US Refuses our Lumber but wants our Water

[B. Max]

name='old_bold&cold' I really do not think the USA will ever use military might as a tool in this as Russia would be here in the drop of a hat backing Canada up, before you could say boo.

What was I said was hiding under the maple leaf on the liberal flag, in earlier post.

Edited August 20, 2007 by B. Max

[Wilber]

Even if I were, it wouldn't go back to WW2. I understand Canuck style anti-Americanism...that's the version where they still want the Yankee dollars and markets. Strange.

You have it backwards, if people invest in something whether it is Canada or anything else, it is because of what they want.

[bush_cheney2004]

You have it backwards, if people invest in something whether it is Canada or anything else, it is because of what they want.

Could be, but not without Canada overtly soliciting such investment, to the point of removing all barriers. It's difficult to reconcile that longstanding policy with "not our water", unless that is just tacit admission of what has gone on all these years.

[jbg]

I really do not think the USA will ever use military might as a tool in this as Russia would be here in the drop of a hat backing Canada up, before you could say boo.

Over water? You've got to be kidding. Given the ties of blood, language and culture between our countries, Canada enlisting Russian help, even before Trudeau and Chretien were inoculated against rabies, would be unimaginable. Canada is not going to risk throwing a 500 km undefendable border into chaos by bringing in the Russians.

Canada is on the right course now ascerting its soveirgnty asserting its sovereignty over our lands and resources and it is about time. If the other parties can not get on line with this, then lets have an election and make this the their platforms to run on. I do get tired of seeing our government play toothless games because their is not enough backing to get the things done that need doing. It is time Canadians used ourt power of the people to ste our power to set the course and hold the leaders to it.

Assertion of sovereignty is fine, but when the chips were down in WW II Britain, despite its "sovereignty" needed the help of its prodigal son, the US, to survive. Do you not think Canada would call on US help in need? Yes, Canada helps the US all the time. That's what one expects among countries with similar histories, cultures, languages, and ties of business and blood.

[Wilber]

Could be, but not without Canada overtly soliciting such investment, to the point of removing all barriers. It's difficult to reconcile that longstanding policy with "not our water", unless that is just tacit admission of what has gone on all these years.

Not at all. You interpret our attachment to our water as anti Americanism. It's fear of losing control of something so fundamental and its possible effect on the country. I don't know how rational that is but it is real. It's only because the US is the logical destination. Americans have fears that don't seem rational to us as well.

[margrace]

Oh really? And how exactly would Russia do it? Ski over the North Pole? The US uses "military might" as a tool all the time and Russia can't do dick about it right now.

Ah pretty interesting statement, I hope that this is not a general feeling in the US. Don't underestimate Putin.

[margrace]

Over water? You've got to be kidding. Given the ties of blood, language and culture between our countries, Canada enlisting Russian help, even before Trudeau and Chretien were inoculated against rabies, would be unimaginable. Canada is not going to risk throwing a 500 km undefendable border into chaos by bringing in the Russians.

Assertion of sovereignty is fine, but when the chips were down in WW II Britain, despite its "sovereignty" needed the help of its prodigal son, the US, to survive. Do you not think Canada would call on US help in need? Yes, Canada helps the US all the time. That's what one expects among countries with similar histories, cultures, languages, and ties of business and blood.

Correcting someone else's spelling is a real put down, and underlines a superior attitude, this is exactly what Canadians object to.

[jbg]

Correcting someone else's spelling is a real put down, and underlines a superior attitude, this is exactly what Canadians object to.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as a putdown. I was trying to improve his work product.

In our office, we correct each others legal papers all the time before they go out.

[old_bold&cold]

Over water? You've got to be kidding. Given the ties of blood, language and culture between our countries, Canada enlisting Russian help, even before Trudeau and Chretien were inoculated against rabies, would be unimaginable. Canada is not going to risk throwing a 500 km undefendable border into chaos by bringing in the Russians.

Assertion of sovereignty is fine, but when the chips were down in WW II Britain, despite its "sovereignty" needed the help of its prodigal son, the US, to survive. Do you not think Canada would call on US help in need? Yes, Canada helps the US all the time. That's what one expects among countries with similar histories, cultures, languages, and ties of business and blood.

