Harper brushes off U.S. criticism of Arctic plan

[Shady]

Harper brushes off U.S. criticism of Arctic plan

Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper took aim at the American ambassador's criticism of the Conservatives' Arctic sovereignty plan on Thursday, in the party leader's first news conference since winning a minority government.

"The United States defends its sovereignty and the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," Harper told reporters in Ottawa. "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."

A day earlier, David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, said his government opposes Harper's proposed plan to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic to detect interlopers and assert Canadian sovereignty over those waters.

CBC

So much for the liberal fearmongering about Harper being a puppet of the evil Bush Administration. Way to go Stephen!!!!!!! See everybody, this is what a real leader with real values, and real positions on issues acts like. God, it's been so long. What a refreshing change from the usual "all things to all people" Paul Martin was. Good riddance Paul.

[tml12]

"So much for the liberal fearmongering about Harper being a puppet of the evil Bush Administration. Way to go Stephen!!!!!!! See everybody, this is what a real leader with real values, and real positions on issues acts like. God, it's been so long. What a refreshing change from the usual "all things to all people" Paul Martin was. Good riddance Paul."

Martin is still dithering over whether to spend the next few weeks in the Eastern Townships or in Ottawa. He can't be bothered with all this decision-making stuff.

[YankAbroad]

Ideally, the two countries should be working out a deal over the area.

If Ottawa shares some of the wealth, it could get to command the US navy in the area by proxy. That would give it significant leverage over Denmark and Russia that it lacks today in terms of its military power. It could also allow Ottawa greater leverage over the area than it would have if it got everything it wanted today -- not even the Russians will argue with three or four US carriers and a fleet of nukie subs.

[tml12]

Ideally, the two countries should be working out a deal over the area.

If Ottawa shares some of the wealth, it could get to command the US navy in the area by proxy. That would give it significant leverage over Denmark and Russia that it lacks today in terms of its military power. It could also allow Ottawa greater leverage over the area than it would have if it got everything it wanted today -- not even the Russians will argue with three or four US carriers and a fleet of nukie subs.

I believe this "tough new Harper standing up the American policy" is a Conservative plot to try and show that Harper can be "tough" in dealing with the Americans.

Yes the situation in North American is that bad where we judge a PM's worth based on how well they "deal with the Americans."

I can only hope the situation does improve because we need Harper to turn things around here.

[Leafless]

Tml12

You wrote- " Yes the situation is that bad where we judge a PM's worth based on how well they deal with the Americans."

Why Mr. harper has chosen the Liberals poorly thought out soverignity issue to defend Artic waters I find hard to understand.

The high cost concerning military expenditures and equpiment make the feat of Canada controlling and protecting Candian Artic waterways a fiscal impossiability due to the fact of our military being fiscally ignored so long by the Liberals.

In the end though dollars to donuts some deal sharing Northern waterways with the U.S. will probably be the outcome.

[tml12]

Tml12

You wrote- " Yes the situation is that bad where we judge a PM's worth based on how well they deal with the Americans."

Why Mr. harper has chosen the Liberals poorly thought out soverignity issue to defend Artic waters I find hard to understand.

The high cost concerning military expenditures and equpiment make the feat of Canada controlling and protecting Candian Artic waterways a fiscal impossiability due to the fact of our military being fiscally ignored so long by the Liberals.

In the end though dollars to donuts some deal sharing Northern waterways with the U.S. will probably be the outcome.

And maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world...it'll benefit both countries.

[Shakeyhands]

Ideally, the two countries should be working out a deal over the area.

If Ottawa shares some of the wealth, it could get to command the US navy in the area by proxy. That would give it significant leverage over Denmark and Russia that it lacks today in terms of its military power. It could also allow Ottawa greater leverage over the area than it would have if it got everything it wanted today -- not even the Russians will argue with three or four US carriers and a fleet of nukie subs.

I believe this "tough new Harper standing up the American policy" is a Conservative plot to try and show that Harper can be "tough" in dealing with the Americans.

I too believe this was planned.. its a non issue and you have to wonder why that jackass Wilkns brought it up.

[speaker]

"So much for the liberal fearmongering about Harper being a puppet of the evil Bush Administration. Way to go Stephen!!!!!!! See everybody, this is what a real leader with real values, and real positions on issues acts like. God, it's been so long. What a refreshing change from the usual "all things to all people" Paul Martin was. Good riddance Paul."

