 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / November 2006War Inevitable! :-)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q51A36C1E "Canada has no search-and-rescue helicopters regularly based in the north and has disbanded the one military unit capable of dropping onto the ice. The country has no submarine that can travel under the ice cap. Its icebreakers are old and considered mid-weight; they leave the Arctic for the winter. The government has promised to build three new, powerful icebreakers and a deep-water port at Iqaluit, the capital of the Canadian territory of Nunavut, but has failed to fund any of those projects."  SignaturePopeye Not if, but -when- I die, half the people around here will party because they're my friends, and they know I would demand that. The other half will party as well, glad to be rid of me, and I'll see them in hell. www.finalprotectivefire.com > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q51A36C1E > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and a deep-water port at Iqaluit, the capital of the Canadian territory of > Nunavut, but has failed to fund any of those projects." "Now you jutht get back Mithter or I will *thcratch* your eythe out!" > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q51A36C1E > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > "Now you jutht get back Mithter or I will *thcratch* your eythe out!" We may not have enough subs but it sure looks like we own a couple of Marines. Cam > We may not have enough subs but it sure looks like we own a couple of > Marines. Yours or ours? <rimshot> > > We may not have enough subs but it sure looks like we own a couple of > > Marines. > > Yours or ours? > > <rimshot> WHOOSH Scott, You are ours. Cam > > > We may not have enough subs but it sure looks like we own a couple of > > > Marines. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Scott, > You are ours. No sh.t, Sherlock. Kinda what we have been saying all along? You dont need any of your own because you have ours, and graciously and gratefully I'll add. Stop thinking you are so deep. You didnt WHOOSH anything. Dont you have some gun crime to blame on us as well? > > > > We may not have enough subs but it sure looks like we own a couple of > > > > Marines. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Dont you have some gun crime to blame on us as well? Thanks for clarifying that Scott. We own you, graciously and gratefully. Cam > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q51A36C1E > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and a deep-water port at Iqaluit, the capital of the Canadian territory of > Nunavut, but has failed to fund any of those projects." Maybe we could borrow some of yours for this war too!.... oh wait. > -- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > glad to be rid of me, and I'll see them in hell. > www.finalprotectivefire.com >> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q51A36C1E >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > Maybe we could borrow some of yours for this war too!.... oh wait. Well, somebody left the U.S.S. Albacore laying by the side of the road up in Portsbouth... >> -- >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> glad to be rid of me, and I'll see them in hell. >> www.finalprotectivefire.com > http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q51A36C1E > > "Canada has no search-and-rescue helicopters regularly based in the north Cause there's no ships up there for most of the year. Wouldn't make much sense to keep em up there when every things frozen over, now would it. Much better to move them to the Atlantic coast, which during winter is thrashed by storm, after storm, after storm. It's called being wise in the use of your resources. > and has disbanded the one military unit capable of dropping onto the ice. Not exactly true. Rather then having dedicated troops, all Canadian troops are now being trained for artic service. One of the largest artic training missions ever in Canadian history was held in the summer of 2005. > The country has no submarine that can travel under the ice cap. And we need that why? At the rate things are going there might not even be an ice cap for most of the year... > Its > icebreakers are old and considered mid-weight; they leave the Arctic for the > winter. Once again, a bit of a distortion. Our arctic icebreakers are moved into the Atlantic during the winter to keep our shipping lanes open. Once again, comes down to using our resources wisely. > The government has promised to build three new, powerful icebreakers > and a deep-water port at Iqaluit, the capital of the Canadian territory of > Nunavut, but has failed to fund any of those projects." So lets get this straight, they promised that all of what, 6 months ago, and you're surprised it hasn't gone through yet? The American government doesn't act that fast, why would you expect our to? Now if in three or four years it hasn't gone through then it's a fair criticism, but you're jumping the gun a little there. Not to mention that not keeping that promise would piss off a lot of our voters - many of us voted for the conservatives because of that very promise. Bryan The point was, and is, that Canadian authorities got their panties all up in a wad when US resources, resources that the Canadians do not have in the area, did the job that the Canadians didn't. Perhaps Canada has no need for resources up there. The US obviously does. Either Canada should supply them or get over it when someone else does. Simple, no? Lee >> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q51A36C1E >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Bryan > The point was, and is, that Canadian authorities got their panties all up in > a wad when US resources, resources that the Canadians do not have in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lee Actually, the issue is quite different then that. Canada considers those waters to be part of our territory. The US disputes that. Part of the issue is that Canada maintains a minimal military presence in the north during the winter months, and based on that, the US claims they're not our waters as we're not patrolling them. To date the US is about the only nation which questions Canadian ownership of those waters, but as the artic becomes more and more ice-free there is a possibility that the passage may open up to commercial traffic. If this