Should Canada leave NATO?

[waldo]

As a member of NORAD and NATO we have no need to challenge Russia alone.......

your reference is specious! In terms of Arctic mapping and related sovereignty claims, Russia has been completely transparent and has followed the process laid out by the UN... where ultimate decisions will be made and applied on through to international law and boundary declarations.

.

[Smallc]

Yes, the honestly and transparency of Russia is praised the world over.

[Derek 2.0]

your reference is specious! In terms of Arctic mapping and related sovereignty claims, Russia has been completely transparent and has followed the process laid out by the UN... where ultimate decisions will be made and applied on through to international law and boundary declarations.

.

First, how is my response wrong? The member stated Canada could only challenge Russia with our own nuclear weapons........

As to the UN and International law versus Russia, though I would tend to agree/hope with your assertion to be true, I'm reminded of Georgia and the Crimea........and the recent reoccupying and expansion of Cold War era Soviet bases by the Russian military..........

[waldo]

Yes, the honestly and transparency of Russia is praised the world over.

if you'd like to step beyond your usual chirping, feel free to speak to concerns you have with how Russia has proceeded to support it's Arctic sovereignty claim.

[Smallc]

if you'd like to step beyond your usual chirping, feel free to speak to concerns you have with how Russia has proceeded to support it's Arctic sovereignty claim.

I believe their original claim was thrown out.

[waldo]

First, how is my response wrong? The member stated Canada could only challenge Russia with our own nuclear weapons........

As to the UN and International law versus Russia, though I would tend to agree/hope with your assertion to be true, I'm reminded of Georgia and the Crimea........and the recent reoccupying and expansion of Cold War era Soviet bases by the Russian military..........

you've already got your trigger finger at the ready... you're wrong because decisions on Arctic sovereignty have yet to be made... related boundaries have yet to be assigned... associated international laws have yet to be enacted.

[waldo]

I believe their original claim was thrown out.

citation request

[Derek 2.0]

you've already got your trigger finger at the ready... you're wrong because decisions on Arctic sovereignty have yet to be made... related boundaries have yet to be assigned... associated international laws have yet to be enacted.

I never suggested otherwise....

[waldo]

I never suggested otherwise....

so your "not having to go it alone to challenge Russia"... that will first wait for UN sovereignty decisions, boundary mapping, international laws... your presumed Russian breaking of those related international laws and attempts to resolve any disputes through the UN/International courts... right?

[Derek 2.0]

so your "not having to go it alone to challenge Russia"... that will first wait for UN sovereignty decisions, boundary mapping, international laws... your presumed Russian breaking of those related international laws and attempts to resolve any disputes through the UN/International courts... right?

Context Waldo, my statement was in reply to a suggestion that we couldn't fend off a Russian threat to our sovereignty, sans our own nuclear arsenal.

[waldo]

Context Waldo

and the context was... Arctic sovereignty and all the hypothetical aspects that exist around that context... aspects that I highlighted in reply.

[Smallc]

citation request

This claim has been backed by ample scientific evidence, according to Russia, whose first claim was rejected by the United Nations in 2002 because it lacked sufficient evidence.

http://theowp.org/russia-re-submits-formal-claim-to-artic-territory/

[Derek 2.0]

and the context was... Arctic sovereignty and all the hypothetical aspects that exist around that context... aspects that I highlighted in reply.

I read his post as Canadian sovereignty as a whole, with the suggestion that we don't require a military because the United States and Danes pose no threat, leaving reasonable Russia as a potential threat, of which we could only challenge with our own nuclear weapons, as such, no point in having a military.........

If you require one, I'm certain the member could provide a formula for your consumption.

[waldo]

This claim has been backed by ample scientific evidence, according to Russia, whose first claim was rejected by the United Nations in 2002 because it lacked sufficient evidence.

http://theowp.org/russia-re-submits-formal-claim-to-artic-territory/

rejected versus your initial "thrown out" wording... the connotations are significantly different. The result of that initial claim was one that set the bar for all countries... it's the reason why Russia has been the most active and engaged country working to substantiate its claim. In relation, Canada's efforts/monies spent have paled in comparison... in line with the blustering rhetoric from Harper Conservatives on the subject of Arctic sovereignty.

[waldo]

If you require one, I'm certain the member could provide a formula for your consumption.

and that response highlights why I rarely bother with you anymore.

[Smallc]

rejected versus your initial "thrown out" wording... the connotations are significantly different.

I don't see them as different. Apparently you do, as you dislike being wrong.

The result of that initial claim was one that set the bar for all countries... it's the reason why Russia has been the most active and engaged country working to substantiate its claim.

