Council Member
Posts: 1,647 
November 18th, 2007, 07:48 AM
On the east side, recent surveys show that disputed rock is closer to Greenland than to any island claimed by Canada. The Danes are probably correct in claming that rock.
On the west side, the US/Canadian border in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska/Yukon is also disputed. The treaty between Canada and the US only define the land border. Offshore the dividing line should legally be based on distance to shore. In this case the US has a legitimate claim to areas claimed by Canada.
Canada could also go an plant a flag beside the Russian flag and sign a treaty recognizing their claim, if they recognize our claim. The Danes and the US could also plant their flags there too.
Submarines regularly travel through Canadian arctic waters undetected and unchallenged. We don't need to patrol these waters with warships to claim them. We just need the ability to detect and sink if necessary ships and submarines. The cheapest way to do that is with ice penetrating torpedoes dropped by aircraft.
Canada should welcome ships travelling through the North West Passage, as long as they have insurance to cover expenses in the event of an oil spill or rescue. The problem with this area being an international waterway is that the ships could pollute Canada's arctic and Canada is left with the responsibility to clean it up.
But this string is about a Chinese sub popping up next to an American aircraft carrier during the middle of military exercises. Maybe ASW wasn't part of the exercise, but I would have thought assets like that were always guarded by ASW. What good is ASW if its not constant? Does that mean that US aircraft carriers are only protected against submarines occasionally? That should be even more embarassing...
Sounds to me like ES is making excuses. I could have won that tennis match, but my arm was a little sore. I could have hit the target, but I have a headache today.
Why is it so hard for Americans to admit they can occasionally be caught with their pants down, just like everyone else?
On the east side, recent surveys show that disputed rock is closer to Greenland than to any island claimed by Canada. The Danes are probably correct in claming that rock.
On the west side, the US/Canadian border in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska/Yukon is also disputed. The treaty between Canada and the US only define the land border. Offshore the dividing line should legally be based on distance to shore. In this case the US has a legitimate claim to areas claimed by Canada.
Canada could also go an plant a flag beside the Russian flag and sign a treaty recognizing their claim, if they recognize our claim. The Danes and the US could also plant their flags there too.
Submarines regularly travel through Canadian arctic waters undetected and unchallenged. We don't need to patrol these waters with warships to claim them. We just need the ability to detect and sink if necessary ships and submarines. The cheapest way to do that is with ice penetrating torpedoes dropped by aircraft.
Canada should welcome ships travelling through the North West Passage, as long as they have insurance to cover expenses in the event of an oil spill or rescue. The problem with this area being an international waterway is that the ships could pollute Canada's arctic and Canada is left with the responsibility to clean it up.
But this string is about a Chinese sub popping up next to an American aircraft carrier during the middle of military exercises. Maybe ASW wasn't part of the exercise, but I would have thought assets like that were always guarded by ASW. What good is ASW if its not constant? Does that mean that US aircraft carriers are only protected against submarines occasionally? That should be even more embarassing...
Sounds to me like ES is making excuses. I could have won that tennis match, but my arm was a little sore. I could have hit the target, but I have a headache today.
Why is it so hard for Americans to admit they can occasionally be caught with their pants down, just like everyone else?
House Member
Posts: 3,365
Location: USA
Location: USA
November 19th, 2007, 10:31 AM
Really now... your foreign minister tends to think different.
Canada, meanwhile, plans to spend $7.5 billion to build and operate up to eight Arctic patrol ships in a bid to help protect its sovereignty.
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said planting a flag will not change the claim to the region.
"There is no question over Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. We've made that very clear. We established a long time ago that these are Canadian waters and this is Canadian property," MacKay told CBC News.
"You can't go around the world these days dropping a flag somewhere, this isn't the 14th or 15th century. "
So it was the Danes then. They still did it and there was not anyone around to even protest.
Quoting lone wolf
In my time it was Argus. Now, Auroras patrol 24/7. As I have attempted to explain to you, there is a vast difference between patrol and ASW. CAF patrols are more apt to assist fisheries and find polluters than seek out subs today - but they watch.