occurs, and Canada doesn't actively control those waters, then there are international precedents which could see the NWP declared an international straight. Canada doesn't want this to occur, so we're in the process (hopefully, if the gov actually does what they said they would) of forming a permanent military presence within the NWP. This would solidify our claims over those water, and eliminate the major requirement for a body of water to become an international straight. The US doesn't like the idea, and have criticized our plans. But in the end it doesn't really matter for you guys - we already have agreements in place which allow US ships to move through the Canadian arctic, and vice-versa, without needing prior approval by the other nation. Bryan >> The point was, and is, that Canadian authorities got their panties all up >> in a wad when US resources, resources that the Canadians do not have in [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > place which allow US ships to move through the Canadian arctic, and > vice-versa, without needing prior approval by the other nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage [edit] International waters dispute The Canadian government claims that the waters of the Northwest Passage are internal to Canada. In 1985, the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea passed through and the U.S. Government made a point of not asking permission from the Canadians. They claimed that this was simply a cost effective way to get the ship from Greenland to Alaska and that there was no need to ask permission to travel through international waters. The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. However, the United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In late 2005, it was alleged that U.S. nuclear submarines had travelled the passage without Canadian approval, sparking Canadian outrage. In his first news conference after the federal election, then Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper contested an earlier statement made by the American ambassador that Arctic waters were international, stating the Canadian government's intention to enforce its sovereignty there. The allegations arose after the U.S. Navy released photographs of the USS Charlotte surfaced at the North Pole. A submarine travelling between oceans by way of the Pole would have to travel over a thousand kilometres out of its way to use the Northwest Passage (as opposed to simply heading directly to either ocean). Furthermore, shallow waters and underwater navigational uncertainties would force it to move very slowly and carefully within the Northwest Passage to avoid running aground; by contrast, it could travel at top speed in the deep, open waters under the Pole. On April 9, 2006, Canada's Joint Task Force North declared that the Canadian military will no longer refer to the region as the Northwest Passage, but as the Canadian Internal Waters.[1] The declaration came after the successful completion of Operation Nunalivut (Inuit for "the land is ours"), which was an expedition into the region by five military patrols.[2] http://www.athropolis.com/map9.htm >> The point was, and is, that Canadian authorities got their panties all up >> in a wad when US resources, resources that the Canadians do not have in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> does. Either Canada should supply them or get over it when someone else >> does. > Actually, the issue is quite different then that. Canada considers those > waters to be part of our territory. The US disputes that. Part of the > issue is that Canada maintains a minimal military presence in the north > during the winter months, and based on that, the US claims they're not our > waters as we're not patrolling them. By minimal, you mean no ice breakers, no choppers and no submarines. Just what resources do you guys maintain there? > To date the US is about the only nation which questions Canadian ownership > of those waters, but as the artic becomes more and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > our claims over those water, and eliminate the major requirement for a > body of water to become an international straight. I'm sure Canada would like to control the waters. No surprise there. I'm also not suprised that the US is the only country that does not agree since we're the only country other than Canada that actually borders the straight. Perhaps we should claim the straight since we actually have a military presence in Alaska. > The US doesn't like the idea, and have criticized our plans. But in the > end it doesn't really matter for you guys - we already have > agreements in place which allow US ships to move through the Canadian > arctic, and vice-versa, without needing prior approval > by the other nation. Apparently not since your government was all upset about a US ship doing just that. Lee > Apparently not since your government was all upset about a US ship doing > just that. We go where we want, when we want. That's what pisses them off. rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com> whined: > We go where we want, when we want. and you get shanked, like Halifax. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> The point was, and is, that Canadian authorities got their panties all up >>> in a wad when US resources, resources that the Canadians do not have in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > By minimal, you mean no ice breakers, no choppers and no submarines. Just > what resources do you guys maintain there? Sonar and radar stations, manned and unmanned (UAV) flights. Not to mention there is a permanent reserve force (called the Rangers) present year-round. Unlike conventional reserves, the Rangers are continually active, preforming tasks such patrols and intelligence. There is about 4,000 Rangers in the north at this time, with plans to recruit another 800. http://www.rangers.forces.gc.ca/pubs/rangers/intro_e.asp >> To date the US is about the only nation which questions Canadian ownership >> of those waters, but as the artic becomes more and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > also not suprised that the US is the only country that does not agree since > we're the only country other than Canada that actually borders the straight. That is not true. Denmark/Greenland are much closer to the straight then is the US. And we have far more immediate concerns with them, as there are disputes over some of the bordering islands between us and them. > Perhaps we should claim the straight since we actually have a military > presence in Alaska. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Apparently not since your government was all upset about a US ship doing > just that. I should have said "military ships", its all part and parcel of our NORAD agreements. The incident you quote was a commercial vessel. Bryan >> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q51A36C1E >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > So lets get this straight, they promised that all of what, 6 months ago, > and you're surprised it hasn't gone through yet? I don't remember anyone saying anything. > The American government doesn't act that fast, why would you expect our > to? Now if in three or four years it hasn't gone through then it's a fair [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bryan Pardon your angst, I didn't write the article, I just posted it. Since you "own it" and all, you should be prepared to keep it open and defend it. If you can't, don't begrudge those that can. There sure is a lot of "conservation" going on up there, and you should research your ice-breaker problem (it's interesting). The article is more right than you are, and the problem had been in the news previously. I'm curious if our Navy has any icebreakers, and if not, why not. > I'm curious if our Navy has any icebreakers, and if not, why not. They don't go bang? 8) JF >> I'm curious if our Navy has any icebreakers, and if not, why not. > > They don't go bang? 8) Dear John: Thanks for your typical contribution. Myself, I don't know f.ck-all about the issue, so I've spent several hours reading about it, and studying maps. And then of course, we have -your- contribution. > > They don't go bang? 8) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And then of course, we have -your- contribution. I suppose the difference is that you care. JF >> > They don't go bang? 8) >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I suppose the difference is that you care. Just spotlighting. > >> And then of course, we have -your- contribution. > > > > I suppose the difference is that you care. > > Just spotlighting. Or showboating. JF >> >> And then of course, we have -your- contribution. >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or showboating. Just pointing out what your keyboard issues. If your euphemism for that is "showboating", it would be the Titanic. Douglas W Popeye Frederick wrote: > >> >> And then of course, we have -your- contribution. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > If your euphemism for that is "showboating", it would be the Titanic. "what your keyboard issues" - what is that? Why wouldn't you just say "what you type" or "what you post". That other sounds incredibly pretentious and silly, kinda like fake intellectual discourse. It's like dressing a bull in a cummerbund. JF > Douglas W Popeye Frederick wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > pretentious and silly, kinda like fake intellectual discourse. It's > like dressing a bull in a cummerbund. Talk about showboating. > > Douglas W Popeye Frederick wrote: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Talk about showboating. Wasn't he the one complaining about how folk will fixate on irrelevancies to distract from a point? :-) Dennis >> >> >> >> And then of course, we have -your- contribution. >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to > distract from a point? :-) That'll need stitches. > Wasn't he the one complaining about how folk will fixate on irrelevancies to > distract from a point? :-) Why yes; Yes, it was. > Douglas W Popeye Frederick wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "what your keyboard issues" - what is that? Why wouldn't you just say > "what you type" or "what you post". Why don't you like it? I think it is very p.c., leaving room for some residential intelligence in the keyboard. Matthias >> Douglas W Popeye Frederick wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Why don't you like it? I think it is very p.c., leaving room for some > residential intelligence in the keyboard. He'd be more impressed if I had just said "You arrrrr dum-be in trrrey-lorrrrr, Stuuuupeeed Amerikanski!" :-) Besides, 5 posts later, he still has nothing of substance or on topic to offer. >>>> And then of course, we have -your- contribution. >>> I suppose the difference is that you care. >> Just spotlighting. > > Or showboating. errrr, ahhhh, ummmm uhhhh... tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp . > JF > errrr, ahhhh, ummmm uhhhh... Spit it out son. You're among friends here. > tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap > tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity > tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity > tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap > tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp > tappity tap tap tappity tapp tappity tap tap tappity tapp . JF Doug wrote: >> I'm curious if our Navy has any icebreakers, and if not, why not. As far as I know, no. The Coast Guard, however, has some. I'm not sure which ones are still operational, but I think we have between two and four heavy duty icebreakers depending on whether a couple of them have been retired. If they haven't been, the probably will be soon. I found these two links for those that are interested. http://www.uscg.mil/datasheet/icepolr.htm and http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/healy/ . > They don't go bang? 8) Don't you ever do your research before you post? The Coast Guard Ice Breakers most assuredly do go bang. Lee > > They don't go bang? 8) > > Don't you ever do your research before you post? The Coast Guard Ice > Breakers most assuredly do go bang. Thought it was more a grinding crunch. JF > Don't you ever do your research before you post? The Coast Guard Ice > Breakers most assuredly do go bang. He's just havin' fun, trailer trash. >>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q51A36C1E >>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Pardon your angst, I didn't write the article, I just posted it. Not angry about it Popeye. Just pointing out that it isn't exactly how the post made it out to be. Funny thing is, if we were keeping our helicopters and icebreakers up there in the winter, the post would probably be complaining that