hundreds demonstate against Canadian goldmine

[waldo]

Sorry, apparently I misunderstood your reference. Our presence in Saudi Arabia, with the Saudi government's approval of course, has been cited as the reason for bin Laden's anger. It has been said that it's our presence in SA and the ME - "American culture" is also cited as a reason for hating the U.S. - that has caused blowback, ie: 9-11. So my question is - when there is objection, should our countries stay out of the country in question? And what about objection from environmentalist groups - how is that different from objection from Islamic groups? If we should appease one by staying out, should we also appease the other?

again, in your scatter-board best, you're attempting to equate U.S. military presence/blowback with corporate presence/protests. Since the focus you're speaking to is quite obviously the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, as I'm aware, the only avenue where Canadian environmental groups have brought notice to the considerable investments of external corporate oil interests is in response to the likes of the "Ethical Oil" organizations raised concerns about outside interests funding Canadian environmental groups.

since you've backed off your Romania goldmine example... perhaps you should change your thread title and OP, hey?

[Guest American Woman]

Using the distorted logic of the 'blow back' peddlers, the answer would be yes. If the anti-mining protesters became strong enough, with a charismatic leader, and put together an plot to kill thousands of Canadians, it would be perfectly legitimate. And would definitely constitute blow back for the unwanted Canadian presence.

Again, I agree. Environmentalist groups have been known to be pretty extreme, too, and Canada is causing anger among some groups with its mining and oil projects. The "blame the U.S." crowd has been pretty silent on this, although I don't see the difference between appeasing Islamic groups by staying out of their nations and appeasing environmentalist groups by staying out theirs. Actually, I have read that Canada/Canadians may be becoming the "new" U.S./Americans in regards to who the rest of the world loves to hate. But ultimately I think it's up to each nation's government to determine what does or doesn't happen in their country, and if the citizens are angry, the anger should be directed at their government, their nation; those who allowed it with their permission/blessings/profit in mind.

[Guest American Woman]

....since you've backed off your Romania goldmine example... perhaps you should change your thread title and OP, hey?

I haven't "backed off it." Try to keep up.

[Evening Star]

Sorry, apparently I misunderstood your reference. Our presence in Saudi Arabia, with the Saudi government's approval of course, has been cited as the reason for bin Laden's anger. It has been said that it's our presence in SA and the ME - "American culture" is also cited as a reason for hating the U.S. - that has caused blowback, ie: 9-11. So my question is - when there is objection, should our countries stay out of the country in question? And what about objection from environmentalist groups - how is that different from objection from Islamic groups? If we should appease one by staying out, should we also appease the other?

OK, I'm having trouble believing that Smallc ever said that the 9/11 attacks were morally justified though (so I'm still curious to see the link). Is this really what you're claiming, that many Canadians think violent terrorism against the US is justified (as opposed to explicable) because of US actions overseas?

Anywho, since you asked my opinion, I'll give it, based on your explanation and the link in the OP. I'm not sure it's very exciting though:

"Objection" from some group or "appeasement" should not in and of themselves be a reason for our governments (or mining companies for that matter) to 'stay out' of a country. I would like to see human rights and environmental factors play a greater role in these decisions but not for the sake of appeasing some group's objections.

In this case, it seems like there may well be legitimate environmental concerns about the mining project. I'm not the best person to evaluate it based on what I know. Hopefully, the assessment by Romania's environment ministry will sort it out and determine whether the concerns are grave enough to trump the economic benefits (to answer the first actual question from your OP!). I wish there were better oversight of corporations' international labour and environmental practices. I have to also wonder how long-term the resulting employment would be from this project.

I tend to agree with waldo, though, that this situation does not really seem to parallel military actions by a government in another country. It's more comparable to PepsiCo's involvement in Burma in the 90s, perhaps.

Your other question in the OP was about whether the company has the "right" to do this, which Smallc answered.

(Edited for grammar)

Edited January 29, 2012 by Evening Star

[Guest Manny]

I thought bin Laden said his reason for attacking the US was because of it's interference in the middle east, particularly Palestine.