How did that pesky sub get so close? Close to what? The North Pole is international water. Considering it was a miniature, it was likely tended by one of the two Russian research ships that were there. I think you have misunderstood. Canada doesn't claim ownership. The seabed in question is clearly beyond our Arctic archipeligo and the continental shelf. Russian claims it as part of their continental shelf although it is well beyond their 200 mile limit. Canada disputes the claim.
BTW ... it was the Danish who planted their flag on a disputed rock a half mile in diameter between Elsemere Island and Greenland.
Spare you eternal vigilance? If only you had that luxury.
Woof!
How did that pesky sub get so close? Close to what? The North Pole is international water. Considering it was a miniature, it was likely tended by one of the two Russian research ships that were there. I think you have misunderstood. Canada doesn't claim ownership. The seabed in question is clearly beyond our Arctic archipeligo and the continental shelf. Russian claims it as part of their continental shelf although it is well beyond their 200 mile limit. Canada disputes the claim.
BTW ... it was the Danish who planted their flag on a disputed rock a half mile in diameter between Elsemere Island and Greenland.
Spare you eternal vigilance? If only you had that luxury.
Woof!
Really now... your foreign minister tends to think different.
Canada, meanwhile, plans to spend $7.5 billion to build and operate up to eight Arctic patrol ships in a bid to help protect its sovereignty.
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said planting a flag will not change the claim to the region.
"There is no question over Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. We've made that very clear. We established a long time ago that these are Canadian waters and this is Canadian property," MacKay told CBC News.
"You can't go around the world these days dropping a flag somewhere, this isn't the 14th or 15th century. "
So it was the Danes then. They still did it and there was not anyone around to even protest.
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 6,160
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
November 19th, 2007, 10:41 AM
Woof!
Quoting EagleSmack
Find some current bait to troll with. That's the problem with Googling a news. It can be very out of date. Besides, MacKay is a Tory. He couldn't find his ass with both hands.
Really now... your foreign minister tends to think different.
Canada, meanwhile, plans to spend $7.5 billion to build and operate up to eight Arctic patrol ships in a bid to help protect its sovereignty.
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said planting a flag will not change the claim to the region.
"There is no question over Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. We've made that very clear. We established a long time ago that these are Canadian waters and this is Canadian property," MacKay told CBC News.
"You can't go around the world these days dropping a flag somewhere, this isn't the 14th or 15th century. "
So it was the Danes then. They still did it and there was not anyone around to even protest.
Canada, meanwhile, plans to spend $7.5 billion to build and operate up to eight Arctic patrol ships in a bid to help protect its sovereignty.
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said planting a flag will not change the claim to the region.
"There is no question over Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. We've made that very clear. We established a long time ago that these are Canadian waters and this is Canadian property," MacKay told CBC News.
"You can't go around the world these days dropping a flag somewhere, this isn't the 14th or 15th century. "
So it was the Danes then. They still did it and there was not anyone around to even protest.
Woof!
House Member
Posts: 3,365
Location: USA
Location: USA
November 19th, 2007, 10:43 AM
ASW can be constant but it can also be very expensive and needless during peacetime.
So a Chinese sub popped up. You all got a good laugh and directed your energy on our faults as opposed to looking at the state of neglect that your own Navy is in. How one incident in the Irish Sea grounded your whole submarine force... all 5.
Quoting earth_as_one
This string was all about gloating. That is all. There was no serious discussion it was all about laughing about an incident that took place one year ago and was dug up to make some Canadians feel good about themselves and another way to mock the US. That is all.
On the east side, recent surveys show that disputed rock is closer to Greenland than to any island claimed by Canada. The Danes are probably correct in claming that rock.
On the west side, the US/Canadian border in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska/Yukon is also disputed. The treaty between Canada and the US only define the land border. Offshore the dividing line should legally be based on distance to shore. In this case the US has a legitimate claim to areas claimed by Canada.
Canada could also go an plant a flag beside the Russian flag and sign a treaty recognizing their claim, if they recognize our claim. The Danes and the US could also plant their flags there too.
Submarines regularly travel through Canadian arctic waters undetected and unchallenged. We don't need to patrol these waters with warships to claim them. We just need the ability to detect and sink if necessary ships and submarines. The cheapest way to do that is with ice penetrating torpedoes dropped by aircraft.
Canada should welcome ships travelling through the North West Passage, as long as they have insurance to cover expenses in the event of an oil spill or rescue. The problem with this area being an international waterway is that the ships could pollute Canada's arctic and Canada is left with the responsibility to clean it up.