I used the arguement about Russia backing Canada, if there were any attempts at forceful take overs by the USA, only to make a point of the fact, that while the USA has always been a friend to Canada, and normally would also be quick to come to our aid, it is not the only one who would do so. Russia is once again rebuilding its stance towards the USA, but hopefully it will not go as far as it did during the Cold War. It does not take a genius or a political analyst, to see why this is happening again. My use was only to show those who said the USA could take it all by force etc, were wrong to think it would be an quick and easy effort. I do not really think the USA will ever attack us for our water or our oil. They will however break treaties and agreements and then claim parts of our territoies for their own if given even the slightest chance. That by the way is my own personal feeling. It may well be shared by others, but it probably does not reflect the majority. The one thing that Canada has going for itself is, we are well liked by most foreign nations. This is not because we are push overs, but rather that we are caring in many ways and about many things, that happen outside of our own lands. We readily help out and when peace keeping is required, we are one of the few nations that are prefered to be part of those kinds of operations. Afghanistan has shown as well, that Canada can take combat, and while we my not be as mighty and be as well equipped as the other countries, our troops are quite capable of working the combat areas, and doing so even in the face of adverse political intervention form our own government.

But back to water. I explained before that the water table is still all thru the USA, and even with tainted shallow water tables, it is capable if good clean fresh water, if they dig deeper wells etc. The deeper the well the more filtration the cleaner the water. The only problem is the deeper the well, the more sulphur in the water, but sulpher comes out with simple areation. Canada even if it decided to sell our water, could not get more for it then what the costs would be to get it from these other methods etc. (desalination, deep well etc ). Does this mean that we should not care, and just let it go, or do we take the stance that our fresh water must be a Canadian needs first and foremost approach? I am divided on much of this, only because in the past we have signed treaties that had then come back to haunt us with things like oil and gas. There is an agreement with the USA to supply oil and gas at prices that will never exceed our domestic price. This makes it so that even if Canada decided it wanted to set the price for Canadian oil and gas at a rate of 75% of the world price, the treaty's that were signed with the USA would then compell us to have to sell to them at that same price. Of course we could break that treaty, but we as Canadians are not treaty breakers it seems. Even when we know and see that it is wrong to have signed it in the first place. That is why even Alberta can not have a lower price of domestic crude, even though they have the capacity to do it. That is why I am leary of any treaty to be signed on water. I do not trust this government, or for that matter any of the past governments, with doing anything long term, as it seems that every treaty is accompanied with dozens of pages of political crap that hides the true meaning behind them. If an agreement is for 10 billion liters of water at such and such per liter, then that is all that needs to be said. Maybe a few extra lines for differing circumstances etc., but not the 100 pages of legalese that allows things to be changed etc. without notice. I feel that all treaties should say exactly what were the will and meanings were in plain english in the first paragraph and have it so that the first paragraph, is capable of over ruling any other interpetations of what ever follows after. Governments hide too much political manouvoring in the paragraphs after the intitail intents, and that to me is just wrong and should not be allowed. I am all for a treaty on freshwater sales, it it can be made simple and understood, without the hiddeen agendas. I also think the Canadian people as a whole would agree to such. The spirit of any treaty should always trump the legal wrangaling that follows so often. Even the USA could not fudge if things were made clear and concise. As you can tell by my long winded answers that I would never be a candidate to write a treaty, that I would agree to.

Edited August 20, 2007 by old_bold&cold

[old_bold&cold]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as a putdown. I was trying to improve his work product.

In our office, we correct each others legal papers all the time before they go out.

JBG

I probably should take more time and use my spell checker and yes I can see where my mistakes are. But to me I believe that as long as the meaning is clear then it has made its point. I am old enough that correcting my spelling etc. is not a big thng to me. I probably was more careful back when I was in college. Now I am retired and probably just do not think it a big deal. You will find later in life that to sweat these things will take many years off your life, but yes in todays work world it has been something that way too much emphasis is put on it. If this were something requiring legal staus yes then every error in spelling and grammar would count. See my above post though as to why I still say spirit and intent is all that should ever be that concise.

