# Monroe Doctrine alive and well in the North



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So Panama gets IT's canal back but the Northwest Passage........?? 

Does this idiotic administration in the US NEVER learn. 

What next strategic takeover of the oil sands??.....oh yeah forgot - already owned anyway.....along with Harper.



> *U.S. envoy says Northwest Passage is international territory*
> Canadian Press
> Ottawa — The issue of whether the Northwest Passage belongs to Canada or the world has put the current U.S. ambassador to Canada at odds with his predecessor.
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061031.wwilkins1031/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, the patriotic song,"America the Beautiful", will have to have an added line or two as a result of this new territory.

"O beautiful for spacious skies, 
For amber waves of grain, 
For purple mountain majesties 
Above the fruited plain! 
America! America! 
God shed his grace on thee 
And crown thy good with brotherhood 
From sea to shining sea!" 
And into the northern sea as well, 
Will be part of our "hood".

"O beautiful for patriot dream 
That sees beyond the years 
Thine alabaster cities gleam 
Undimmed by human tears! 
America! America! 
God shed his grace on thee 
Till nobler men keep once again 
Thy whiter jubilee!"
Whiter with the snow of the once
Canadian northland.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Just give them Newfoundland, and let us keep the rest, eh Dr. G?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I thought someone mentioned a while back that it isn't just the U.S. that doesn't recognise Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Beej said:


> I thought someone mentioned a while back that it isn't just the U.S. that doesn't recognise Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic.


You're right. It's not just the U.S. Many of the European nations don't either. Denmark is contesting Hans Island as well. Part of Greenland, they say.

I suspect the U.S. let go of the Panama Canal since, while still important, many of the largest ships are too big to go through it. ( That's why Panama has been making noises about expanding it. ) Also less strategic interest for them. Ergo, The NorthWest Passage.

By the way, MacDoc, logic doesn't enter the equation for the U. S. - only national interests.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Ok, then to put it another way: which countries do recognise Canada's claim? Russia may if they have similar claims.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pretty obvious.

I have no issue with letting Alaska monitor the western end.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

If/When that becomes a viable shipping route it could turn into a real nasty dispute.

Pretty much everyone in the region claims some portion of it either as their own (including Russia) or as international waters.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, the US would want NL as much for our fresh water as for our off-shore oil and gas.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It is not as much shipping as the ownership of oil and gas reserves that suddenly become accessible with the melting of the ice. More gas and oil means cheaper prices for gas, which means more cars, which means more global warming, which means more melting, which means more........... You get the point, I trust.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The 200 mile limit has a reasonable basis - Denmark via Greenland might have some say and the US for the Alaska waters dividing line but there is a strong tradition of working out these disputes as to where the line is drawn exactly.

The "international waters" stance is a crock. Let's see how THAT plays in the Carribean.


----------



## Darien Red Sox (Oct 24, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Macfury, the US would want NL as much for our fresh water as for our off-shore oil and gas.


The Bush adminstration just cares about Oil and nothing else, the VP is involved with the oil compneys. Bush is sitting around wasting our money in Iraq and outher places for oil and liying to our faces. I am counting down to the day that he gets out of office, and hope I don't get drafted befor that. Just be thankfull that Bush is not incharge of your countery. Hopfully the next Presedent will give the North West Passage to Canada, and atempt to get the US off of oil dependencey.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well Darien at least the Bushmasters teeth may be pulled next week.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Darien, you may say that Bush cares only about oil, but NL has a huge amount of fresh water running into the ocean. There are US companies that would love to annex NL and take the water through the northwest passage to a parched California.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Darien, you may say that Bush cares only about oil, but NL has a huge amount of fresh water running into the ocean. There are US companies that would love to annex NL and take the water through the northwest passage to a parched California.


Absolutely Dr.G. and it may be almost as valuable as oil in the future.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Beej said:


> Ok, then to put it another way: which countries do recognise Canada's claim? Russia may if they have similar claims.


Russia has given cautious support to Canada's claim since they want international recognition to the equivalent on the Russian side. The U.S.A. seems to be the biggest concern, by far, at this point in time.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Voyager, now, if NL could only get PQ to recognize our borders, all would be fine. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's a ridiculous position for the US to take as they are a participant via Alaska - idjits


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> It's a ridiculous position for the US to take as they are a participant via Alaska - idjits


Who has supported our claim? ie. is it ridiculous or just louder than more polite nations with the same position?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Umm last time I checked the 200 mile limit was pretty solid in international law - one of the few that really have some "institutional" aspect to them.

What is the reason that it COULD be considered international waters.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

So who recognises our sovereignty over the Northwest Passage?

Nations not speaking against us, interpreted as agreement, is only so useful. We need to build support if other (major) nations aren't speaking up for us. Are they?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, I can just see Harper coming out on national TV and making a Bush-like statement that "You are either with us on this matter or against us." That would demonstrate to the world that Canada means business to maintain control over our north. "The true north strong and free."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Unless other nations, including major powers and major shipping nations, speak up, we will be completely dependent upon our own actions and the international court. That may be the inevitable and correct course of action, but I'd like to know that we have some significant support beyond personal indignation.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Well Darien at least the Bushmasters teeth may be pulled next week.


I'll believe it when I see it.

Wasn't the US also leaning towards Kerry. Then many millions of un-recountable votes were cast, never to be seen again.

I would bet that the expected Dem tsunami might only be a trickle after the disenfranchising and dysfunctional US voting systems get through with it.

Do Bush and his buddy Turdblossom Rove look worried?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/w...WAY&adxnnlx=1162123697-fGdgFeTtCKTTCxcnenqAsQ

Democrat gains could be attributed to a conspiracy too.


----------



## Voyager (Aug 7, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Voyager, now, if NL could only get PQ to recognize our borders, all would be fine. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


Yes, well, the impossible will take a little longer.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/w...WAY&adxnnlx=1162123697-fGdgFeTtCKTTCxcnenqAsQ
> 
> Democrat gains could be attributed to a conspiracy too.


Who said "conspiracy" Beej? Nice bait.  I said that the US voting system can't be counted on to be accurate nor can it be audited as it's currently set up. But since you bring it up Beej, Democrat gains could be the result of fraud, - it certainly wouldn't be a first for them historically - although the 2 biggest voting machine companies, Diebold and ES&S are firmly in the hands of avowed Republican partisans. Sequoia Systems, the company in question, runs a distant third.

But that's not the point, the point is that if the US voting system has no integrity, and it clearly doesn't, it's a mess from one end to the other, the results are in question no matter which way they go. The vote in the US can't be audited completely and even the part that can be audited is extremely difficult to do because of bad tech and convoluted and partisan oversight. Would you invest in a company that had no paper trail possible for their books and was impossible to audit? Would you question their profit and loss claims? Would you think that not being available to audit, might make fraudulent behaviour easy for those who had access to their bank accounts?

The states that guaranteed Bush the presidency, Florida in '00 and Ohio in '04, had Diebold voting machines as a factor, but the main factor was the difficulty of getting the votes audited in states where the election machinery was in the control of high-profile Republican politicians. The questions and lawsuits are still ongoing in Ohio. There is more than a little to question there. The studies from Florida have shown that Bush did not in fact win, but that's moot, since he was installed by the Supreme Court before the recounting was done.