Martin is still dithering over whether to spend the next few weeks in the Eastern Townships or in Ottawa. He can't be bothered with all this decision-making stuff.

And maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world...it'll benefit both countries.

Wow that's got to be the fastest and easiest conversion I've seen since about third grade. I mean that in a complimentary sense.

Unless I misunderstood the YankAbroad wasn't talking about Canada sharing the waterway, YankAbroad was talking about sharing the wealth. in return for American Protection, The ultimate in capitalism is the Mafia.

Think about this, if the wealth is sufficient to be bought with American assistance why isn't it enough to buy by ourselves? Or think about something else if you'ld rather, but please think.

[Black Dog]

Do we need a third thread on this?

[tml12]

"So much for the liberal fearmongering about Harper being a puppet of the evil Bush Administration. Way to go Stephen!!!!!!! See everybody, this is what a real leader with real values, and real positions on issues acts like. God, it's been so long. What a refreshing change from the usual "all things to all people" Paul Martin was. Good riddance Paul."

Martin is still dithering over whether to spend the next few weeks in the Eastern Townships or in Ottawa. He can't be bothered with all this decision-making stuff.

And maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world...it'll benefit both countries.

Wow that's got to be the fastest and easiest conversion I've seen since about third grade. I mean that in a complimentary sense.

Unless I misunderstood the YankAbroad wasn't talking about Canada sharing the waterway, YankAbroad was talking about sharing the wealth. in return for American Protection, The ultimate in capitalism is the Mafia.

Think about this, if the wealth is sufficient to be bought with American assistance why isn't it enough to buy by ourselves? Or think about something else if you'ld rather, but please think.

I'm honoured...I think...

I thought this was about sharing the waterway. But maybe I am wrong. What I do know is that if we can form a symbiotic relationship I think it will improve relations at the present and also benefit both countries down the road.

[speaker]

Ah... fine , a symbiotic relationship, one in which peaceful co-existence is enhanced by each party taking from the other and giving back in equal amounts so that neither side is diminished. Wouldn't that be great if we were simply two dumb organisms that were regulated by the natural order of symbiosis. Unfortunately I think that that is not true, and the further we allow Canada to be sucked into that relationship the more we will give to the multinationals who govern the States and the less we will get in return. It is not in the interests of the capitalist to ensure the viability of it's prey.

[tml12]

Ah... fine , a symbiotic relationship, one in which peaceful co-existence is enhanced by each party taking from the other and giving back in equal amounts so that neither side is diminished. Wouldn't that be great if we were simply two dumb organisms that were regulated by the natural order of symbiosis. Unfortunately I think that that is not true, and the further we allow Canada to be sucked into that relationship the more we will give to the multinationals who govern the States and the less we will get in return. It is not in the interests of the capitalist to ensure the viability of it's prey.

Speaker,

I think that you look at the situation in a much more pessimistic matter than you need to. Sure, attitudes like yours have been why the Liberal Party governs without much opposition in this country...because they run on a platform to protect Canadian sovereignty.

I think you need to look at the United States and see it as a country that we can work with. I think your fears are unfounded and based mainly on the fear so many of us have of the United States.

Let's make an agreement, check it out, and see where it goes. And most of all: let's be optimistic about it...

[CCGirl]

If you look at history, there is not a lot of reason to be optimistic. Listen to the war drums beating south of the border. The US has "suddenly" taken a huge interest in the Tar Sands, they want our water. Sovereignty is only a minor irritant to the USA.

All you need to do is remember how powerful we have been over the softwood lumber dispute!

[tml12]

If you look at history, there is not a lot of reason to be optimistic. Listen to the war drums beating south of the border. The US has "suddenly" taken a huge interest in the Tar Sands, they want our water. Sovereignty is only a minor irritant to the USA.

All you need to do is remember how powerful we have been over the softwood lumber dispute!

Again, I think you need to look at it from both sides of the issue and not just "what do those damn Americans want now? Why don't they just f**k off?"

Really if someone wants something from you then work out an agreement...don't just be hostile about it.

If you have a grudge from the beginning, the end result will not be positive.

[CCGirl]

If you look at history, there is not a lot of reason to be optimistic. Listen to the war drums beating south of the border. The US has "suddenly" taken a huge interest in the Tar Sands, they want our water. Sovereignty is only a minor irritant to the USA.

All you need to do is remember how powerful we have been over the softwood lumber dispute!

Again, I think you need to look at it from both sides of the issue and not just "what do those damn Americans want now? Why don't they just f**k off?"