Edited August 20, 2007 by old_bold&cold

[margrace]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as a putdown. I was trying to improve his work product.

In our office, we correct each others legal papers all the time before they go out.

Legal papers are one thing but ordinary correspondance is another. My son wanted to edit his sisters letter and send it back. I put a stop to that one, she has a learning disability and it is wonderful to get the letter without complaining.

Edited August 20, 2007 by margrace

[margrace]

I used the arguement about Russia backing Canada, if there were any attempts at forceful take overs by the USA, only to make a point of the fact, that while the USA has always been a friend to Canada, and normally would also be quick to come to our aid, it is not the only one who would do so. Russia is once again rebuilding its stance towards the USA, but hopefully it will not go as far as it did during the Cold War. It does not take a genius or a political analyst, to see why this is happening again. My use was only to show those who said the USA could take it all by force etc, were wrong to think it would be an quick and easy effort. I do not really think the USA will ever attack us for our water or our oil. They will however break treaties and agreements and then claim parts of our territoies for their own if given even the slightest chance. That by the way is my own personal feeling. It may well be shared by others, but it probably does not reflect the majority. The one thing that Canada has going for itself is, we are well liked by most foreign nations. This is not because we are push overs, but rather that we are caring in many ways and about many things, that happen outside of our own lands. We readily help out and when peace keeping is required, we are one of the few nations that are prefered to be part of those kinds of operations. Afghanistan has shown as well, that Canada can take combat, and while we my not be as mighty and be as well equipped as the other countries, our troops are quite capable of working the combat areas, and doing so even in the face of adverse political intervention form our own government.

But back to water. I explained before that the water table is still all thru the USA, and even with tainted shallow water tables, it is capable if good clean fresh water, if they dig deeper wells etc. The deeper the well the more filtration the cleaner the water. The only problem is the deeper the well, the more sulphur in the water, but sulpher comes out with simple areation. Canada even if it decided to sell our water, could not get more for it then what the costs would be to get it from these other methods etc. (desalination, deep well etc ). Does this mean that we should not care, and just let it go, or do we take the stance that our fresh water must be a Canadian needs first and foremost approach? I am divided on much of this, only because in the past we have signed treaties that had then come back to haunt us with things like oil and gas. There is an agreement with the USA to supply oil and gas at prices that will never exceed our domestic price. This makes it so that even if Canada decided it wanted to set the price for Canadian oil and gas at a rate of 75% of the world price, the treaty's that were signed with the USA would then compell us to have to sell to them at that same price. Of course we could break that treaty, but we as Canadians are not treaty breakers it seems. Even when we know and see that it is wrong to have signed it in the first place. That is why even Alberta can not have a lower price of domestic crude, even though they have the capacity to do it. That is why I am leary of any treaty to be signed on water. I do not trust this government, or for that matter any of the past governments, with doing anything long term, as it seems that every treaty is accompanied with dozens of pages of political crap that hides the true meaning behind them. If an agreement is for 10 billion liters of water at such and such per liter, then that is all that needs to be said. Maybe a few extra lines for differing circumstances etc., but not the 100 pages of legalese that allows things to be changed etc. without notice. I feel that all treaties should say exactly what were the will and meanings were in plain english in the first paragraph and have it so that the first paragraph, is capable of over ruling any other interpetations of what ever follows after. Governments hide too much political manouvoring in the paragraphs after the intitail intents, and that to me is just wrong and should not be allowed. I am all for a treaty on freshwater sales, it it can be made simple and understood, without the hiddeen agendas. I also think the Canadian people as a whole would agree to such. The spirit of any treaty should always trump the legal wrangaling that follows so often. Even the USA could not fudge if things were made clear and concise. As you can tell by my long winded answers that I would never be a candidate to write a treaty, that I would agree to.

Celucci, here he comes again, he never stops. He on the news this morning.

[marcinmoka]

It does not take a genius or a political analyst, to see why this is happening again

A genius, no. A political analyst, yes. And sorry mate, but you are far, far, far off the mark what most other analysts and academics report to be taking place.