But this string is about a Chinese sub popping up next to an American aircraft carrier during the middle of military exercises. Maybe ASW wasn't part of the exercise, but I would have thought assets like that were always guarded by ASW. What good is ASW if its not constant? Does that mean that US aircraft carriers are only protected against submarines occasionally? That should be even more embarassing...
Sounds to me like ES is making excuses. I could have won that tennis match, but my arm was a little sore. I could have hit the target, but I have a headache today.
Why is it so hard for Americans to admit they can occasionally be caught with their pants down, just like everyone else?
On the west side, the US/Canadian border in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska/Yukon is also disputed. The treaty between Canada and the US only define the land border. Offshore the dividing line should legally be based on distance to shore. In this case the US has a legitimate claim to areas claimed by Canada.
Canada could also go an plant a flag beside the Russian flag and sign a treaty recognizing their claim, if they recognize our claim. The Danes and the US could also plant their flags there too.
Submarines regularly travel through Canadian arctic waters undetected and unchallenged. We don't need to patrol these waters with warships to claim them. We just need the ability to detect and sink if necessary ships and submarines. The cheapest way to do that is with ice penetrating torpedoes dropped by aircraft.
Canada should welcome ships travelling through the North West Passage, as long as they have insurance to cover expenses in the event of an oil spill or rescue. The problem with this area being an international waterway is that the ships could pollute Canada's arctic and Canada is left with the responsibility to clean it up.
But this string is about a Chinese sub popping up next to an American aircraft carrier during the middle of military exercises. Maybe ASW wasn't part of the exercise, but I would have thought assets like that were always guarded by ASW. What good is ASW if its not constant? Does that mean that US aircraft carriers are only protected against submarines occasionally? That should be even more embarassing...
Sounds to me like ES is making excuses. I could have won that tennis match, but my arm was a little sore. I could have hit the target, but I have a headache today.
Why is it so hard for Americans to admit they can occasionally be caught with their pants down, just like everyone else?
ASW can be constant but it can also be very expensive and needless during peacetime.
So a Chinese sub popped up. You all got a good laugh and directed your energy on our faults as opposed to looking at the state of neglect that your own Navy is in. How one incident in the Irish Sea grounded your whole submarine force... all 5.
House Member
Posts: 3,365
Location: USA
Location: USA
November 19th, 2007, 10:45 AM
Quoting lone wolf
Current? Current (Nov 2006) like the Chinese Sub incident? That current?
Find some current bait to troll with. That's the problem with Googling a news. It can be very out of date. Besides, MacKay is a Tory. He couldn't find his ass with both hands.
Woof!
Woof!
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 6,160
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
November 19th, 2007, 11:00 AM
Perhaps clicking on a link to verify may have spared you the effort of extracting your foot from your mouth again - or perhaps you just like the taste of toejam.
Enjoy your crow....
Woof!
Perhaps clicking on a link to verify may have spared you the effort of extracting your foot from your mouth again - or perhaps you just like the taste of toejam.
Quote:
Unless you have changed your numeral system, the end digit in that year appears remarkably like a seven. The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
By MATTHEW HICKLEY - More by this author » Last updated at 00:13am on 10th November 2007
By MATTHEW HICKLEY - More by this author » Last updated at 00:13am on 10th November 2007
Enjoy your crow....
Woof!
House Member
Posts: 3,365
Location: USA
Location: USA
November 19th, 2007, 11:12 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2179694.shtml
Quoting lone wolf
No... please enjoy yours.
Perhaps clicking on a link to verify may have spared you the effort of extracting your foot from your mouth again - or perhaps you just like the taste of toejam.
Unless you have changed your numeral system, the end digit in that year appears remarkably like a seven.
Enjoy your crow....
Woof!
Unless you have changed your numeral system, the end digit in that year appears remarkably like a seven.
Enjoy your crow....
Woof!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2179694.shtml
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 6,160
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
November 19th, 2007, 11:25 AM
Woof!
Quoting EagleSmack
I'll give you that one ... even if it's NOT the link in the opening post or the topic. It doesn't make it go away and I'm getting tired of handing you back your tailfeathers anyhow....Woof!
