Larger Military Presence in Our North

[Roy]

Harper pledges larger military presence in north

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said his party will defend Canada's sovereignty in Arctic with a beefed up military presence.

Campaigning in Winnipeg Thursday, Harper said a Conservative government would increase underwater and aerial surveillance and enlarge the navy, army, and air force presence.

"The single most important duty of the federal government is to protect and defend our national sovereignty " said Harper.

"There are new and disturbing reports of American nuclear submarines passing through Canadian waters without obtaining the permission of - or even notifying - the Canadian government."

"You don't defend national sovereignty with flags, cheap election rhetoric, and advertising campaigns. You need forces on the ground, ships in the sea, and proper surveillance. That will be the Conservative approach."

Harper said that if he was elected Prime Minister he would make it clear to foreign governments that travelling in Canadian territory requires government consent.

The Conservative plan for defending Arctic sovereignty includes:

* Stationing three new armed ice breakers -- to be made in Canada -- in the area of Iqaluit
* Building a new military/civilian deep-water docking facility in the Iqaluit area
* Establishing underwater listening posts to monitor northern waters for foreign submarines and ships
* Building a new Arctic army training centre in the area of Cambridge Bay on the Northwest Passage
* Stationing new fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft in Yellowknife

Harper's announcement comes just days after reports that at least one U.S. military submarine had recently patrolled the Arctic and likely passed through Canadian waters.

 

[Roy]

RE: Larger Military Prese

I like the idea that the new Icebreakers would be make in Canada, I think we need more of this. Instead of buying used and questionable equipment from other countries why don't we start to make these things here in Canada. Employing Canadians and maybe attracting engineers from around the world, is an idea I am willing to get behind.

Secondly I think it shows a lack of respect when the Americans or any other country is tresspassing in our waters without even notifying us. Canada needs to stop being such a passive country and defend what is ours and I think defending our magnificient north is the first step.

 

[Jay]

Well so much for Harper being a lap dog for the US.


If the ice breakers are cheaper to buy new abroad, we might as well buy them abroad.

 

[Finder]

I'm not sure if this is really a issue. As the UN would uphold most of our claims. I think this may be coming over our dispute over the Hans Island. Really a usless piece of rock which few care about but has been a Canadian/Denmark possession for about 140 years or so back and forth.

UM, HAPER you disappoint me again. How can you claim that the NDP wastes millions on social programs which actually do something for Canadians and you want to spend MILLIONS on making sure we can keep usless islands like the Hans. UMMMMM this is one of the reasons why the NDP governments were rated as the most fiscal responcable in Canada.

here's some links.
Hans Island
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/25/hansisland050725.html

NDP best fiscal party
http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2005/frt_e.html
http://www.ndp.ca/page/1627

 

[Roy]

RE: Larger Military Prese

Finder maybe you are unaware that with global warming our north falls in an area which is likely to become an importaint shipping route. Maybe Hans Island is not worth much, but if we don't stand strong for Canadian Northern sovereignty, then how will we be reacting when we have disputes with countires such as the US and Russia. Maybe if you look at the value of what we have up there then you might reconsider your stance.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Larger Military Prese

Finder maybe you are unaware that with global warming our north falls in an area which is likely to become an importaint shipping route. Maybe Hans Island is not worth much, but if we don't stand strong for Canadian Northern sovereignty, then how will we be reacting when we have disputes with countires such as the US and Russia. Maybe if you look at the value of what we have up there then you might reconsider your stance.

Canada has a base at Alert. Our coverage of the North may need a little help but if Russia or the USA wanted that land and would not listen to a international court, guess what, I don't think we could defeat either. Spending millions on "safe guarding" the north from the USA or Russia or protecting usless Islands like the hans which have more then a hundred years of unclear ownership is completely usless waste of tax dollars. I can't believe any conservative would waste our tax dollars in such away. Then again Mulroney never had a problem with rapeing the tax payer, so I guess I can believe it.


Edit: Maybe I'm being a little too harsh here. I do however support upgrading the Canadian forces and spending more on them. But as long as it's in venturers which have a use.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Well so much for Harper being a lap dog for the US.

Do you really think he'll say no if Georgie phones him and says that the US is sending a sub through? More likely he'll give the US blanket approval and say that he's solved the problem.

