Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Well Almost,

They Do not Acknowldge That The Waters around to the North belong to Canada, DISPITE the fact that it does belong to Canada.

Things are Getting REALLY heated. I would not Be surprised if the United State's Greed does start a war.

HELL! they want to Drain OUR drinking water for there use, And they say that if we don't GIVE them OUR Water, we are stopping there growth and devlopment, and is a direct threat to there people.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html



WE recognize OUR claim to OUR Land / Water, but the States think it's not ours.

well is it 10 miles past the coast?

Originally posted by soleran30
well is it 10 miles past the coast?

200 miles.

Originally posted by soleran30
well is it 10 miles past the coast?

I don't know if you saw A MAP of Canada, but we have a Nice chunk, almost a straight line, its OUR waters, Its justa s thought you where dividing the land, only it is Water,

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
200 miles.

If it is 200 miles off of every canadian coast it is not your Water at all. It is open water. Stop claiming things that don't belong to you. That's like me claiming denmark is ours cause it somehow is near to us.

I agree with Bardock42. Isn't that consider International waters or something?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I agree with Bardock42. Isn't that consider International waters or something?

Not If it is Within our Boarders.

http://only-maps.com/canada-map.jpg

look Closely, That si Way mroe then 200 miles, but It still is OURS.

The U.S. does not Acknowlegdge that, Dispite that it is OUR CLAIMED LAND.

Don't see why that should be yours at all. Just cause you claim that those are your boundaries. I can claim International Water too. Won't make it mine though.

For some reason Bush seems to think Canada is the 51st State.

LOL that is so far international waters that Canada needs to pull their head outta their ass's.......................International laws say something like 3 miles off the coast and USA is 10-12 where in the world can someone claim 200 MILES and expect it to "hold water."

You people do nto seem to "GET IT"

Most fo the time, thoes waters are ICE.

That water is as good as land.

Its ours, get it!?
We Claimed it, We pay for it, It's ours, and the U.S. wants it for themselves.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
You people do nto seem to "GET IT"

Most fo the time, thoes waters are ICE.

That water is as good as land.

Its ours, get it!?
We Claimed it, We pay for it, It's ours, and the U.S. wants it for themselves.

You claiming it doesn't change shit. If it is water and outside of your boundary, 12 Miles at most with water it's not yours. It is international water.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
You people do nto seem to "GET IT"

Most fo the time, thoes waters are ICE.

That water is as good as land.

Its ours, get it!?
We Claimed it, We pay for it, It's ours, and the U.S. wants it for themselves.


LOL you bought 200 miles of ICE................seriously relax because I am in almost hysteria laughing now.......................200 miles of ice that melts periodically..............................That water is as good as frozen you mean unless you have some crazy crops that seasonally grow in ice......................lets face it most of this is about fishing waters

Originally posted by soleran30
LOL you bought 200 miles of ICE................seriously relax because I am in almost hysteria laughing now.......................200 miles of ice that melts periodically..............................That water is as good as frozen you mean unless you have some crazy crops that seasonally grow in ice......................lets face it most of this is about fishing waters



GAHHHHHH

it's Ours God Damn it!

The U.S. is just PISSED because they "can't legally" have a Peice of it becasue there are TONS AND TONS AND TONS of fossil Fuels Underneath the ocean!!!

THATS WHY!!!!

And We won't touch it becasue of the damage it could cost.

Ummm....ice isn't as good as land because it's still water, sorry.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
GAHHHHHH

it's Ours God Damn it!

The U.S. is just PISSED because they "can't legally" have a Peice of it becasue there are TONS AND TONS AND TONS of fossil Fuels Underneath the ocean!!!

THATS WHY!!!!

And We won't touch it becasue of the damage it could cost.

Why the hell is it yours though? Makes no sense.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why the hell is it yours though? Makes no sense.


It Falls Within our borders, Which Some dead white guy claimed as Canada's 200 years ago.

It was Agreed That That part of the world is ours. Now, The U.S. wants the Fuels and therefore Claims it as Everybody's

Why are you surprised?? The Bush Administration has done way worse than that.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
-=- Us Declairs War On Canada! -=- Well Almost,

Wow, what an ignorant, inflamatory and totally uniformed post!


