UAE - Crybabies

nicky10013 · January 23, 2011

As an aside, and this is meant for Smallc and others arguing with wyly and nicky, why bang your head against a brick? There is something very disturbing the hypocritical about the rhetoric and nonsensical arguments both of them are advancing. When taking into consideration their records of anti-Canadian and anti-corporate sentiment, and their general virulent leftism, their perspectives are unsurprising. I'll stop there, I'm sure many of you understand me.

Virulent leftism? How exactly am I anti-Canadian? How exactly am I anti-corporate. The most hilarious thing about this whole thing is that according to people against a negotiated deal is that the two are diametrically opposed. How is economic protectionism being anti-corporate? Corporations, especially ones that operate internationally loathe protectionism. I love how I'm the doormat and the one with the agenda - yet I'm not the one using doublespeak.

Edited January 23, 2011 by nicky10013

Bob · January 23, 2011

Virulent leftism? How exactly am I anti-Canadian? How exactly am I anti-corporate. The most hilarious thing about this whole thing is that according to people against a negotiated deal is that the two are diametrically opposed. How is economic protectionism being anti-corporate? Corporations, especially ones that operate internationally loathe protectionism. I love how I'm the doormat and the one with the agenda - yet I'm not the one using doublespeak.

I'm not saying that you're consistent or cohesive in your argumentation. I did clearly that you're hypocritical. This is one of those examples, where your anti-Canadian attitude had overridden your anti-market attitude.

You'll advance any ideology that assists you in your anti-Canadian and/or partisan approach. Perhaps the foundation of your opinion with respect to this issue lies in a desire to smear the current government. Who knows? Perhaps in the next thread you participate in you'll advance another ideological approach if it is convenient.

nicky10013 · January 23, 2011

BTW...No one has answered my perfectly legitimate questions about why Air Canada wanted more landing spots, why 3 provinicial governments are for it, why business groups are for it if it's going to be so horrible for Canadian industry - all of which have been proven through the links I posted. They all obviously see a great opportunity here if a fair settlement had been negotiated.

Despite claims about how bad it would be - Smallc specifically said it could be "catastrophic" for Air Canada. No one has proven anything other than Air Canada said it, which of course they would. No one has posted anything about how many passengers of theirs fly to the middle east either directly or through connection points like Frankfurt. There's no current passenger data on middle east traffic posted, no future projections on expected Air Canada capacity. Nor have we seen numbers on what percentage of total passengers overall are actually on those routes. There's every reason to question that even if Emirates completely decimated Air Canada's numbers to the Middle East, that it might only total a percentage point or two of overall traffic.

Yet, we've never seen numbers - just a company's claims.

Edited January 23, 2011 by nicky10013

nicky10013 · January 23, 2011

I'm not saying that you're consistent or cohesive in your argumentation. I did clearly that you're hypocritical. This is one of those examples, where your anti-Canadian attitude had overridden your anti-market attitude.

You'll advance any ideology that assists you in your anti-Canadian and/or partisan approach. Perhaps the foundation of your opinion with respect to this issue lies in a desire to smear the current government. Who knows? Perhaps in the next thread you participate in you'll advance another ideological approach if it is convenient.

Would you tell me how I've done that? When have I ever had an anti-market attitude? Where exactly have I been anti-Canadian. Just because you say it's so doesn't make it fact. So really, you trying to say my arguments without any of your own to stand on? Who really is being hypocritical in this one?

Edited January 23, 2011 by nicky10013

Scotty · January 23, 2011

You may think not, but you'd be wrong:

....some members of Canada's government expressed serious concerns about the potential damage of the refusal on relations between Canada and the UAE. It is Canada's largest trading partner in the Middle East with trade worth $1.5bn a year. link

A pittance, and in line with what we trade with South Africa, as I said.

Scotty · January 23, 2011

You're comparing a dispute over landing rights to Hitler and Stalin?

