guy. Now they're still extremely suspicious, mind, but willing to grudgingly allow that not every American is entirely evil.

Checked the NDP platform and did not find that particular plank.

Born Free · April 3, 2010

Yes, but the ally in question is the evil America, and the NDP, BQ and Liberals all despised them - well, until they elected a Black guy. Now they're still extremely suspicious, mind, but willing to grudgingly allow that not every American is entirely evil.

Horsepucky..

Mr.Canada · April 3, 2010

Checked the NDP platform and did not find that particular plank.

Horsepucky..

Now you guys are denying that the Liberals and the NDP both were hyper critical of the USA and were always wanting to do things very differently from the USA? I'm talking before The Obama was voted President.

Lol....oh please, give me a break.

Dithers · April 4, 2010

Now you guys are denying that the Liberals and the NDP both were hyper critical of the USA and were always wanting to do things very differently from the USA? I'm talking before The Obama was voted President.

Lol....oh please, give me a break.

You keep changing your terms. Stephen Harper himself is, at times, critical of the United States.

Being critical of an ally whose policy, domestic and foreign, impacts upon our own so heavily is good sense.

As for this Obama nonsense, well, it's just that. Nonsense.

Partisan nonsense at that.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Dithers

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2010

You keep changing your terms. Stephen Harper himself is, at times, critical of the United States.

Being critical of an ally whose policy, domestic and foreign, impacts upon our own so heavily is good sense.

But Canadian PMs are also "critical" of other nations' policies, regardless of impact on Canada. So that can't be it!

Dithers · April 4, 2010

But Canadian PMs are also "critical" of other nations' policies, regardless of impact on Canada. So that can't be it!

Such as?

Oh, you must mean The United States idiotic crusade to ban seal hunting.

No, wait...

Ok, ok. I've got it. You must mean your secretary of State waltzing into our country and telling us what our domestic policy on abortion funding should be.

Hmm ...

Edited April 4, 2010 by Dithers

bush_cheney2004 · April 4, 2010

Such as?

Oh, you must mean The United States idiotic crusade to ban seal hunting.

No, wait...

Ok, ok. I've got it. You must mean your secretary of State waltzing into our country and telling us what our domestic policy on abortion funding should be.

Hmm ...

It must have worked....

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/19/a_canadian_global_gag_rule

But no, I mean lots of other me-too behavior like scolding China on "human rights".