Koala, there are many U.S. ? Canadian issues to discuss that actually not only contentious but actually not fabricated (i.e. the soft lumber dispute).

I have no problem with any of our allies using our waters so long as it not for military, commercial or political purposes that are not contradictory to Canada or Canadian policies or interests.

Stop overreacting to political posturing and educate yourself before you make comments that reflect badly on not only you, but on the country that you claim to love.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
GAHHHHHH

it's Ours God Damn it!

The U.S. is just PISSED because they "can't legally" have a Peice of it becasue there are TONS AND TONS AND TONS of fossil Fuels Underneath the ocean!!!

THATS WHY!!!!

And We won't touch it becasue of the damage it could cost.


LOL not only 200 miles of ice but also Hudson Bay Trading in one day wow USA must be on a role to dominate Canada Hey mind mailing me down some ice cubes since you guys seem to stockpile and monopolize them

Originally posted by soleran30
LOL not only 200 miles of ice but also Hudson Bay Trading in one day wow USA must be on a role to dominate Canada Hey mind mailing me down some ice cubes since you guys seem to stockpile and monopolize them

And the U.S. Seems to Monopilize and StockPile Stuck up Idiotic Assholes.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
And the U.S. Seems to Monopilize and StockPile Stuck up Idiotic Assholes.

You're goddamn right! Haven't you figured that out already?

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
And the U.S. Seems to Monopilize and StockPile Stuck up Idiotic Assholes. Hey, the Americans are not the ones that claim water that isn't rightly theirs in this case.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
And the U.S. Seems to Monopilize and StockPile Stuck up Idiotic Assholes.


Well it would seem with the title of your topic it was you that was looking to show off how idiotic you are.........................now shutup and get me some ice for my water here

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Wow, what an ignorant, inflamatory and totally uniformed post!


Koala, there are many U.S. ? Canadian issues to discuss that actually not only contentious but actually not fabricated (i.e. the soft lumber dispute).

I have no problem with any of our allies using our waters so long as it not for military, commercial or political purposes that are not contradictory to Canada or Canadian policies or interests.

Stop overreacting to political posturing and educate yourself before you make comments that reflect badly on not only you, but on the country that you claim to love.


I am looking at what all of This Is leading to.

Our Allies?

They take everything from us and don't give it back.

Remember the Missile Shield?

They are using OUR Satellites (which there's yes) And then they say we have to pay THEM 1.2 billion (exact amount not known) to be Included in the protection program?

They RAISE taxes on the border For lumber, which we are selling them at "Bargain bob" Prices? And REFUSE to reduce them?

They want to Build A Pipeline and drain our water from the North, We said no, And then they say we are a threat to them because we are blocking there advancements?

HELL, they build an underground pipeline (its there, it's built) That stops A mile away from the Fraser River in the sole purpose of Turning the water so they use it?

They get roused up and calls us names because of one Mad Cow and as soon as 9/11 hit a day later we are there friends and allies?

They blame US for the Shortage that happened in New york a few years ago, even thought it was An American plant that failed (We had to cut power so a short doesn't happen)

And MUCH MUCH MORE.

And now they want to drill for Oil in OUR waters!?
Thats just too much, The U.S. DOES NOT own Canada.

Originally posted by soleran30
Well it would seem with the title of your topic it was you that was looking to show off how idiotic you are.........................now shutup and get me some ice for my water here

WHAT!?

What makes me "idiotic"?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Wow, what an ignorant, inflamatory and totally uniformed post!


Koala, there are many U.S. ? Canadian issues to discuss that actually not only contentious but actually not fabricated (i.e. the soft lumber dispute).

I have no problem with any of our allies using our waters so long as it not for military, commercial or political purposes that are not contradictory to Canada or Canadian policies or interests.

Stop overreacting to political posturing and educate yourself before you make comments that reflect badly on not only you, but on the country that you claim to love.

I quite agree on your points KD. And as a matter of fact the title of this thread is way off. I better fixed. Maybe that will cool (no pun inteded) down things before getting outta hand.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I quite agree on your points KD. And as a matter of fact the title of this thread is way off. I better fixed. Maybe that will cool (no pun inteded) down things before getting outta hand.


NO you won't that was to grab attention.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
NO you won't that was to grab attention.

Oh, so you want attention instead of discussing an issue? Then I guess is better to move this to the OTF then?

Stick to the topic and no need to overblow the disscusion.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Oh, so you want attention instead of discussing an issue? Then I guess is better to move this to the OTF then?

Stick to the topic and no need to overblow the disscusion.


Oh F*ck you.
Why should I start a thread if you only go ontop of me becasue you are a mod, and I said I did not want the title re-named?


Seriously,

I started this Damned thread.

It was For attention it is somewhat relvent.
if things continue like this, What the hell do you thyink will happen?
They went to Iraq For Fuel, How long Before Canada's Water AND fuel6 Its A gold mine.

We Keep denying, They WILL invade.

They didn't yet though. Save the thread title for a time when they actually started a war. By the way saying "**** you" to a mod or anyone is not really nice at all...nor very smart.

The Thread Title was unecessarily offensive and did not really relate to the topic. Deal with ti. It is the GDF after all.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
Oh F*ck you.
Why should I start a thread if you only go ontop of me becasue you are a mod, and I said I did not want the title re-named?


Seriously,

I started this Damned thread.

It was For attention it is somewhat relvent.
if things continue like this, What the hell do you thyink will happen?
They went to Iraq For Fuel, How long Before Canada's Water AND fuel6 Its A gold mine.

We Keep denying, They WILL invade.


You are clearly misinformed about what is and what isn't Canada's property. Saying you own something 200 miles off your coastline is assinine period hell even 15 miles is assinine................if you would like to use those resources well get out there and mine them otherwise don't tell other countries what they can and cannot do in INTERNATIONAL waters............

Originally posted by soleran30
You are clearly misinformed about what is and what isn't Canada's property. Saying you own something 200 miles off your coastline is assinine period hell even 15 miles is assinine................if you would like to use those resources well get out there and mine them otherwise don't tell other countries what they can and cannot do in INTERNATIONAL waters............

Its not a question of "saying we own"

Its FACT

WE OWN.

Its On paper. WE OWN IT.

Periode.

No Argument, We own it, and The U.S. wants it.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
Oh F*ck you.

I'm sure that's not very intelligent at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They didn't yet though. Save the thread title for a time when they actually started a war. By the way saying "**** you" to a mod or anyone is not really nice at all...nor very smart.

The Thread Title was unecessarily offensive and did not really relate to the topic. Deal with ti. It is the GDF after all.

For A forum where "we are all Equal"

Maybe They Should AT LEAST heed to keeping the thread's original name after the maker requested it.

Doing otherwise is just not right.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I'm sure that's not very intelligent at all.

And making little snid coments is any better?

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
Its not a question of "saying we own"

Its FACT

WE OWN.

Its On paper. WE OWN IT.

Periode.

No Argument, We own it, and The U.S. wants it.


That paper only has as much value as other people believe it does just like the US dollar.......................Most of the World doesn't acknowledge that piece of paper and guess what neither do we...........................but hey if on paper makes it legal let me find a HUGE swath of ocean and get an attorney to draw up my papers now and then get someone to notorize it then BAM I own it................WRONG.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
Its not a question of "saying we own"

Its FACT

WE OWN.

Its On paper. WE OWN IT.

Periode.

No Argument, We own it, and The U.S. wants it.
A paper signed by whom....provide a link to (since I guess you can't show the actual paper)

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
For A forum where "we are all Equal"

Maybe They Should AT LEAST heed to keeping the thread's original name after the maker requested it.

Doing otherwise is just not right.

But the Title needs some connection to the Topic. If it doesn't or is offensive (towards Aericans in that case) it has to be closed. If you wanted to make a thread like this with a Title like you had before it would belong to the OT Forum.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
Well Almost,

They Do not Acknowldge That The Waters around to the North belong to Canada, DISPITE the fact that it does belong to Canada.

Things are Getting REALLY heated. I would not Be surprised if the United State's Greed does start a war.