No, and I can't imagine why anyone would think I was.

I frankly don't find the UAE's actions "unreasonable," and viewing it as "an attack on Canada" is way over the top.

Suddenly throwing us out of a military base we use to supply a war effort which is not OUR war, but mostly theirs, and for that matter, YOURS, refusing permission for our defense minister to even land, campaigning against Canada having a UN seat, suddenly announcing a $1000 visa fee for Canadians... sounds mighty like a pretty hostile series of actions to me.

Furthermore, as I pointed out, many Canadians would benefit from for UAE flights,

Oh? Such as whom?

I know exactly what I'm talking about. And it's true that there are two sides to this issue; one side benefits one group of Canadians while the other side benefits another group of Canadians.

How exactly does it benefit any particular group of Canadians to have our airline business ceded to a foreign owned airline?

It's called competition.

Not without reciprocity, and to an airline wholly owned by a foreign government.

bush_cheney2004 · January 24, 2011

Suddenly throwing us out of a military base we use to supply a war effort which is not OUR war, but mostly theirs, and for that matter, YOURS,....

Sorry...it every bit YOURS as well. Be careful what you sign up for in the way of NATO obligations. Or is that to be ignored as well when the negotiations get tough?

nicky10013 · January 24, 2011

No, and I can't imagine why anyone would think I was.

Maybe because you specifically mentioned them in your analogy.

Suddenly throwing us out of a military base we use to supply a war effort which is not OUR war, but mostly theirs, and for that matter, YOURS, refusing permission for our defense minister to even land, campaigning against Canada having a UN seat, suddenly announcing a $1000 visa fee for Canadians... sounds mighty like a pretty hostile series of actions to me.

Yeah, after they realized the Canadian government was negotiating in bad faith...for 5 years

Oh? Such as whom?

Uhhh...consumers? When companies have to compete, prices come down.

How exactly does it benefit any particular group of Canadians to have our airline business ceded to a foreign owned airline?

Despite the rhetoric - no one is ceding anything. As for the benefits, as I said, lower costs for consumers.

Not without reciprocity, and to an airline wholly owned by a foreign government.

Do I need to re-post the article regarding the federal bailout of Air Canada again?

nicky10013 · January 24, 2011

A pittance, and in line with what we trade with South Africa, as I said.

It's nice to see you don't mind pissing away other's peoples business so yu can merely look strong to "arab dictators."

nicky10013 · January 24, 2011

Here it is Smallc - even the National Post of all papers agrees with me. It even completely destroys your arguments that the A380 leaves half full.

Ottawa Defends Protectionist Skies

The world's largest passenger jet, a two-story Airbus 380 behemoth, lands at Toronto three times a week packed with wealthy Arab tourists and energy-based business executives.

The pride of the Emirates Airline fleet routinely fills more than 90% of its 489 seats to and from Dubai, sharing a near-capacity load with the United Arab Emirates other carrier, Etihad Airlines.

For 11 years now, Emirates Air has been screaming protest at a full throttle roar, demanding permission to bring daily flights to Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver only to be told by Transport Canada there's no demand for increased service.

Being an airline recognized as among the best in the world with daily service to 102 major cities evidently means that Canadian bureaucrats, not its operators, know what's best for the airline.

Well, careful Transport Canada, because Emirates Airline has almost had enough of a country that bills its blue skies as wide open for business, but routinely clips the wings of international competition.

Buffalo is showing up on its radar as an alternative location to Toronto and Seattle is calling for it to give up on its Vancouver or Calgary daily flight dreams and fly south to its friendlier skies.

"It's a fair statement to say that of the developed world, Canada is the most restrictive and we'd argue the most protectionist of any country we are dealing with," says Emirates Airline senior vice president Andrew Parker.

"The most powerful presentations we get are from American airports which lobby us to give up on Vancouver and come to Seattle," he said Thursday. "Now Buffalo says they're becoming a major player and want us to service them and capture that part of Ontario."