So if there's any truth to the claim that Democratic friendly types are trying to get in control of voting machines companies, then I say go for it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. beejacon


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Wow. Thanks for that logical and reasoned contribution. Just, wow.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

RevM one has to follow MBs rather potent signatures to understand fully ...he does intend to be Master of the Universe


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> RevM one has to follow MBs rather potent signatures to understand fully ...he does intend to be *Master of the Universe*


Didn't He-Man already take that job?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## dpwozney (Oct 31, 2006)

> Ottawa — The issue of whether the Northwest Passage belongs to Canada or the world has put the current U.S. ambassador to Canada at odds with his predecessor.
> 
> Washington's representative in Canada, David Wilkins, says the U.S. position has not changed and the passage is international territory as far as the Bush administration is concerned.
> 
> That is in direct conflict with statements by former ambassador Paul Cellucci, who recently told a foreign affairs conference that the disputed waters in the North should be recognized as sovereign Canadian territory.


Canada's motto is "_A mari usque ad mare_", which is Latin for "_From sea to sea_". 

The Labrador Sea and the Beaufort Sea are each labelled as a "sea", whereas the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean are not labelled as "seas", but rather they are called "oceans".


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

What difference does this make?

So long as we're not at war with the U.S., we are likely to allow the U.S. to use our waters, at any time. It would be nice if they acknowledged Canadian sovereignty there, but the end result is the same.

Also, so long as they are tending to NORAD defences (or whatever it's called now) then let them pass, swim or sail there; it's to our benefit.

------------

Of course, this is the real Monroe doctrine:


> I'm for the individual as opposed to the corporation. The way it is the individual is the underdog, and with all the things a corporation has going for them the individual comes out banged on her head. The artist is nothing. It's really tragic.


 _(i.e., Marilyn)_


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A huge difference between international waters and national waters. Fishing and fossil fuel extraction, pollution controls - the list goes on and on.


----------



## macmac (Oct 22, 2006)

One of the problems with our claim is that we cannot adequately defend it. It was the goal of the Mulroney government to purchase/build nuclear submarines for that main reason, to protect our northern waters. Like all military goals though, I think cost came into the picture...needless to say we don't have nuclear subs, which means we can bitch and complain all we want..but until we get them, the waters will remain un-officially international areas.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

macmac said:


> One of the problems with our claim is that we cannot adequately defend it. It was the goal of the Mulroney government to purchase/build nuclear submarines for that main reason, to protect our northern waters. Like all military goals though, I think cost came into the picture...needless to say we don't have nuclear subs, which means we can bitch and complain all we want..but until we get them, the waters will remain un-officially international areas.


We have the second largest landmass of any nation in the world, and a population smaller than the state of California. We cannot adequately defend the interesection of Portage and Main, never mind this enormous tract of land that has been entrusted to us. Fortunately, we no longer live in a world where military might is necessary for national sovereignty. That's what international law is for.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> We have the second largest landmass


Do we, or is it just total area (Hudson Bay, etc.)?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Do we, or is it just total area (Hudson Bay, etc.)?


I have always thought that "second largest country" referred simply to landmass, but now that you ask, I don't actually know that for sure. "Second largest country" is true, however.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There is only ONE threat to Canadian sovereignity in the North and THAT resides due south. 

Just ask the Hiawaians, Mexicans, Cubans, Nicarguans, Iraqis amongst many...too many others........

feel free to peruse - be prepared to scroll... 

http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm



> "The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist -- McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell-Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."
> -- Thomas Friedman, "A Manifesto for the Fast World", New York Times Magazine, March 28, 1999
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> There is only ONE threat to Canadian sovereignity in the North and THAT resides due south.
> 
> Just ask the Hiawaians, Mexicans, Cubans, Nicarguans, Iraqis amongst many...too many others........
> 
> ...


Are you suggesting that the United States would go to war to keep fishing and drilling in the Arctic in Canadian waters?

Really? I don't think so.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

a) I did not say the threat was imminent - I said it was the only threat ( of any significance )

b) its been wargamed and a film has been made

c) why limit it to fishing and oil - water is a far more likely trigger.....y'know "national security"...that handy US catchall for we do what we bloody well please.

d) there have already been serious fishing disputes

e) they tried to invade once - we burned the White House once. 

it can happen anytime!  
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/Canada-border-dispute.htm


----------