we don't have enough ships/helicopters to keep our other shipping lanes clear ;-) > Since you "own it" and all, you should be prepared to keep it open and > defend it. Which is why we're (supposedly) putting a permanent base, and permanent ships up there. Wasn't worth it in the past - no reason for it. But these days, with the ice melting, its worth getting the jump on things. > If you can't, don't begrudge those that can. And where did I say that? Canada and the US have long cooperated with arctic matters - be it sharing sonar and radar information, resupplying each others ships, providing ice breakers for each other, and what not. There was no issue at all (aside from the international straight thing, which was ignored for decades) until Canada started talking about putting a base up there. Then, and only then, did the US make a fuss about it. And its a pretty small fuss; as far as I can tell your ambassador has made a whopping two comments about the issue that made it to the media. > There sure is a lot of "conservation" going on up there, and you should > research your ice-breaker problem (it's interesting). There is a lot of talk these days, been big news up here for a while. Old, only designed for mid-thickness ice, in need of repair/replacement. Story of our armed forces... > The article is more right than you are, and the problem had been in the > news previously. Its been in the Canadian news for years, and more recently, in the forefront of Canadians minds. For that matter, It was a major issue in our last election. > I'm curious if our Navy has any icebreakers, and if not, why not. Can't speak for your navy, but your coast guard does. Personally speaking, if my government had any brains at all (I know, expecting anything resembling intelligence from any government is, well, stupid) they'd have set up our navy's boats with at least some ice breaking capacity. Of course they didn't, probably to save money... Bryan >>>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q51A36C1E >>>> [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > they'd have set up our navy's boats with at least some ice breaking > capacity. Of course they didn't, probably to save money... As I research this, I'll tell ya, I think we should get some bigassed icebreakers on the way. The current political climate in South American indicates that the strategic hold on the Panama Canal is tenuous at best. And like many things, all you have to do to close it is sink a ship in there, which a troop of Cubscouts could do. > As I research this, I'll tell ya, I think we should get some bigassed > icebreakers on the way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And like many things, all you have to do to close it is sink a ship in > there, which a troop of Cubscouts could do. I think I'm confused, but its early, and maybe this'll make more sense after a few cups of coffee... F-it, why do we need icebreakers in panama? Bryan >> As I research this, I'll tell ya, I think we should get some bigassed >> icebreakers on the way. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > F-it, why do we need icebreakers in panama? First off, that's not what I said. Have another cup of coffee, and tell me how we get from the Atlantic to the Pacific with no Panama Canal. > >> As I research this, I'll tell ya, I think we should get some bigassed > >> icebreakers on the way. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Have another cup of coffee, and tell me how we get from the Atlantic to > the Pacific with no Panama Canal. Three possibilities... 1: Sail around 2: Unload cargo and ship it by freight to the other side 3: Fly > "Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in > message >> > I think I'm confused, but its early, and maybe this'll make more sense >> > after a few cups of coffee... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 2: Unload cargo and ship it by freight to the other side > 3: Fly At about a million tons of cargo a day, and 15,000 vessels a year, I hope you brought your lunch. Have everybody bring a bucket for the crude oil brigade. :-) > > "Douglas W "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in > > message [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Have everybody bring a bucket for the crude oil brigade. :-) Sounds like South American job opportunities to me. But I guess that's just the capitalist in me. >>> As I research this, I'll tell ya, I think we should get some bigassed >>> icebreakers on the way. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Have another cup of coffee, and tell me how we get from the Atlantic to > the Pacific with no Panama Canal. I can see clearly now, the rain has gone. I can see all obstacles in my way... :-) Amazing what a little caffeine can do. I guess the only other answer is that you could go all the way around, but that kinda defeats the point of the canal. Bryan >>>> As I research this, I'll tell ya, I think we should get some bigassed >>>> icebreakers on the way. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that you could go all the way around, but that kinda defeats the point of > the canal. Work it baby, work it. That's why terrorists would hold it hostage, or block it (to defeat the point). Terrorists threatening the Canal has been a reality since the mid 70's. After that, it's all the way around the bottom, one of the world's most feared navigations, or.... Lla qindi qawdihaw "Douglas W \"Fatboy\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> dawghattlxhasi: > After that, it's all the way around the bottom, one of the world's > most feared navigations, or.... Pay the Canuks for permission. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>> As I research this, I'll tell ya, I think we should get some bigassed >>>>> icebreakers on the way. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > After that, it's all the way around the bottom, one of the world's most > feared navigations, or.... Dodge polar bears ... Bryan > I'm curious if our Navy has any icebreakers, and if not, why not. Nawh, that's a function of the Puddle Pirates.... >> I'm curious if our Navy has any icebreakers, and if not, why not. > > Nawh, that's a function of the Puddle Pirates.... What if we need one, like, elsewhere? > It's called being wise in the use of your resources. http://www.nickscipio.com/funstuff/archive9/2005-07-06_canadiancarrier.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.