Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canada Reasserts Arctic Sovereignty
Associated Press ^ | January 26, 2006 | Beth Duff-Brown

Posted on 01/26/2006 3:31:23 PM PST by AntiGuv

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 last
To: rwfromkansas

How many Boy Scouts should we send?


101 posted on 01/26/2006 8:01:16 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NavVet; Clemenza
I was under the understanding that the United States only recognizes a three mile territorial limit and a 12 mile fishing limit. Most other countries insists on the 12 mile rule. The convention of the three mile rule was common in the 18th and 19th centuries as that was the maximum range of cannon at the time. Thus it became accepted practice to accept the territorial waters as what could be defended from the coast.



102 posted on 01/26/2006 8:08:33 PM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: proud_yank; Former Proud Canadian; Clemenza
2 nautical miles

I thought it was twelve nautical miles. Also, the US and many other countries claim a 200 mile exclusive economic zone.

103 posted on 01/26/2006 8:19:52 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cacique
It is twelve miles and the U.S. abides by that rule. Canada is trying to claim corridors of international water between the mainland and some of the larger coastal islands (well in excess of 12 miles from both shores) which would place a barrier across the Northwest Passage.

Their claim isn't supported by international law, treaty or military strength. Looks like it's time to get one of our unarmed Polar Class icebreakers ready for a summer transit of the passage.

104 posted on 01/26/2006 8:27:45 PM PST by CWOJackson (tancredo? Wasn't he the bounty hunter in the Star Wars trilogy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

We can still drill in ANWR right?


105 posted on 01/26/2006 8:29:15 PM PST by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Looks like it's time to get one of our unarmed Polar Class icebreakers ready for a summer transit of the passage.

Giggle. There is no such thing as unarmed.

106 posted on 01/26/2006 8:45:40 PM PST by ARealMothersSonForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

And they will defend this national sovereignty against the U.S how? Second hand sub flambe?


107 posted on 01/26/2006 10:16:53 PM PST by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

Your insult is uncalled for. I merely made a comment on the futility of Canadian complaining about US operations in international waters. By the way, your comment about public schools shows a lack of thinking about that issue as well.


108 posted on 01/27/2006 3:07:19 AM PST by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: NorthOf45

It was merely a comment. Comments had already been made about the posibility of armed Canadian icebreakers patrolling the NW Passage. The purpose of an armed vessel would be to engage in warfare with those they find in the NW Passage. I don't think the comment was jumping the gun at all. For the record, I think Canada is rattling a rusty sabre.


109 posted on 01/27/2006 3:09:51 AM PST by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

hoser


110 posted on 01/27/2006 3:30:39 AM PST by KneelBeforeZod (Someday a real rain will come and wipe this scum off the streets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
Canada is trying to claim corridors of international water between the mainland and some of the larger coastal islands (well in excess of 12 miles from both shores) which would place a barrier across the Northwest Passage.

Source?

111 posted on 01/27/2006 4:55:15 AM PST by kanawa (Freaking panty wetting, weakspined bliss-ninny socialist punks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: SALChamps03
The public school comment was a reference to your lack of historical perspective. I don't think history is covered very well in public schools in the US. I could be wrong.

As for "rusty sabres", no Canadian in their right mind would contemplate military action against the US in the Arctic or anywhere else. You will sooner see France and Germany come to blows. Few people, on either side of the border, really understand how integrated the economies are. If trade between us stopped, the Canadian economy would be devastated in a week. Gasoline in the US would be $5 or $6 a gallon in about the same time frame.

Americans have been handling the defense of North America virtually by themselves far too long. You should be ecstatic that PM Harper is finally going to shoulder some responsibility for continental defense and sovereignty.

PM Harper is asserting himself and the Americans, especially the ambassador, have given him a chance to do so. He gets to look tough and inoculates himselft against charges that he is an American puppet. Meanwhile, he had a very warm telephone conversation with President Bush. I would say their political views are very close, although Harper is probably more conservative. This "dust up" could have been planned from the beginning. A congratulatory gift from President Bush.

Here is how I think this will play out. Publicly, Canada will occupy the north militarily and assert sovereignty. Privately our military will work closely with the USN, as we always have, to keep the Arctic free of common enemies.

112 posted on 01/27/2006 4:59:55 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: kanawa
Just do a Google, you can find many web based articles on the subject. More then a few of them are Canadian based. Some are a real hoot...they are outraged over a photograph of three U.S. nuke subs at the "North Pole".

I guess they consider even the North Pole "their" territory.

113 posted on 01/27/2006 8:32:21 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

I wasn't discussing history. I was commenting on a specific scenario being discussed on the board, however unrealistic it might have been.


114 posted on 01/27/2006 10:22:30 PM PST by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson