1
   

CANADA'S NEW PRIME-MINISTER TELLS U.S. "TO BUTT OUT"

 
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 02:46 pm
timber wote : "...I think its cute he decided it was necessary to get the ball rolling ..."

i seem to recall that is was u.s. ambassador wilkin who decided to get the ball rolling. imo it was not very smart of him - and the u.s. administation, who surely must have endorsed his speech - to throw a spitball at a newly elected canadian prime-minister. in most other countries the ambassador would have been invited by the government for a chat and an official protest would have been issued.

does the new u.s. diplomacy now consist of poking a friend in the eye ? it's not more than a few months ago that canada was described by the u.s.administration as a good friend . the u.s. administration "mis-spoke" perhaps ?

i'm quite surprised to see that my entry generated any interest at all . i'm rather enjoying this. i think i'll rejuvenate my entry about the canadian tarsands and see if it'll generate any more interest. hbg
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 02:52 pm
Good eye, hamburger!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 02:55 pm
I'm enjoying this one too, hbg - casting canards Canadawards is almost compellingly catchy Twisted Evil

Laughing :wink: BLAME CANADA :wink: Laughing
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 02:57 pm
The northwest passage as been considered an international waterway since it was first conceived and searched for in the 16th century, and that is not going to change any time soon.. I doubt that any of Harpers statements were for any purpose other than domestic political consumption.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 02:59 pm
timber : i'm behind the times; i'm still enjoying homer simpson. while i don't watch homer every day, i like to get my fix about once a week. a so-called "reality show" isn't half-as-good as homer simpson and his clan . two thumbs up for homer !
hbg
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 03:02 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
If someone wants to treat us discourteously, I would not necessarily recommend treating them discourteously in return, but cooperating less, or helping them less in the future is probably in order. There ought to be a clear benefit to being our friend and penalty for being our enemy.


The all or nothing mentality of the current administration's stance of, "You're either with us or against us" makes for very few friends. You seem to take the same position, Brandon. Why does it necessarily fall into the extremes of friend or enemy?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 03:06 pm
Timber wrote:
Quote:
foreign policy is not intended to please a nation's enemies


It seems that more than one poster considers Canada to be an enemy. I doubt that the U.S.A. has had a greater friend.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 03:09 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
The northwest passage as been considered an international waterway since it was first conceived and searched for in the 16th century, and that is not going to change any time soon.. I doubt that any of Harpers statements were for any purpose other than domestic political consumption.


That's interesting and something I didn't know. Thanks Smile
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 03:09 pm
I agree, Intrepid. I don't understand that sentiment at all.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 03:13 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Timber wrote:
Quote:
foreign policy is not intended to please a nation's enemies


It seems that more than one poster considers Canada to be an enemy. I doubt that the U.S.A. has had a greater friend.


http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9673/setupz2gn.gif
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 03:19 pm
guilty as charged
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 03:19 pm
hamburger wrote:
in most other countries the ambassador would have been invited by the government for a chat and an official protest would have been issued.


You might get a kick out of this Smile

Montreal radio station impersonates Harper, talks shop with French president
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 03:36 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Timber wrote:
Quote:
foreign policy is not intended to please a nation's enemies


It seems that more than one poster considers Canada to be an enemy. I doubt that the U.S.A. has had a greater friend.


http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9673/setupz2gn.gif


Does that mean than you are retracting your statement?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 04:07 pm
timber is still working with humorsense 95 - it's 2006 ! get with the program and join the race for better humour now ! hbg
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 07:00 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Our new PM has just gained a whole lot more respect in my eyes. It was expected that he might be a Bush puppet. Seems that he is now pulling the strings.


Mine as well. I'm still surprised! He has his own agenda obviously, and does not want to be dictated to by the US. And, why should he be? America doesn't like that attitude, however. They preferred cowed puppets. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 07:07 pm
I think you are both deluding yourselves. It costs Washington nothing to have the little pipsqueak get his back up over this issue. This is not an issue of vital importance to the United States. A dime to a dollar that this has absolutely no effect on the realtionship between Ottawa and Washington, and is a sop the Shrub and his boys are willing to throw to Harper so he can make himself look good to the Canajuns. I guarantee you this is not something the vast majority of Americans care about.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 07:23 pm
Good. Then America will not dispute the border issue, we can continue to build our icebreakers, our radar is already set up to detect ships in the NW Passage. Ships entering will be registered. I think they should have to pay a fee to enter, as they do in the Panama Canal.

Americans care about what, exactly? I have not been able to figure that out. Only themselves, methinks, and the rest of the world can go to the Devil? Until, of course, they need a resource that another country has.....then that country is supposed to meekly sit by while getting ripped off.

The whole thing in Iraq is about the dollar versus the euro dollar - if Iran goes euro, America loses big time. America must keep control, no matter how many lives are lost. Problem is, they are running out of cannon fodder (soldiers) who are willing to sign up for such a thing. They are also running out of money. How much in debt are Americans, now? Trillions!? Remember what happened when Rome stretched its resources too far?

Merely my opinion.

It will be an issue to America when the cost of shipping via the Panama rather than NW Passage sinks in. But the Americans will be off fighting yet another war for oil, I mean, terrorism, and won't notice. Ahhhh.....the headaches of running a SUPER POWER........

Saw a good docu on Harper - did you see it? On BBC I believe. Have a better understanding of who our new PM is. Glad he's ours, and you guys have the fetal alcohol syndrom prez.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 07:39 pm
setanta wrote : "I guarantee you this is not something the vast majority of Americans care about. "

of course, but i understand that there is commercial interest in the north-west passage and under whose jurisdiction it falls. some scientists now predict that it will be as little as 10-15 years before the passage will be largely icefree. an american corporation has already purchased the port facilities at churchill . they want to be ready for grain-shipments (and other goods) from the mid-west to travel by way of churchill and on to russia and asia. my understanding is that it is faster and cheaper to ship by that route.

i think it's somewhat like the alberta tarsands. 20 years ago it was considered a pipedream, now the large oil and exploration companies are all scrambling to get a piece of the action.

much of this is , of course, speculation and risk-taking. as i said earlier, we were surprised to see how much land had been staked in northern ontario when we took the train from cochrane to moosene. may be it will be another 20 or 50 years before it will be developed. maybe it will never be developed , but since it it is pretty cheap for a corporation to stake the land, they have little to loose by staking it.
i think similarly large corporations have an interest in the north-west passage, simply because it's there. it costs them nothing - perhaps a little campaign contribution - to ask the u.s. government to claim their rights. hbg
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 08:34 pm
Agreed . . . and it costs the Shrub and his boys little to give Harper this opportunity not to look like a lap dog for the boys in Washington . . .
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jan, 2006 08:57 pm
I'm from Canada, so I am going to take this opportunity to say something useful about Canadian - US relations:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

So there!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/01/2023 at 05:44:15