A quick google search reveals this to be true-

Bin Laden: Palestinian Cause Prompted 9/11

So while it's true that he criticizes Saudi Arabia's involvement at the government level in cooperating with the United States, he cites the Palestinian issue as his main reason for the attack.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Manny

[waldo]

I haven't "backed off it." Try to keep up.

you started off with a premise concerning protests against Canadian government interest in a Romania goldmine. Until you support that claim and show that the involvement goes beyond a single Canadian corporate interest in that goldmine (one the Canadian company already owns 80% of), your OP and thread title, in that context, makes no sense.

you proceeded to attempt to equate subsequent blowback against U.S. military invasion/intervention/intrusion in other countries with environmental protests against your trumped up example of outside corporate interests in a Canadian pipeline proposal... of course, you did this while failing to draw distinction between protests against the pipeline pursuit, proper, versus protests against outside investment in the pursuit.

[Evening Star]

Yeah, I'd never heard before that US involvement with Saudi Arabia was the primary motivation for 9/11. My first thought when reading the thread was that there must be some controversial new American economic project in Saudi Arabia I hadn't heard of.

xpost to Manny

Edited January 29, 2012 by Evening Star

[Guest American Woman]

OK, I'm having trouble believing that Smallc ever said that the 9/11 attacks were morally justified though (so I'm still curious to see the link). Is this really what you're claiming, that many Canadians think violent terrorism against the US is justified (as opposed to explicable) because of US actions overseas?

I quoted what he said - which wasn't saying they were morally justified - and I'm not asking if an attack/blow back directed at Canadians citizens would be morally justified. I'm asking if the same principle would apply.

Anywho, since you asked my opinion, I'll give it, based on your explanation and the link in the OP. I'm not sure it's very exciting though:

"Objection" from some group or "appeasement" should not in and of themselves be a reason for our governments (or mining companies for that matter) to 'stay out' of a country. I would like to see human rights and environmental factors play a greater role in these decisions but not for the sake of appeasing some group's objections.

I agree.

In this case, it seems like there may well be legitimate environmental concerns about the mining project. I'm not the best person to evaluate it based on what I know. Hopefully, the assessment by Romania's environment ministry will sort it out and determine whether the concerns are grave enough to trump the economic benefits (to answer the first actual question from your OP!). I wish there were better oversight of corporations' international labour and environmental practices. I have to also wonder how long-term the resulting employment would be from this project.

From what I've read, I agree that there are legitimate environmental concerns, but in the end, I think the responsibility for the "right" decision - keeping in mind what's legal isn't always "right" - falls on Romania.

I tend to agree with waldo, though, that this situation does not really seem to parallel military actions by a government in another country. It's more comparable to PepsiCo's involvement in Burma in the 90s, perhaps.

Really? There were environmental concerns over that? At any rate, "American culture" has also been blamed. Furthermore, I don't see much difference between an approved military presence that upsets a religious group and an approved mining presence that upsets environmentalists. Perhaps you could explain?

Your other question in the OP was about whether the company has the "right" to do this, which Smallc answered.

As I said, "right" isn't always synonymous with "legal."

[kimmy]

So does "unemployment" trump the concerns? Does a Canadian company have the right to go into another country against protests?

That's up to the Romanian government. It depends on their environmental policies and how much weight they give to the concerns of the protestors.

Here in B.C. there is a mining project called "New Prosperity" which would be a massive gold and copper mine. The proposal required that Fish Lake be essentially destroyed. The company said that there was no other economically feasible way of getting the gold and copper out, and said that if they didn't get their way, then they would walk away and all the jobs they wanted to create would be lost. The BC government gave in. The federal government said no. The company fumed and cried that the government was destroying jobs and blah blah blah and took their ball and went home. Then they came back with a new proposal... amazingly they had discovered a way of mining the area without destroying Fish Lake. "Oh, well, changing market conditions make the alternative plan possible now."

Governments shouldn't just cave in on environmental protection.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

I thought bin Laden said his reason for attacking the US was because of it's interference in the middle east, particularly Palestine.

I wasn't referring to what bin Laden has said so much as I was referring to what some here have said.

A quick google search reveals this to be true-

Bin Laden: Palestinian Cause Prompted 9/11

So while it's true that he criticizes Saudi Arabia's involvement at the government level in cooperating with the United States, he cites the Palestinian issue as his main reason for the attack.

And yet he's done nothing to help Palestinians, has he? The U.S. is doing more. He has also done nothing to stop the Taliban's treatment of Muslims in Afghanistan - and was, in fact, in Afghanistan with their blessing. So how does that add up with claims of his concern?

But once again, we are acting as a sovereign nation in regards to Palestine, so should a nation act on behalf of an individual's/group's disapproval?

So what are your views on this issue? On Canada's mining and oil projects overseas that are met with objections?

[waldo]

From what I've read, I agree that there are legitimate environmental concerns, but in the end, I think the responsibility for the "right" decision - keeping in mind what's legal isn't always "right" - falls on Romania.

let me help your flailing... if you want to keep to your opening Romania goldmine example (excluding your incorrect premise that it includes direct Canadian government involvement), I suggest you attempt to find a parallel in Canadian environmental groups protesting, oh, say... Chinese Sinopec investment in the Northern Gateway pipeline. To be clear, I suggest you attempt to find a parallel in Canadian environmental protests against Sinopec's monetary investment in the pipeline... as distinct from protests against the pipeline initiative, proper.

[cybercoma]

No, I haven't changed it - Obviously the U.S. had the legal right to have a presence in S.A., and that goes for the private companies that have 'invaded' other nations with their presence/western culture, too.

But I can't help but notice that you had nothing to say about it.

I haven't said anything about the OP yet because I'm trying to understand what you're asking. Are you asking whether we should do these things or whether we can do these things?

[Guest American Woman]

That's up to the Romanian government. It depends on their environmental policies and how much weight they give to the concerns of the protestors.

I agree. I think any decision ultimately falls on the country that permits it.

Here in B.C. there is a mining project called "New Prosperity" which would be a massive gold and copper mine. The proposal required that Fish Lake be essentially destroyed. The company said that there was no other economically feasible way of getting the gold and copper out, and said that if they didn't get their way, then they would walk away and all the jobs they wanted to create would be lost. The BC government gave in. The federal government said no. The company fumed and cried that the government was destroying jobs and blah blah blah and took their ball and went home. Then they came back with a new proposal... amazingly they had discovered a way of mining the area without destroying Fish Lake. "Oh, well, changing market conditions make the alternative plan possible now."

I'm sure that's what's going to ultimately happen with the XL Pipeline, too - an alternate route approved - although much is being made of Obama's denial of the present application. Even Harper is making a lot out of it, so out of curiosity, was the federal government that said "no" the Harper government?

Governments shouldn't just cave in on environmental protection.

So you're agreeing with the federal government's saying "no" to the project in the example you cited?

[eyeball]

Respond to the issue...

We all got coming kid.

[Evening Star]

From what I've read, I agree that there are legitimate environmental concerns, but in the end, I thnk the responsibility for the "right" decision - keeping in mind what's legal isn't always "right" - falls on Romania.

It's a hard one. To some extent, I think corporations should maintain a certain level of social/environmental responsibility on their own.

Really? There were environmental concerns over that?

Human rights and labour concerns. We ripped s--- up at my high school over it, let me tell you.

At any rate, "American culture" has also been blamed. Furthermore, I don't see much difference between an approved military presence that upsets a religious group and an approved mining presence that upsets environmentalists. Perhaps you could explain?

I just think that there's a difference between a private corporation that happens to be 80% owned by private Canadian shareholders and a government that is elected by and represents the citizens of a country.

I suppose if the Canadian government's actions in Afghanistan or Libya or some other place pissed some group off to the point that they attacked Canada in revenge, that could be described as "blowback". I guess that even if the actions of Canadian businesses provoked some such attack, it could be described as "blowback". (However, even the most extreme environmental groups tend to attack the corporations and maybe their employees when they're upset about corporate actions.) Is that what you're asking?

Edited January 29, 2012 by Evening Star

[Guest American Woman]

It's a hard one. To some extent, I think corporations should maintain a certain level of social/environmental responsibility on their own.

Sure they should, but many don't, thus the need for laws.

I just think that there's a difference between a private corporation that happens to be 80% owned by private Canadian shareholders and a government that is elected by and represents the citizens of a country.

Yet the government gets involved in these decisions. Harper certainly has involved himself with the XL Pipeline, for example. And when the government is lax in enforcing its laws, such as bribery to foreign countries for corporate favors re: mining, then the government is involved.