This would be a bizarre one-off aviation anomaly if not for the fact that Transport Canada's market interventions have already driven two global giants to depart Canadian runways.

Both Singapore Airlines and Air France pulled out of Vancouver last year after the feds denied them daily flight access, relocating to Seattle along with hundreds of jobs and the business benefits of non-stop links to south Asia and Paris.

What's doubly bizarre is how wide and deep the support is for this particular airline's service to expand. Transport Minister John Baird has been bombarded with pleas from western premiers, mayors, MPs from all parties, Toronto business interests and tourism officials to boost gravity-defying links to the Middle East.

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is travelling to Dubai next week for an energy conference and to meet with UAE airlines to discuss ways to increase pressure for direct flights to Calgary.

Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier has met repeatedly with airline officials and sounds fed up with the footdragging. "They've got the fleet, they're willing to take the risk, they want to come to Calgary and we want them," he told me. "We need the federal negotiators to get the deal done. If we really believe in open skies, let's open them up."

Influential Calgary area MP Ted Menzies argues the airline's plans fit with his government's current focus. "This is a no risk, no cost proposition for our government that would provide an immediate economic stimulus."

The best Transport Canada can come up with to explain its reluctance to approve daily service -- and it took its spokesperson two days to find her speaking notes -- is "there is no shortage of seats to meet the demand".

That's code for Air Canada protectionism, even though the airline doesn't fly to Dubai. It does, however, have partner links to Dubai through London or Frankfurt.

Giving Air Canada special protection "is anathema to any logical business thinking and highly anti-consumer," argues the Consumers' Association of Canada.

For a pro-business, free-enterprise Conservative government to obstruct its commitment to open skies, a policy renamed to fit with party colours as a Blue Skies policy, is unconscionable in a world where keeping our businesses globally linked and competitive is a key to the recovery.

While Canada has inked an overdue agreement with the European Union, its other deals are modest links to low-travel countries like Iceland, Ireland, Barbados and New Zealand.

If this restrictive air traffic control persists, Transport Canada will be clearing more jobs and business investment for take off to the United States.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/07/don-martin-ottawa-defends-canada-s-protectionist-skies.aspx

Edited January 24, 2011 by nicky10013

Smallc · January 24, 2011

90% full...so like TC said, there's no shortage of seats.

nicky10013 · January 24, 2011

90% full...so like TC said, there's no shortage of seats.

Anhahahaha what a fucking joke.

Moonbox · January 24, 2011

Right. Which is why for the first time in our history we lost a seat at the UN.

Nicky look into why we lost the seat and get back to us on that. It wasn't anything Harper did.

It's 3 billion and 3 billion is still a LOT of money and provides quite a few jobs. It's nice you can just laugh that off.

Of course you take the high-end estimate. It's AT MOST (but more likely a LOT less) $3B in trade BOTH ways. Consider the fact that we're at worse only going to lose a small fraction of that (the UAE is not scrapping trade with Canada) and we get right down to how full of crap you are and how much you're exaggerating how much this will impact Canadians.

They didn't extort anything out of us. It's called diplomacy. To get something, we have to give something. That's the way it has worked since statecraft began. To expect anything different is absolutely ridiculous.

Keep hiding behind that word --- diplomacy. I guess if you label anything as 'diplomacy' it's fair then right? Like...if the US closed its borders to us because we didn't go to war along with them when they asked that would be perfectly reasonable right? I mean...it would be diplomacy right??? Get real. :rolleyes:

No, that's not it at all. I don't have a problem at all with people disagreeing with me. What I have a problem with are fucking morons who just because I don't agree with THEM like to throw around things like me getting into bed with dictators. It's a slap in the face. It's disgusting and I won't stand for it.

No nicky. That's exactly what's going on. You're getting your underwear twisted, blowing things way out of proportion, freaking and then cussing someone out because they said something you didn't like. You are supporting the position of a bunch of Arab princes who are fussing with Canada. That's what Smallc said. You went apeshit and decided that he was attacking your patriotism. That's comedy.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Moonbox

Smallc · January 25, 2011

A pittance, and in line with what we trade with South Africa, as I said.

Yes, 1.5B is also what Canada US trade is...each and every day.

bloodyminded · January 25, 2011

Yes, he is, to a certain segment of the population. You should read the vitriol, hysteria, hatred and abuse in the comments section of the online Globe and Mail some day, whenever a story even remotely touches on the federal government in some way. It's obsessive and bizarre.

You're right about the vitriol, and arguably correct that it's obssessive. But bizarre? In no way.

This is the norm, not an aberration. People get very exercised about governments, especially about the most visible figures, and it has nothing whatsoever to do particularly with Harper and those who dislike him.

Suddenly throwing us out of a military base we use to supply a war effort which is not OUR war, but mostly theirs, and for that matter, YOURS,

Wrong. When we're involved, it's ours, period. No one forced us.

Edited January 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

PIK · January 25, 2011

No, and I can't imagine why anyone would think I was.

Suddenly throwing us out of a military base we use to supply a war effort which is not OUR war, but mostly theirs, and for that matter, YOURS, refusing permission for our defense minister to even land, campaigning against Canada having a UN seat, suddenly announcing a $1000 visa fee for Canadians... sounds mighty like a pretty hostile series of actions to me.

Oh? Such as whom?

How exactly does it benefit any particular group of Canadians to have our airline business ceded to a foreign owned airline?

Not without reciprocity, and to an airline wholly owned by a foreign government.

And that goverment is one big rich family that just spent 50 billion on new aircraft and no where to fly them, so we are just supposed to give in,so that family does'nt lose money.Why can't people stand up for this country. I am sick of this we are so nice we just give in to anyone,well it looks like those days are over. Now down the road(4-8 years) when the libs get in again,will they run over and apologize for this.

nicky10013 · January 26, 2011

Nicky look into why we lost the seat and get back to us on that. It wasn't anything Harper did.

Yeah, the only excuse was that it was the Liberals and Ignatieff. When in reality it was Harper's loser of a foreign affairs minister and Harper himself skipping his speech 2 years ago for Timmy's and only showing up last year to praise it and hand out maple syrup.

Of course you take the high-end estimate. It's AT MOST (but more likely a LOT less) $3B in trade BOTH ways. Consider the fact that we're at worse only going to lose a small fraction of that (the UAE is not scrapping trade with Canada) and we get right down to how full of crap you are and how much you're exaggerating how much this will impact Canadians.

I'm full of crap? I'm not the on the side that's predicting Air Canada to be destroyed over this.

Keep hiding behind that word --- diplomacy. I guess if you label anything as 'diplomacy' it's fair then right? Like...if the US closed its borders to us because we didn't go to war along with them when they asked that would be perfectly reasonable right? I mean...it would be diplomacy right??? Get real.

Actually, that's exactly what diplomacy would be.

Furthermore, you're comparing the US closing the border with giving up a couple landing spots? You say I'm exaggerating? You say I'm full of crap? Wow.

No nicky. That's exactly what's going on. You're getting your underwear twisted, blowing things way out of proportion, freaking and then cussing someone out because they said something you didn't like. You are supporting the position of a bunch of Arab princes who are fussing with Canada. That's what Smallc said. You went apeshit and decided that he was attacking your patriotism. That's comedy.

Oh please that's exactly what he did.

Notice how no one here is willing to tell us what the true damage to Air Canada is. Notice how no one here will admit that these negotiations have been going on for 5 years only for the government to come back with a deal for even less traffic than Emirates gets now - essentially that Harper negotiated in bad faith. Notice how no one will admit that the "fussy UAE princes" drastically reduced what they were asking for. Notice how no one has acknowledged that, as with the census, that pretty much every group and several provincial governments - except of course Air Canada - actually wanted the deal. Notice how people can coldly scoff at 1.5 billion in lost trade per year.

Of course Smallc, in comparison to the US that looks like a pittance. Tell that to the people who are going to lose money on that.

Now, again, please tell me in comparison to that sum, how much Air Canada is going to lose in jobs and money and investment into Canada? That's right, no one can. Airlines have come in before and Air Canada has survived and expanded.

If you guys want to beat your chest and scream out ME NO LIKE merely because they're no longer offering a service for free and you think they're blackmailing us, then go ahead. However, in the long run no one can deny that we're better off settling this dispute.

The world doesn't work on pride. We need to swallow ours and move on.

Edited January 26, 2011 by nicky10013

Moonbox · January 26, 2011

Yeah, the only excuse was that it was the Liberals and Ignatieff. When in reality it was Harper's loser of a foreign affairs minister and Harper himself skipping his speech 2 years ago for Timmy's and only showing up last year to praise it and hand out maple syrup.

No, if anything it was European favoritism, shifting aid from Africa to the the Caribbean and not following along with retarded environmental policies. Only shifting aid from Africa was really Harper's decision.

I'm full of crap? I'm not the on the side that's predicting Air Canada to be destroyed over this.

Nobody is. That's just a red herring you introduced because you're not a very smart person.

Actually, that's exactly what diplomacy would be.

Well then under those terms anything is justifiable for the sake of 'diplomacy'. Diplomacy is nothing but a word. There is a right and wrong for every situation and using the word 'diplomacy' doesn't really change that. I'm not surprised you think so, but you're not that bright

Oh please that's exactly what he did.

No that's really not what he did. The worst thing Smallc has ever really done on this forum is mock and condescend. The assumption that he's attacking your patriotism can be completely chalked up to your spazz tendencies.

Notice how no one here is willing to tell us what the true damage to Air Canada is. Notice how no one here will admit that these negotiations have been going on for 5 years only for the government to come back with a deal for even less traffic than Emirates gets now - essentially that Harper negotiated in bad faith. Notice how no one will admit that the "fussy UAE princes" drastically reduced what they were asking for. Notice how no one has acknowledged that, as with the census, that pretty much every group and several provincial governments - except of course Air Canada - actually wanted the deal. Notice how people can coldly scoff at 1.5 billion in lost trade per year.

We're not losing 1.5 billion in trade per year. We'll hardly lose a fraction of that. Compare our trade with the UAE in 2010 to trade in 2011. Nobody will notice the difference. At worst, maybe a few million. Again, this is just you spazzing out and exaggerating numbers. You think the UAE will shut out Candian business altogether over a few landing rights? LOL. I suppose they'll do the same to Germany and anyone else that won't give them their own way?

Not only will your worst case scenario never happen, but even if it did nobody would notice.

Now, again, please tell me in comparison to that sum, how much Air Canada is going to lose in jobs and money and investment into Canada? That's right, no one can. Airlines have come in before and Air Canada has survived and expanded.

Kind of like how Canada has had trade disputes with other countries before and survived and expanded their economy right? Yeah. You're a dumb kid. I think we're done here.

The world doesn't work on pride. We need to swallow ours and move on.

Ironic comment. :lol:

Edited January 26, 2011 by Moonbox

nicky10013 · January 26, 2011

No, if anything it was European favoritism, shifting aid from Africa to the the Caribbean and not following along with retarded environmental policies. Only shifting aid from Africa was really Harper's decision.

I don't think it was the environmental policies as much as Harper and co. going to Copenhagen and yet again negotiating in bad faith.

Nobody is. That's just a red herring you introduced because you're not a very smart person.

So how badly would this affect Air Canada? Crippling?

Quite possibly.

Red herring?