 

[Roy]

Do you really think he'll say no if Georgie phones him and says that the US is sending a sub through? More likely he'll give the US blanket approval and say that he's solved the problem.

so what? if the US would like to send a sub through Canadian waters, as long there is not a contradiction with our intrests, then I see no problem in letting them through. Same goes for Russia or any other country, they issue is making other countries understand and respect that this is Canada and they need our permission to use our waters. It is much better than nations ignoring our sovereignty while we sit back and deliver verbal insults.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Larger Military Prese

The point is that he's pretending to stand up against the US for cheap political points when he has no intention of actually doing so. That's dishonest. Corrupt, even.

 

[Jay]

Well so much for Harper being a lap dog for the US.

Do you really think he'll say no if Georgie phones him and says that the US is sending a sub through? More likely he'll give the US blanket approval and say that he's solved the problem.

I would expect him or any PM to allow it. I highly doubt any leader will allow blanket approval in the current political environment, but in reality, having the US patrol our northern boarders wouldn't be a problem. It should be patrolled, and if the US is willing to spend the money without any strings attached, why not let them. It would go along with our current defense policy anyways; ride the coattails of the American defense policy.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Larger Military Prese

There are ecological threats to having nuclear submarines in our waters, not to mention some of the sonar technology that the US military uses has been linked to the beaching of whales and dolphins.

Their war ships should not be in our waters at all.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Larger Military Prese

Finder maybe you are unaware that with global warming our north falls in an area which is likely to become an importaint shipping route. Maybe Hans Island is not worth much, but if we don't stand strong for Canadian Northern sovereignty, then how will we be reacting when we have disputes with countires such as the US and Russia. Maybe if you look at the value of what we have up there then you might reconsider your stance.

If you say so what? why Spend millions on nothing then? Why spend millions on this when it could go to health care, education, the poor, canadian housing, or even tax cuts? This is why the NDP come over the conservatives in Fiscal responcibility. The NDP might spend money on social programs but at least they might have a use then having Canadian soldurers siting on an icy rock.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: Larger Military Prese

Finder maybe you are unaware that with global warming our north falls in an area which is likely to become an importaint shipping route. Maybe Hans Island is not worth much, but if we don't stand strong for Canadian Northern sovereignty, then how will we be reacting when we have disputes with countires such as the US and Russia. Maybe if you look at the value of what we have up there then you might reconsider your stance.

If you say so what? why Spend millions on nothing then? Why spend millions on this when it could go to health care, education, the poor, canadian housing, or even tax cuts? This is why the NDP come over the conservatives in Fiscal responcibility. The NDP might spend money on social programs but at least they might have a use then having Canadian soldurers siting on an icy rock.

Its my understanding that under international law, to maintain sovereignty over a territory you have to have an active presence in the area, or have surveillance in the area. If we just say its our but never exercise our sovereignty, another country that is in the area can claim the land as its own. Basically it comes down to 'use it or lose it'.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Larger Military Prese

Finder maybe you are unaware that with global warming our north falls in an area which is likely to become an importaint shipping route. Maybe Hans Island is not worth much, but if we don't stand strong for Canadian Northern sovereignty, then how will we be reacting when we have disputes with countires such as the US and Russia. Maybe if you look at the value of what we have up there then you might reconsider your stance.

If you say so what? why Spend millions on nothing then? Why spend millions on this when it could go to health care, education, the poor, canadian housing, or even tax cuts? This is why the NDP come over the conservatives in Fiscal responcibility. The NDP might spend money on social programs but at least they might have a use then having Canadian soldurers siting on an icy rock.

Its my understanding that under international law, to maintain sovereignty over a territory you have to have an active presence in the area, or have surveillance in the area. If we just say its our but never exercise our sovereignty, another country that is in the area can claim the land as its own. Basically it comes down to 'use it or lose it'.

We already have a presance in the North. We also have artic communities and they are apart of the electoral system. We also have Alert and yes we could push up survelillance, but not to spend more then we'd have to. It's not like we are prepairing for people to take away large chunks of our land. The Vietnamess arn't going to land on Baffin Island. I think Harper is nuts ont his issue. I know no other territory other then the hans which Canada may or may not lose and this land has been in dispute for over a hundred years. wheres the real threat to throw millions at?