[old_bold&cold]

I will bet you that within the next year, you will see that my view of why and what is happening with Russia remilitarizing itself, is close to my view then to any of the so called analysts. I say this mostly because just about every analyst that puts his neck out with his thoughts is more often then not wrong in the way things actually happen. Please do not take offence at this, as it is just my view that is based on my past life and things I have seen. The reason I put so little faith in what governments say and do, and also the analyst who say they know what it really means, have been just as wrong as the weatherman. Maybe I am just getting too old and cranky but the Universities who teach Political Sciences, should change it to Political VooDoo or spin the wheel and throw a dart.

It is impossible for even the best political analyst to tell me just what the course will be over the next year taken by our government, and get it even 50% right. In my books that is a failing grade.

[Topaz]

ANY government that is willing to sell BULK water to other countries, doesn't need to be the government! Water, humans can only live 5 days without it but we can live without anything else longer. They say that "water" is the new "oil" but it doesn't matter how much its worth, a country must keep it for its people to live! The Great Lakes are have states and provinces against any water being sold as bulk from them. The US do have states like California and Florida that take ocean water and change it into safe drinking water and I suggest to the US keep doing it and leave Canada alone!

[marcinmoka]

It is impossible for even the best political analyst to tell me just what the course will be over the next year taken by our government, and get it even 50% right. In my books that is a failing grade.

I "understand" that. I just want to know the underlying cause of what makes YOU think YOUR prediction is more accurate over those of others?

Please do not take offence at this, as it is just my view that is based on my past life and things I have seen.

Xорошо! I'm just naturally skeptical of many distant observers who claim to understand what the Russians refer to as their душа. Though sometimes I wonder if they do themselves!

[Guest American Woman]

ANY government that is willing to sell BULK water to other countries, doesn't need to be the government! Water, humans can only live 5 days without it but we can live without anything else longer. They say that "water" is the new "oil" but it doesn't matter how much its worth, a country must keep it for its people to live! The Great Lakes are have states and provinces against any water being sold as bulk from them. The US do have states like California and Florida that take ocean water and change it into safe drinking water and I suggest to the US keep doing it and leave Canada alone!

You want us to leave Canada alone? I'd like to see what kind of an impact that would have.

Just keep remembering that the Great Lakes are ours, too; and we have more Great Lakes than Canada does.

Again, I'm sure glad I don't need your water. Quite a few of you don't have a leg to stand on any more when others say they only care about themselves.

[Drea]

Found this website...

Freshwater

Canada is one of the most fortunate nations when it comes to available freshwater: Canada has only 0.5% of the world's population, but its landmass contains approximately 9% of the world's renewable water supply (i.e. water replenished by precipitation on a short-term basis).

Only 9%... not much IMO.

Here's another interesting one...

Fresh Water

Only about 2.5% of the water on Earth is fresh water, and most of it is stored in glaciers, or ice caps, or deep in rock-strata (aquifers). So only a small part of it is easily accessible. Water is continually flowing: falling as rainfall, running off as rivers, soaking into the ground, evaporating from lakes and wet surfaces, or transpiring from vegetation and, for the purposes of measurement for human use, is referred to as the Renewable Fresh Water Resource (RFWR). At present humans use some 10% of RFWR, but it can be very variable depending on time of year, and on geographical location; also humans must share it with all the other species on earth. Therefore ten per cent of the total available in a particular place may be a prudent level for that country to rely on.

and another one... World Water Crisis

I looked for stats on the amount of fresh water in the USA (a counterpart to the top link -- Canada's) and could not find one.

[jbg]

I will bet you that within the next year, you will see that my view of why and what is happening with Russia remilitarizing itself, is close to my view then to any of the so called analysts.

Russia is in temporary ascendancy because of high oil prices. Oil prices seem to be cyclical and fluctuate between current inflation-adjusted dollars of around $12 USD/barrel and $97 USD per barrel (the latter reached during April 1980), the former on a few occasions during 1986 and 1998-9. Pre-1973 the price was rougly $12-$14 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The Russians were supplicants for aid during 1972, and the Evil Russian Empire disintegrated during the next era of low oil prices, 1983 through 1999. I do not expect they will have the resources to re-arm as oil takes its inevitable trip back to the $20's.