Well then under those terms anything is justifiable for the sake of 'diplomacy'. Diplomacy is nothing but a word. There is a right and wrong for every situation and using the word 'diplomacy' doesn't really change that. I'm not surprised you think so, but you're not that bright

No, the only dumb folks here are the ones who are equating this situation with a WAR.

No that's really not what he did. The worst thing Smallc has ever really done on this forum is mock and condescend. The assumption that he's attacking your patriotism can be completely chalked up to your spazz tendencies.

Saying that I'd much rather get into bed with arab dictators than side with my country is exactly that.

We're not losing 1.5 billion in trade per year. We'll hardly lose a fraction of that. Compare our trade with the UAE in 2010 to trade in 2011. Nobody will notice the difference. At worst, maybe a few million. Again, this is just you spazzing out and exaggerating numbers. You think the UAE will shut out Candian business altogether over a few landing rights? LOL. I suppose they'll do the same to Germany and anyone else that won't give them their own way?

What do you think the effect of $1000 visa fee will be? The visa fee alone is enough to hurt that 1.5 billion dollar figure incredibly badly. Much more so than any damage Emirates would've done to Air Canada.

You said it yourself. It's only a few landing spots. So why is it so hard to deal from our point of view? You think we're so big to them? Why not shut us out? Why wouldn't they do it to Germany? Because we're not Germany. In comparison to Germany, the Canadian economy is tiny. That's why they don't shut Germany out.

See, the thing here is despite how "small" our trade between our two countries doesn't mean there isn't room for growth. Under the balls first attitude of shutting down trade because they want something in return for our free base, there is precisely that. Trade creates jobs. Why destroy that? Emirates air flying more to Canada creates jobs. Tourisst dollars, more operations on the ground. Why destroy that? Paying to operate military bases out of foreign countries is the norm. Before the invasion of Iraq the US offered Turkey a 2 billion dollar cash payment to use their bases as a staging area. Everyone does it. Why are we so high and mighty that we absolutely can't do it?

See, that's hubris right there. Assuming that we're the mighty country in all of this and can impose our will at random. You know...show those Arab dictators who is who.

The fact that I had to describe that to you only underscores the fact that I'm not the dumb one in this conversation.

Not only will your worst case scenario never happen, but even if it did nobody would notice.

People are noticing. Like the Government of Ontario. The Government of Alberta. The Mayor of Calgary.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/928088--ontario-prods-ottawa-to-settle-dispute-with-u-a-e?bn=1

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/07/don-martin-ottawa-defends-canada-s-protectionist-skies.aspx

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/927443--canada-s-spat-with-u-a-e-risks-key-alliance-wikileaks-cables

Kind of like how Canada has had trade disputes with other countries before and survived and expanded their economy right? Yeah. You're a dumb kid. I think we're done here.

I'm a dumb kid? Considering you still have yet to provide any kind of substance to back up your argument and probably never will considering you're oh so wise "I think we're done here" comment, perhaps you shouldn't be the one calling anyone stupid at this junction.

What's the truly smart move here? Risking a 1.5 billion dollar relationship for a few landing rights which would cost Air Canada how much? Something no one has been able to say? Why should we just scoff at 1.5 billion as if it's nothing? Isn't the smart thing brokering a deal to make sure we don't have to start back at square one?

If I'm the dumb one in this you would've been at least able to intelligently respond with real information. You can't. So you're calling me stupid. Like I said before, you can't resort to facts so resort to personal attacks.

Ironic comment.

Ironic for both of us, no?

Edited January 26, 2011 by nicky10013

Smallc · January 26, 2011

I said quite possibly, not for sure, and that was taking a very long term view of things.

Scotty · January 26, 2011

What's the truly smart move here? Risking a 1.5 billion dollar relationship for a few landing rights which would cost Air Canada how much? Something no one has been able to say? Why should we just scoff at 1.5 billion as if it's nothing? Isn't the smart thing brokering a deal to make sure we don't have to start back at square one?