I suppose if the Canadian government's actions in Afghanistan or Libya or some other place pissed some group off to the point that they attacked Canada in revenge, that could be described as "blowback". I guess that even if the actions of Canadian businesses provoked some such attack, it could be described as "blowback". Is that what you're asking?

Yes, that's partly what I'm asking - I'm asking if an attack aimed at Canadian civilians would be perceived as "blow back" - it's even been said that "the U.S. was asking for it" regarding 9-11. My question goes further, though - should the government take the possibility of blowback into consideration when making decisions/policy/taking a stand on an issue?

Edited January 29, 2012 by American Woman

[LonJowett]

you started off with a premise concerning protests against Canadian government interest in a Romania goldmine. Until you support that claim and show that the involvement goes beyond a single Canadian corporate interest in that goldmine (one the Canadian company already owns 80% of), your OP and thread title, in that context, makes no sense.

Silence sometimes speaks volumes - this would be one of those times.

[eyeball]

Yes, that's partly what I'm asking - I'm asking if an attack aimed at Canadian civilians would be perceived as "blow back" - it's even been said that "the U.S. was asking for it" regarding 9-11. My question goes further, though - should the government take the possibility of blowback into consideration when making decisions/policy/taking a stand on an issue?

There's sport angling with one line and one hook and then there's commercial trolling with six lines and 6, 7 or more leaders per line.

Are you fishing for fun or profit today?

[waldo]

I'm asking if an attack aimed at Canadian civilians would be perceived as "blow back" - it's even been said that "the U.S. was asking for it" regarding 9-11. My question goes further, though - should the government take the possibility of blowback into consideration when making decisions/policy/taking a stand on an issue?

and how does any of that relate to Canadian corporate pursuit... keeping to your failed OP example, are there any raised Romanian protests against Canada? Just how far are you prepared to go to fabricate an issue?

[cybercoma]

There's sport angling with one line and one hook and then there's commercial trolling with six lines and 6, 7 or more leaders per line.

Are you fishing for fun or profit today?

Nice.

[bush_cheney2004]

Respond to the issue, or I won't be wasting any more time with you - or anyone else who refuses to respond to the actual issue. As I said, your lack of comments speaks volumes - and tells me what I wanted to know.

No surprise here....hysteric rants about Halliburton/KBR or Bechtel's activities are met with silence when matched by Canadian mining operations that "rape" the earth and local cultures around the world. It was embarrassing to see the extent of this complicity in Myanmar and the military dictatorship.

Canadian mining dominates Africa

Ivanhoe in Myanmar (Burma)

This is just another example of the American Woman Corollary:

"Canada is not acting like the United States, it is acting like Canada"

[eyeball]

and how does any of that relate to Canadian corporate pursuit... keeping to your failed OP example, are there any raised Romanian protests against Canada? Just how far are you prepared to go to fabricate an issue?

Of course fishing and catching are two vastly different things.

[Shady]

again, in your scatter-board best, you're attempting to equate U.S. military presence/blowback with corporate presence/protests.

I agree that there's a difference between a military presence and a corporate presence. But what if protesters don't really see a difference? What if they don't care? There's a huge difference between a military occupation, and a goverment allowing another government to house a specific number of military personnel on a specific restricted area within their country. That difference didn't matter though.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree that there's a difference between a military presence and a corporate presence. But what if protesters don't really see a difference? What if they don't care? There's a huge difference between a military occupation, and a goverment allowing another government to house a specific number of military personnel on a specific restricted area within their country. That difference didn't matter though.

You're hitting on what I've said. Those who protest don't really see a difference between "the government" and "private corporations from said country," especially since the government is often involved at some level. And why is it ok to "not care what the protesters think" in some instances and not others? - Be it a government or corporation makes no difference to those objecting, so why does it affect whether one cares about their feelings or not? Makes no sense to me. Furthermore, "the U.S." has been blamed for actions of American corporations abroad - for the very reasons I've stated.

[waldo]

you used the term 'blowback'... that most certainly does not have immediate and direct corporate attachments... well, notwithstanding a Haliburton here or there.

hysteric rants about Halliburton

hey now... oh, wait, you mean generalized hysteria, separate from this thread!