[margrace]

Russia is in temporary ascendancy because of high oil prices. Oil prices seem to be cyclical and fluctuate between current inflation-adjusted dollars of around $12 USD/barrel and $97 USD per barrel (the latter reached during April 1980), the former on a few occasions during 1986 and 1998-9. Pre-1973 the price was rougly $12-$14 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

The Russians were supplicants for aid during 1972, and the Evil Russian Empire disintegrated during the next era of low oil prices, 1983 through 1999. I do not expect they will have the resources to re-arm as oil takes its inevitable trip back to the $20's.

Thats interesting, do you really think that is going to happen. Dream on.

[jbg]

Thats interesting, do you really think that is going to happen. Dream on.

Margrace, in 1980-1 I was in heated arguments with many about the effect on prices of US decontrol of oil and gasoline. I alone predicted regular gas dropping below $1.25/US per US Gallon from about $1.49/US per US Gallon (for regular leaded). By the time regular leaded went "off the boards" in 1986 it had dropped to around $0.89, and regular unleaded bounced around between $0.99 and $1.39 in my area between 1986 and around the end of 1999, with one brief spike back to $1.59, during October 1990, just before the first Persian Gulf War. That's not "beaming". Most predicted $2.00 gas within weeks of decontrol.

During this same period, oil dropped from $41 US/bbl to around $10 in 1986, then bounced around between $9 and $25 through roughly the end of 1999. It retreated into the low $20's as recently as 2001 (maybe even a bit lower), and only since 2004 has bounced between $40 and $80. Both gasoline and crude will, in my opinion, return to levels of around, respectively, $1.80 US/gallon and $30.

Edited August 22, 2007 by jbg

[Wilber]

Margrace, in 1980-1 I was in heated arguments with many about the effect on prices of US decontrol of oil and gasoline. I alone predicted regular gas dropping below $1.25/US per US Gallon from about $1.49/US per US Gallon (for regular leaded). By the time regular leaded went "off the boards" in 1986 it had dropped to around $0.89, and regular unleaded bounced around between $0.99 and $1.39 in my area between 1986 and around the end of 1999, with one brief spike back to $1.59, during October 1990, just before the first Persian Gulf War. That's not "beaming". Most predicted $2.00 gas within weeks of decontrol.

During this same period, oil dropped from $41 US/bbl to around $10 in 1986, then bounced around between $9 and $25 through roughly the end of 1999. It retreated into the low $20's as recently as 2001 (maybe even a bit lower), and only since 2004 has bounced between $40 and $80. Both gasoline and crude will, in my opinion, return to levels of around, respectively, $1.80 US/gallon and $30.

Wouldn't count on it. In the first 11 months of 2006, Chinese pasenger car sales were 3.41 million, up 40% over the previous year. Total vehicle sales were 6.45 million, up 25.5%. The same can be said for India to a lesser degree. The world has changed.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Wilber

[jdobbin]

Wouldn't count on it. In the first 11 months of 2006, Chinese pasenger car sales were 3.41 million, up 40% over the previous year. Total vehicle sales were 6.45 million, up 25.5%. The same can be said for India to a lesser degree. The world has changed.

Think you are totally correct. China had only a few hundred passenger cars in the early 1980s and was a net exporter of oil.

Now, they are a net importer of oil and competing in every market for oil supplies. They are using every ounce of energy they can to manufacture products for their market and overseas.

[jbg]

Think you are totally correct. China had only a few hundred passenger cars in the early 1980s and was a net exporter of oil.

Now, they are a net importer of oil and competing in every market for oil supplies. They are using every ounce of energy they can to manufacture products for their market and overseas.

I still think that historically oil drops in real terms in prices, and this time will be no different.

[jdobbin]

I still think that historically oil drops in real terms in prices, and this time will be no different.

It may very well drop somewhat but the demand in places where there was none before has increased dramatically since the 1980s.