HELL! they want to Drain OUR drinking water for there use, And they say that if we don't GIVE them OUR Water, we are stopping there growth and devlopment, and is a direct threat to there people.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/26/wilkins-harper060126.html



WE recognize OUR claim to OUR Land / Water, but the States think it's not ours.
You'll give us your waters and you'll do it with a smile.

I'm still surprised we haven't made Canada our 51st state.

Originally posted by long pig
You'll give us your waters and you'll do it with a smile.

I'm still surprised we haven't made Canada our 51st state.
What an ignorant and offensive thing to say.

Originally posted by Bardock42
A paper signed by whom....provide a link to (since I guess you can't show the actual paper)

(...)


You want me to find a paper that has been signed over 200 years ago for specific places up north!?

Why sure I'll just go march into Parlement this minute.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
You want me to find a paper that has been signed over 200 years ago for specific places up north!?

Why sure I'll just go amrch into Parlement this minute.

So wait..you tell me to sjust take your word for it? Right...I'll do that......or maybe I will jsut assume that it is not your Water since it is not your water.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What an ignorant and offensive thing to say.
Good.

Hey, you..Koala, where's my water, dammit?! -clap clap-

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
You want me to find a paper that has been signed over 200 years ago for specific places up north!?

Why sure I'll just go amrch into Parlement this minute.


LOL haha yeah know what I am sure the US govt asked them to produce those papers as well. Making sure the appropriate signatures are on there because I am sure our founding fathers will have signed that document acknowledging this self proclaimed territory of OCEAN

Stow it you would do better to pick some other topic like how the USA is taking water from Canada then research it and post a topic but this piece is just a hot head response....................mostly upset that your govt cannot do what we can and thats CAPITALIZE on some resources in OPEN waters

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
For A forum where "we are all Equal"

Maybe They Should AT LEAST heed to keeping the thread's original name after the maker requested it.

Doing otherwise is just not right.

we're not here at your service, you know?

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
I am looking at what all of This Is leading to.

Our Allies?

They take everything from us and don't give it back.

Remember the Missile Shield?

They are using OUR Satellites (which there's yes) And then they say we have to pay THEM 1.2 billion (exact amount not known) to be Included in the protection program?

They RAISE taxes on the border For lumber, which we are selling them at "Bargain bob" Prices? And REFUSE to reduce them?

They want to Build A Pipeline and drain our water from the North, We said no, And then they say we are a threat to them because we are blocking there advancements?

HELL, they build an underground pipeline (its there, it's built) That stops A mile away from the Fraser River in the sole purpose of Turning the water so they use it?

They get roused up and calls us names because of one Mad Cow and as soon as 9/11 hit a day later we are there friends and allies?

They blame US for the Shortage that happened in New york a few years ago, even thought it was An American plant that failed (We had to cut power so a short doesn't happen)

And MUCH MUCH MORE.

And now they want to drill for Oil in OUR waters!?
Thats just too much, The U.S. DOES NOT own Canada.

You are simplifying a complicated issue. Sure there are politicians and corporate apes that want what we have, but the majority of Americans (if made aware of their gov't's actions) would be embarrassed by the manner that they conduct business. Instead of inciting hostility, perhaps you should talk intelligently.

Now is a time for action, it's just you seem incapable of knowing how to conduct yourself and deciding on proper courses of action.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
Oh F*ck you.
Why should I start a thread if you only go ontop of me becasue you are a mod, and I said I did not want the title re-named?

I smell a banning coming on...and I wouldn't be sad to see you go.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I'm sure that's not very intelligent at all.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
And making little snid coments is any better?

It's 'snide'. You forgot the "e". When retorting to a comment regarding your intelligence, it is in your best interest to show some.

Originally posted by long pig
You'll give us your waters and you'll do it with a smile.

I'm still surprised we haven't made Canada our 51st state.

Another ignorant member. I hear trolling is a bannable offense, I'd love to see you and Koala banned appropriately. I'm sure the I.Q. and common sense levels would spike upwards in your absence.

^ I love this post.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
^ I love this post.

Thanx.