You may be right, nicky. I was certainly questioning why we shouldn't let them have at least a few more landing spots way back when. I don't know what the cost would be to Air Canada either.

The thing is, once someone gets in my face, my instinct is to shove them back. The UAE got in our faces, and my instinct says to shove them back and put them on their asses on the floor. I'm not longer looking to cooperate or understand. In that context, I'd be more supportive right now of ending ALL landing rights for the UAE than giving them more. Heck, end their overflight privilages, as well. Make them fly around us and take more time and use more fuel to get to the US.

Nobody pushes me around and I don't think Canada should let itself be pushed around either, especially by some puny little Arab with small-man syndrome.

PIK · January 26, 2011

I can't beleive how some on this board would sell us out just to spite harper. This has become sickening,the way certain people here will say and do anything because of a hatred for harper. I was never a fan of chretien but when he did some good for canada ,I was all for it,even if the cons were against it. I like to read letters to the ed ,just to see what people are thinking. And I seen many that spoke about some PM award and the people that said if harper was awarding them,they would say no, now that is sick. If I did something that I was going to be awarded a medal and chretien was giving it ,I would be tickled pink and very proud to have the PM of my country award me that.

Edited January 26, 2011 by PIK

nicky10013 · January 26, 2011

I can't beleive how some on this board would sell us out just to spite harper.

Here we go again with the questioning of the patriotism. At least Smallc was original. You're just hoping on his bandwagon because you're too stupid to think up a personal attack of your own.

nicky10013 · January 26, 2011

The thing is, once someone gets in my face, my instinct is to shove them back. The UAE got in our faces, and my instinct says to shove them back and put them on their asses on the floor. I'm not longer looking to cooperate or understand. In that context, I'd be more supportive right now of ending ALL landing rights for the UAE than giving them more. Heck, end their overflight privilages, as well. Make them fly around us and take more time and use more fuel to get to the US.

This is exactly what this whole thing is about. You may feel a certain way, but diplomacy isn't based on gut feeling and thank god you're not directing our foreign policy. A reactionary gut impulse has the potential to do far more damage than good. Secondly, you have that gut impulse because all you've seen is the UAE reaction to the negotiations. Or, I should say LACK of negotiations.

I've said this before and I'll say it again (yet another thing people for shutting out Emirates absolutely will not respond to): if you're so angry and put off about what the UAE did, maybe we should put ourselves in the shoes of the UAE in terms of the negotiations. The UAE has given us absolutely free access to Camp Mirage for the past 10 years. By every account, the government of the UAE approached the Canadian government and asked for more landing spots for continued use of the base. They set a target but were obviously willing to negotiate as Smallc pointed out. After 5 years, not only did the UAE get no where with their negotiations, the Canadian government responded with an offer that REDUCES capacity. Now, you think what the UAE did, by all accounts, what the Canadian government was equally a slap in the face. When the UAE came out with their displeasure over the course of the negotiations, that's when Harper and his cabinet whipped out the blackmail card. "We will not let our military be blackmailed" etc etc etc. That's when the UAE got really upset and introduced these fees. If you're angry over what the UAE did, you'd surely be much more angry about the Canadian government being accused of trying to blackmail a foreign government. So, lets please dispense with the notion that this is all on the UAE.

Lets also dispense with the notion that this came out of no where. The negotiations were ongoing for 5 years. The UAE didn't suddenly decide to screw us because they're bad arab dictators like that. The government let the file rot. They decided to use politics instead of common sense when accusing the UAE of blackmail. Despite whether we think the UAE was justified in going that far (I don't), they do have a legitimate grievance.

Edited January 26, 2011 by nicky10013

PIK · January 26, 2011

Here we go again with the questioning of the patriotism. At least Smallc was original. You're just hoping on his bandwagon because you're too stupid to think up a personal attack of your own.

Matter of fact I am going to try and stay away from personal attacks, I think we all should try.