Apparently you have a thing for Russia. Your position seems rather naive and doesn't really jive with events around the world.

[Derek 2.0]

rejected versus your initial "thrown out" wording... the connotations are significantly different. The result of that initial claim was one that set the bar for all countries... it's the reason why Russia has been the most active and engaged country working to substantiate its claim. In relation, Canada's efforts/monies spent have paled in comparison... in line with the blustering rhetoric from Harper Conservatives on the subject of Arctic sovereignty.

Russia was "the most active and engaged country working to substantiate its claim" because of the vestiges leftover from the Soviet Union:

and already existing infrastructure within its own Arctic region........

[Derek 2.0]

and that response highlights why I rarely bother with you anymore.

Oh well.......I'm still wondering your point of response in the first place.

[waldo]

Russia was "the most active and engaged country working to substantiate its claim" because of the vestiges leftover from the Soviet Union:

and already existing infrastructure within its own Arctic region........

such a nothing statement you offer! How simplistic of you to choose to ignore decision/commitment.

[waldo]

Oh well.......I'm still wondering your point of response in the first place.

this is why you're just a waste of time. That paragraph had multiple sentences in it. You chose to respond to the last sentence in the whole paragraph... I chose to respond to the context of the paragraph - Arctic sovereignty. I subsequently see/appreciate your perspective... you're unwilling to do the same. But you sure were willing to drop that POS one-liner reply of yours, weren't you!

[Derek 2.0]

such a nothing statement you offer! How simplistic of you to choose to ignore decision/commitment.

Not simplistic at all, more realistic........the Russians couldn't have afforded their level of research and resources at their disposal post 1991......furthermore, as I've said countless times, the Russians have forgotten more on the Arctic then US/Canada/Denmark/Finland/Sweden could hope to learn in a century........When the British, French, Dutch and Spanish were dividing the World centuries ago, Tsars Ivan the Terrible, followed by Peter the Great, were exploring the Arctic.....

[Derek 2.0]

this is why you're just a waste of time. That paragraph had multiple sentences in it. You chose to respond to the last sentence in the whole paragraph... I chose to respond to the context of the paragraph - Arctic sovereignty. I subsequently see/appreciate your perspective... you're unwilling to do the same. But you sure were willing to drop that POS one-liner reply of yours, weren't you!

And the ongoing context of the member's post, and intent of the OP, is what? And no, I very much replied earlier in somewhat agreeing fashion.......

As to the UN and International law versus Russia, though I would tend to agree/hope with your assertion to be true, I'm reminded of Georgia and the Crimea........and the recent reoccupying and expansion of Cold War era Soviet bases by theRussian military..........

As I said Waldo, its all context......funny enough, your reply to the above post:

you've already got your trigger finger at the ready... you're wrong because decisions on Arctic sovereignty have yet to be made... related boundaries have yet to be assigned... associated international laws have yet to be enacted.

You started with an adversarial dig, followed up by suggesting I stated such rulings as fact/resolved....

[waldo]

I don't see them as different. Apparently you do, as you dislike being wrong.

Apparently you have a thing for Russia. Your position seems rather naive and doesn't really jive with events around the world.

I've written at length on Arctic sovereignty, some of it showcasing the failings of Harper, some of it speaking directly to comparative claim pursuits of various countries, in particular Russia (since it's been the most actively engaged), much of it related to potential climate impacts relative to anticipated BigOil pursuits once claims are evaluated, decisions are made, boundaries are set and laws are made.

if it makes you feel better to imply I wasn't aware of that initial Russia effort... puff your chest out! And yes, the connotations are very different, whether you accept it or not. And yes, as I said, that initial effort set the bar for other nations given the subsequent determination by Russia. "A thing for Russia"? How mind-numbingly juvenile of you!

[waldo]

You started with an adversarial dig, followed up by suggesting I stated such rulings as fact/resolved....

no - not adversarial at all... it was a statement of fact. In line with your military bent you chose to ignore the actual content and the related process/procedure behind claim submissions and all that flows from that.

I'm bored with you - don't bother responding... I could care less!

[Derek 2.0]

no - not adversarial at all... it was a statement of fact. In line with your military bent you chose to ignore the actual content and the related process/procedure behind claim submissions and all that flows from that.

Huh?

An annual demonstration of our ability to operate within our own Arctic, a region of the Earth as foreign to the majority on this planet as the Moons of Jupiter, is exactly that, a demonstration of sovereignty........by far, the most important part conducted annually by both our Navy and Coast Guard is the Hydrographic surveying of the Arctic seabed...a prerequisite to any sovereignty claim going forwards.