Really if someone wants something from you then work out an agreement...don't just be hostile about it.

If you have a grudge from the beginning, the end result will not be positive.

I understand and agree, however the USA does not have a great record of honouring agreemnts when they don't get their way and that must be kept in mind while at the table. This can not be ignored, and it weakens our position considerably when you live next door to the bully that could roll over and crush us if we assert our sovereignty.

[tml12]

If you look at history, there is not a lot of reason to be optimistic. Listen to the war drums beating south of the border. The US has "suddenly" taken a huge interest in the Tar Sands, they want our water. Sovereignty is only a minor irritant to the USA.

All you need to do is remember how powerful we have been over the softwood lumber dispute!

Again, I think you need to look at it from both sides of the issue and not just "what do those damn Americans want now? Why don't they just f**k off?"

Really if someone wants something from you then work out an agreement...don't just be hostile about it.

If you have a grudge from the beginning, the end result will not be positive.

I understand and agree, however the USA does not have a great record of honouring agreemnts when they don't get their way and that must be kept in mind while at the table. This can not be ignored, and it weakens our position considerably when you live next door to the bully that could roll over and crush us if we assert our sovereignty.

I do not disagree. However, I always give people the benefit of the doubt. The U.S. wants to negotiate, then we negotiate. If they are being unfair, we retaliate.

Of course past considerations should be kept in mind...

[moderateamericain]

If you look at history, there is not a lot of reason to be optimistic. Listen to the war drums beating south of the border. The US has "suddenly" taken a huge interest in the Tar Sands, they want our water. Sovereignty is only a minor irritant to the USA.

All you need to do is remember how powerful we have been over the softwood lumber dispute!

Again, I think you need to look at it from both sides of the issue and not just "what do those damn Americans want now? Why don't they just f**k off?"

Really if someone wants something from you then work out an agreement...don't just be hostile about it.

If you have a grudge from the beginning, the end result will not be positive.

I understand and agree, however the USA does not have a great record of honouring agreemnts when they don't get their way and that must be kept in mind while at the table. This can not be ignored, and it weakens our position considerably when you live next door to the bully that could roll over and crush us if we assert our sovereignty.

I do not disagree. However, I always give people the benefit of the doubt. The U.S. wants to negotiate, then we negotiate. If they are being unfair, we retaliate.

Of course past considerations should be kept in mind...

If a president wanted to invade canada id be the first one to take a shot at him with my .308. Canada has nothing to fear militarly from the United States as long as we are still a democracy.

[YankAbroad]

Canada and the US don't fight wars with guns and bombs.

We fight wars with "musicians."

[captaincanuck]

If you look at history, there is not a lot of reason to be optimistic. Listen to the war drums beating south of the border. The US has "suddenly" taken a huge interest in the Tar Sands, they want our water. Sovereignty is only a minor irritant to the USA.

All you need to do is remember how powerful we have been over the softwood lumber dispute!

Again, I think you need to look at it from both sides of the issue and not just "what do those damn Americans want now? Why don't they just f**k off?"

Really if someone wants something from you then work out an agreement...don't just be hostile about it.

If you have a grudge from the beginning, the end result will not be positive.

I understand and agree, however the USA does not have a great record of honouring agreemnts when they don't get their way and that must be kept in mind while at the table. This can not be ignored, and it weakens our position considerably when you live next door to the bully that could roll over and crush us if we assert our sovereignty.

I do not disagree. However, I always give people the benefit of the doubt. The U.S. wants to negotiate, then we negotiate. If they are being unfair, we retaliate.

Of course past considerations should be kept in mind...

If a president wanted to invade canada id be the first one to take a shot at him with my .308. Canada has nothing to fear militarly from the United States as long as we are still a democracy.

Yank, i think what you mean is we have nothing to fear as long as we keep giving the Americans what they want. Democracy has nothing to do with it. The US has not let democracy get in the way of their desires, and inversely, they have not let extreme fundamentalist monarchies stop them from having great relations.....as long as the extreme fundamentalists give them what they want (hello, Saudi Arabia? we need oil. and we need a place to drop a few military bases. really? of course you'll give it to us? wonderful. oh no, stoning people? never heard of it.)

[YankAbroad]

At the end of the day, countries survive because they can defend themselves as bona fide entities.

Canada doesn't do itself any favours by huffing and puffing, isolating its allies, and then pretending it can go up against the Russians, Americans, and Danes with an armed forces smaller than the police force of New York City. It's realpoliticks and should be dealt with in that way.