Chill out. If you weren't so hoity toity trying to prove something, you could maybe enjoy life, it's an enjoyable thing.

Humm. This is interesting. First off I despise when the US thinks it can do as it wishes. (Which is a lot of time time unfortunately)

For my whole life I've been taught that above the Territories belongs to Canada (as shown in the Map provided). That area has always been in world maps as Canadian territory.

However, this could cause a major issue. If we (Canada) do indeed have the proper documents saying it is ours, but it conflicts with more contemporary international definitions. Meaning, if the claim on that area was signed and documented before the current international boundaries were declared then we have a conflicting problem.

The problem arises because that area is ice formations. Hawaii is located 2500 miles from the mainland United States, but it is still considered a State. however, it is land. As well there is Alaska, about 500 miles of Canadian territory separate Alaska from the mainland US. but it is also land.

I have no solution to this problem, but it wont be pretty. I hope we fight for it though. Needless to say it could erupt into another major issue between the US and Canada.

We have the papers (presumably) that claim that area as ours. And the US has current international laws. What will happen is 'Someone' will have to decide if that area indeed constitutes international 'waters'. but we'll just have to wait and see.

I am still waiting for a link to provide a source that this paper actually exists and isn't just KMP's imagination. (besides who can actually give canada that Water since it never ever belonged to one. A Paper won't change it. Now if the American at one time had signed a paper that they accept Canada is the owner of thios Water (not forced of course) then thatis different. At least the US would have no reason to claim the water (all other countries on the other hand could jsut as Canadadoes)

No, its not an issue of if the Americans signed anything. Its an issue of when the paper (if it exists, which it must or we (Canada) would be stupid for not allowing the US to do whatever) was signed. The problem is recent law vs. laws before recent law.

OR even more simple, did Canada EVER have a right to claim that area? Thats the point. If at one point in history we did (when we claimed it) and now by current standards we do not have the right to claim it. Which one wins?

A difficult question to answer.

Its not a big deal at any rate. Canada has by far the most fresh water in the world. Studies already show that this will make Canada extremely rich in the future when all the other countries (especially the US) need that water. So whatever, Canada is already the Water king of the world.

I agree it depends if Canada ever had to claim it in the first place...and then again if it is still acceptable under current law.

Thats the point. If we had the right to claim it when we did, and presumably we did claim it. And that conflicts with current law, then which wins? The initial land claim or current law? Its not something that is easy to answer.

Originally posted by Koala MeatPie
Oh F*ck you.
Why should I start a thread if you only go ontop of me becasue you are a mod, and I said I did not want the title re-named?


Next time you use language with that with a mod who is doing his job, you will be banned. That is an absolute, it is not up for debate. One more time and you are out of here.

Meanwhile, let's boil this down to two important points:

1. The idea that Canada owns those waters, by international law, is extremely hazy at best

2. The US is not trying to CLAIM the waters, they are saying the waters are neutral territory.

So this anti-US rhetoric is rather unseemly.

Hazy? Maybe. But it still boils down to did we ever have a right to claim it? If we did at some point and we did in fact claim it, and thats conflicting with current international law, then who is right?

Imagine if all of the sudden International law stated that claiming a land mass through aggressive means was not grounds for those persons to claim it at all. Then by a technicality, the USA would not have claim to their country. This is just a purposely extreme example to prove my point. Who wins in this case, the USA who, at the time had the right to claim this land by aggressive means, or current international law that says people cant claim land masses through aggressive means? See what I mean.

In fact it is so extreme as to be worthless.

Boundaries are without value unless internationally recognised. If the decision goes against Canada then they will have to live with it or fight for it. I bet you they will just live.

Worthless? not quite. You just said "Boundaries are worthless unless internationally recognised". What if the world decided that the USA was technically no longer recognizable by current standards? Obviously that seems absurd, and it is. But it illustrates a point. It becomes the country vs. the world. Who is correct then? Logic would say the world. But there is also something intrinsically wrong about that statement when viewed through the eyes of the persons who's land (or otherwise) is "up for grabs".

There is a natural conflict in these types of arguments. The world would seem to be correct. But not always does that make sense.