 

[MMMike]

We already have a presance in the North. We also have artic communities and they are apart of the electoral system. We also have Alert and yes we could push up survelillance, but not to spend more then we'd have to. It's not like we are prepairing for people to take away large chunks of our land. The Vietnamess arn't going to land on Baffin Island. I think Harper is nuts ont his issue. I know no other territory other then the hans which Canada may or may not lose and this land has been in dispute for over a hundred years. wheres the real threat to throw millions at?

There are vast territories up there that we are not patrolling. There have been a number of foreign ships or submarines that have intruded into our seas. You don't think they will, but unless we beef up our presence there other countries can and will start claiming the Artic as their own, or more likely, international waters.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Its my understanding that under international law, to maintain sovereignty over a territory you have to have an active presence in the area, or have surveillance in the area. If we just say its our but never exercise our sovereignty, another country that is in the area can claim the land as its own. Basically it comes down to 'use it or lose it'.

Harper is going overboard though. He has to, because he's got the exact same ideas as Paul Martin, so all he can do is try to outbid him.

We can also establish our sovereignty through a combination of military and non-military means. Tourism, encouraging Arctic peoples to continue using the land and sea, economic development and other means can be used.

Harper's plan is basically to send the military in to make sure that we can suck the oil and gas out when the oil and gas we're burning now causes the ice to melt. That's not a plan, that's pure greed.

 

[Finder]

We already have a presance in the North. We also have artic communities and they are apart of the electoral system. We also have Alert and yes we could push up survelillance, but not to spend more then we'd have to. It's not like we are prepairing for people to take away large chunks of our land. The Vietnamess arn't going to land on Baffin Island. I think Harper is nuts ont his issue. I know no other territory other then the hans which Canada may or may not lose and this land has been in dispute for over a hundred years. wheres the real threat to throw millions at?

There are vast territories up there that we are not patrolling. There have been a number of foreign ships or submarines that have intruded into our seas. You don't think they will, but unless we beef up our presence there other countries can and will start claiming the Artic as their own, or more likely, international waters.

Gawd...
What will spending millions on sending war ships up there, or anything else really do? As I said before We have aslert and we do already have some operations up there. more then enough. If a sub wants to go there there let them. Are we going to stop them? What kind of millions or even billions would we need to spend to make sure the whole area is covered. It's a hudge area, vast and sparcly populated. If subs are going to pass they are going to pass unless we are ready to spend billions. For what, why and why not spend it on something better for the people!

 

[Martin Le Acadien]

Well so much for Harper being a lap dog for the US.

Do you really think he'll say no if Georgie phones him and says that the US is sending a sub through? More likely he'll give the US blanket approval and say that he's solved the problem.

I would expect him or any PM to allow it. I highly doubt any leader will allow blanket approval in the current political environment, but in reality, having the US patrol our northern boarders wouldn't be a problem. It should be patrolled, and if the US is willing to spend the money without any strings attached, why not let them. It would go along with our current defense policy anyways; ride the coattails of the American defense policy.

Thats right, sucker up on the poor US Taxpayer to patrol the north country, after we get georgie to leave Iraq, maybe we have enough money left to send patrols up there, any donations?

Never know when those pesky Danes or Norweigians will be poised to claim the Artic! China will first claim Siberia and then march on Baffin Island! They will bypass the Yanks in Alaska since the dumb idiots are too busy buying chinese goods any how, why upset a good market!

 

[DasFX]

How can you claim that the NDP wastes millions on social programs which actually do something for Canadians and you want to spend MILLIONS on making sure we can keep usless islands like the Hans.

Since when is protecting the integrity and sovereignty of our nation a waste of money? We defend places like Hans Island because it is part of Canada. Should we only defend the "useful" parts of the country? All parts of Canada should be thought of the same.

If that is the mentality, why would I want my tax dollars to be spent on people that some would consider "useless". The poor are only a burden on resources and give very little back to the bottom line.

 

[DasFX]

It should be patrolled, and if the US is willing to spend the money without any strings attached, why not let them. It would go along with our current defense policy anyways; ride the coattails of the American defense policy.

No, we should patrol and defend our own country. Are we that feeble that we cannot take care of ourselves? I don't want to live in a nation that rides the coat tails of other countries. What kind of mentality is that?