The US has not let democracy get in the way of their desires

Oh, I completely agree.

Then again, Canada has never let democracy get in the way of its desires either. Nor has any other country.

[captaincanuck]

At the end of the day, countries survive because they can defend themselves as bona fide entities.

Canada doesn't do itself any favours by huffing and puffing, isolating its allies, and then pretending it can go up against the Russians, Americans, and Danes with an armed forces smaller than the police force of New York City. It's realpoliticks and should be dealt with in that way.

The US has not let democracy get in the way of their desires

Oh, I completely agree.

Then again, Canada has never let democracy get in the way of its desires either. Nor has any other country.

My point was that Canada remaining a democracy does not insure that the US will never decide that their need for our resources far outweighs our rights as a sovereign nation. However, having a visible military presence in the areas we claim, and pulling our own weight as far as our own national security, and our foreign policy and contributions goes, will leave the Americans feeling far less entitled to our piece of the pie (the "we defend you, you owe us" mindset).

That being said, do we need to spend 5.3 billion to beef up (or create) a military presence in the second most desolate, second least populated area of the planet? probably not. There should be a compromise in there.

[speaker]

I think that you look at the situation in a much more pessimistic matter than you need to. Sure, attitudes like yours have been why the Liberal Party governs without much opposition in this country...because they run on a platform to protect Canadian sovereignty.

I think you need to look at the United States and see it as a country that we can work with. I think your fears are unfounded and based mainly on the fear so many of us have of the United States.

Let's make an agreement, check it out, and see where it goes. And most of all: let's be optimistic about it...

My fears are based on travelling in the country and seeing first hand the effects of the winner take all attitude that prevails there. Your attitude of the power of positive thought isn't as relevant to international relationships as perhaps to personal self improvement.

Your suggestion that if someone wants something that we have then we should make an agreement on it and not just be hostile about it would work fine in the event that we want to let them have it.

In any event I'm curious to see whether this won't be one of the first of the conservative boondoggles.

[America1]

Harper brushes off U.S. criticism of Arctic plan

Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper took aim at the American ambassador's criticism of the Conservatives' Arctic sovereignty plan on Thursday, in the party leader's first news conference since winning a minority government.

"The United States defends its sovereignty and the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," Harper told reporters in Ottawa. "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."

A day earlier, David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, said his government opposes Harper's proposed plan to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic to detect interlopers and assert Canadian sovereignty over those waters.

CBC

So much for the liberal fearmongering about Harper being a puppet of the evil Bush Administration. Way to go Stephen!!!!!!! See everybody, this is what a real leader with real values, and real positions on issues acts like. God, it's been so long. What a refreshing change from the usual "all things to all people" Paul Martin was. Good riddance Paul.

Does anyone really think this is anything more than Harper just playing tough against the US to show the liberals that he won't be a lap dog?

[tml12]

Harper brushes off U.S. criticism of Arctic plan

Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper took aim at the American ambassador's criticism of the Conservatives' Arctic sovereignty plan on Thursday, in the party leader's first news conference since winning a minority government.

"The United States defends its sovereignty and the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty," Harper told reporters in Ottawa. "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States."

A day earlier, David Wilkins, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, said his government opposes Harper's proposed plan to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic to detect interlopers and assert Canadian sovereignty over those waters.

CBC

So much for the liberal fearmongering about Harper being a puppet of the evil Bush Administration. Way to go Stephen!!!!!!! See everybody, this is what a real leader with real values, and real positions on issues acts like. God, it's been so long. What a refreshing change from the usual "all things to all people" Paul Martin was. Good riddance Paul.

Does anyone really think this is anything more than Harper just playing tough against the US to show the liberals that he won't be a lap dog?

That is what I have been saying all day.

[Yaro]

Actually the easiest thing to do would be to cut a deal with the Chinese, they will have a much larger sub fleet shortly then the US and are predicted by most to be the worlds most powerful military within 40 years. They also have control of the Panama Canal so there desire to prevent unauthorized use of the northern passage is far more valuable to them then to us. I am sure we could work out an economic agreement that would be very beneficial to us. The Chinese also don't have the kind of militarist history that the US does so if I am going to deal with one devil or the other then that choice is somewhat obvious.

Of course the easiest thing to do would be to build about 300 small cap nukes and randomly "test" a low yield, no fallout nuke in the a random spot in the northern passage every 6 months or so.