Again, that is an example too extreme to be useful. But in any case, the USA would fight for it, and the borders would simply HAVE to be accepted.

Let's put this into perspective.

The US does not recognise the waters as Canadian.

The EU does not recognise the waters as Canadian

Japan does not recognise the waters as Canadian.

There is no part of international law that says they are Canadian

The chances of Canada fighting for the waters are pretty much zero.


Hence, if no-one recognises their claim, it is worthless. THAT is how the world is. People are going to use the waters as international straights and there is not a damn thing Canada can do about it other than moan. No-one believes or accepts what they say.

So what your trying to illustrate is that the only way to secure a land mass is through conflict? Doesn't that seem a little off to you?

If the World does not "accept" a mass of area as belonging to a country, and that country says otherwise. Then the world can simply use force to claim an area as a "part of the world"?

I'll change my example now to a different, less militarily powerful country for this example.

So what your saying then is that if the international community no longer felt that Africa was recognizable as a "claimed land mass" and felt that Africa should belong to the world. Then they can simply walk in and use force to claim that land as whatever they may want it to be?

By that logic then, boundaries have no relative purpose what so ever anyways. If they are simply meaningless "lines" which the world can change if it so pleases.

That seems quite intrinsically wrong to say however.

No, I didn't say that at all, and you know it.

A border is only a border if acknowledged. If it is not acknowledged, and no-one treats it as a border, then all it is is a worthless line on a map.

Now, it can be acknowledged because people agree it should be a border. Or it might be forcibly acknowledged because those who claim it start shooting at anyone who tries to breach it.

But one way or another, it must be acknowledged, or it has no value.

If no-one simply accepts Canada's claim, and if Canada isn't going to fight for it- then it is not there.

In the insane situations you give, it would not feasably be accepted, nor would the force be used to overcome defence of such borders. So what you say is pretty much irrelevant. But theoretically, yes, if such a situation was either accepted or enforced, then the borders would change. That process is normally called war. War might be unpleasant, but border changes that result are still factual.

Sorry to give you the harsh truth here, but that is how borders work. What is international law anyway? Something that the international community enforces. If it wasn't enforced, it wouldn't have any value either.

There is no higher power that has ultimate discretion of what borders are and are not so. There is only recognition from others.

why are we still using the term land mass........................ice pack is a much better phrase. This is not a landmass AT ALL. Its an icepack and Canada is being silly....................it was said previously that there are resources under these places such as fossil fuels for example..................maybe, however to say you OWN 200 MILES of water around your coast is assinine.

Yes I realise that. However, you are still indeed saying that the only real way to even have a border is if you can defend it militarily (forcefully)? Correct? War does indeed change borders, obviously. So then technically if the US decided to declare war on Canada for this area. Then this area is indeed being recognized as an area claimed by Canada. And when the Americans beat us (which they would) then they would own that area.

But thats not what this discussion is about. Its about if that area should belong to anyone at all. Who decides that? The international community naturally. So this isn't a Canada/ US fight. Its a Canada/ International community fight. Unless the US did declare war on Canada. Which would verify that Canada did indeed have claim to it in the first place.

Otherwise who are they going to fight? No one? Or the Whole world? Who defends International property?

No, this example is nothing to do with war, it is to do with being able to enforce what you say your borders are.

The situation would be like this- the US tries to send a ship through the Northwest Passage. The Canadians would send ships to stop it, if they decided to enforce. The US would send more and better ships to stop the enforcement.

Now, if this had been a land based matter over, say, Alberta, at THIS point the international community- which recognises the Albertan borders- would cry foul, and all matter of legal, diplomatic and potentially military measures would be used to in turn enforce that border on Canada's behalf. Why? because it is accepted.

But in this case, virtually NO-ONE accepts it. So the international community would just say that Canada had no right trying to stop the ship anyway and got what it deserved.

In real life, of course, I rate it very unlikely that Canada would try to stop the ship in the first place.

Hence, I say again, the claim is not recognised, it's not going to be backed, so it's not going to work.

You say all borders require force? Only ultimately- you don't need to defend it yourself if it is internationally accepted, because others will do it for you- politically, economically, legally, and as a last resort, militarily.. Much of Europe works on that basis.

This one ISN'T internationally accepted, so Canada would have to use force, and no-one else will accept that, and Canada would have to back down.

I am sorry to say that Canada will just have to accept that they have never convinced anyone of this one and hence it is a doomed venture. Even Denmark is contesting Canadian sovereignty in that area.

Canada has pretty much lost this one.

Oh yes, I agree, realistically you are correct. I do know this.

But that still means that technically then world chooses who lives and who dies. (the Africa example) And there seems to be an inherent flaw with that line of thinking. It is the way that it is. But there is something very intrinsically wrong about it.

Borders need recognition from the world community to be considered real. But what if the border of something (Africa) was not recognized anymore as valid? Then they mean nothing. So then the only people that do not have a say in what is theirs are the people who actually "own" it.

This thought goes against a persons (mine at the very least) natural intuition of what is right and what seems to be not right.

I know that is how the world works. But it seems flawed, and yet at the same time it seems to be the only feasible way to do things. A sort of intuitive vs. realistic conflict emerges.

You'll have to excuse me, I tend to argue in a formal sense. I am a Logic major and I do logic constantly. Therefore I have a natural urge to forget the actual reality from arguments and simply look at them as valid or unvalid.

You are valid realistically. But there is definitely something wrong with your argument otherwise. That is why I have trouble accepting it. Its a mental contradiction of empirical truth vs. intuitive normative truth.

But I do agree. I doubt Canada will ACTUALLY do anything anyways.

But I argue for the sake of arguing.

No, I am afraid it is simply your perception of borders that is at fault. The realistic way is also the actual way- borders have no intrinsic existence beyond their acceptance. I do realise people tend to find this counter-intuitive, but that's only because, having lived with them since birth, they tend to see borders as being like land features- permanent, a part of nature. They are not- they are a factor of human perception. They have no value at all beyond that which is accepted.

I might also add that if Canada really wanted to come down hard on this issue they might:

a. Go on a diplomatic effort to convince others. Because right now, Canada just keeps stating that they own it, and no-one else believes them.

b. Actually get some military vessels that can work in Arctic waters. Because even Denmark has some, and Canada doesn't look like much of an Arctic power if they don't.

The new PM wants to send more forces there. But what is this? Is Canada really going to go down that route? I doubt it.

Look at what gives Canada its global reputation. People see it is a mature, intelligent and reasonable country. Canada does not have a large military (though it does have a proud one) and pretty much defines itself by NOT following the US model of total enforcement.

Headlines reading "Canada uses armed force to halt civilian vessel in waters no-one else thinks it owns" hardly does that image any favours.

Canada has historically takne a reasoned approach of words. But if you do that, you have to accept that if you lose the war of words, you lose it all, because you then don't have the force to back it up. If the new administration wants to turn Canada into a military power as well... then I guess things will change, though I would guess more readily that it would be the adminstration that gets the boot pretty fast.

Canada has lost this war of words, and I think this is an apt demonstration of the true nature of borders.

So I am afraid by any definition of truth, this is so. And when the US ambassador stated that they were international waters... I am afraid he was simply stating a fact recognised by all save Canada itself.

You repeated exactly what I said in my previous post.

Just longer.

To me, this is

Unfortunately, the empirical truth wins this battle.

But it necessarily shouldn't win.

This is the flaw of Logical argument. There is something obviously wrong about this "truth" and yet it is true because it must be.

Seriously, can't we just share?

Canada is like America's more mature brother, even if they deny it or dislike it, we're close and we need each other.

And like brothers, we fight all the time and make fun of each other but if anyone else tries to fight we back each other up 100%. Like 911.

This Water situation won't change that one bit, would it?

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
You repeated exactly what I said in my previous post.

Just longer.

To me, this is

Unfortunately, the empirical truth wins this battle.

But it necessarily shouldn't win.

This is the flaw of Logical argument. There is something obviously wrong about this "truth" and yet it is true because it must be.

It's not even a battle. What was intuitive wasn't even truth. There isn't anythying wrong with this at all.