Is Hans Island Important? The Return of the Vikings
#3
Posted 25 July 2005 - 04:38 PM
#4
Posted 26 July 2005 - 05:36 AM
Denmark protests visit to Hans rock
#5
Posted 27 July 2005 - 09:06 AM
Denmark asks Canada to reopen territorial talks over disputed Arctic island
#6
Posted 28 July 2005 - 01:51 PM
Quote
The stories of fishing rights and oil and gas rights related to Hans Island are just red herrings to deflect attention away from the agenda of AP Moller-Maersk to control the Nares Strait, one of the entrances to the North West Passage.
Not so incidentally, the U.S. has a military base at Thule in Greenland just a few kilometers away from Hans Island that conveniently controls access to the strait and is a threat to Canadian security. The lead member of the American Danish
Business Council is Lockheed Martin Corp, a major defense contractor to the American government.
Get the idea.
This is not just a dispute about an insignificant island. It is an effort by the U.S. to extend its influence over the Arctic, to take Canadian territory, and to seek ownership of the North West Passage.
Denmark and the U.S. are the two deadliest enemies that Canada has.
Considering that Martin has shipping interest (although he would claim not), one wonders how closely he is tied to AP Moller-Maersk. This is conflict of interest of highest order. The only way that Martin can show himself to be above this conflict of interest is to defend militarily Hans Island.
#7
Posted 02 August 2005 - 02:05 AM
By the way the person who said Denmark is Canada's deadliest enemy is a moron because I would hardly call a frozen ice cib land of denmark a place of a mighty military they probably have a few thousand soldiers. Canada could take them on!
Canadian Conservative
#8
Posted 02 August 2005 - 02:25 AM
Quote
Why not? That would probably be the best solution to an insignificant problem.
Quote
Who said anything about giving it up? We can press our claim (if we have one) diplomatically, without the macho posturing.
#9
Posted 02 August 2005 - 02:59 AM
canadian_conservative, on Aug 2 2005, 01:07 PM, said:
By the way the person who said Denmark is Canada's deadliest enemy is a moron because I would hardly call a frozen ice cib land of denmark a place of a mighty military they probably have a few thousand soldiers. Canada could take them on!
First, we are in no position to "take on" anyone. They actually have a legitimate claim based in history. I've heard of a few Canadian scholars who actually think their claim is stronger than ours.
This is also a whole different beast than the Americans and their international waterway rhetoric. The only precident it would set would be for the russians, and if for one second you think the US is gonna allow the russians that much closer to their doorstep, you're mistaken.
#10
Posted 02 August 2005 - 06:06 AM
What "claim" show me this "claim" because I have not heard of it. Even if the Danes have history to prove this land whoes not to say that the British conquered that island for her North American Colonies way back when.
"Who said anything about giving it up? We can press our claim (if we have one) diplomatically, without the macho posturing."
Pressing are claim? what will that do, i mean if we start doign it diplomaticly why not but the danes are going to put up as much fight as we are 0so why not take agressive action?
Canadian Conservative
#11
Posted 02 August 2005 - 06:19 AM
Quote
Because its a tiny, uninhabitated piece of rock and permafrost in the middle of nowhere that's not worth one Canadian getting so much as a hangnail over?
Because negotiating is what civilized countries do?
#12
Posted 02 August 2005 - 06:22 AM
canadian_conservative, on Aug 2 2005, 01:38 PM, said:
#13
Posted 02 August 2005 - 06:25 AM
Because negotiating is what civilized countries do?"
tiny and uninhabited yes, but you must not read the news or watch TV much if you don't know how rare and scarce oil is right now.
I and many other Canadians wouldnt care about this island if it didn't threaten are soverenty, if we just decide not to care about it liek i said we might as well put Canada up for claim to anyone who wants it and not put up a fight over it.
Negotiating??? Civilized??? nobody is civilized now people go to war without ngotiating take for instance Iraq their was no negotiating, Afganistan no negotiating (by the way I am against terrorism and backed Afganistan i am just using it as an example of no negotiating) let's see what else cold war nuclear weapon build up cold war russia and USA their was also no negotiating untill at least the 90's. So why do we need to negotiate?
Canadian Conservative
#14
Posted 02 August 2005 - 06:42 AM
Quote
The first time I've seen Hans Island and oil mentione i n the same sentence is here, by you, with no attribution or citation.
Quote
Nothing about oil.
Quote
So let me get this straight: if we don't respond aggressively (ie. militarily) to the Danes claim to this remote island, we're basically seting ourselves up to hand Fort McMurray over to the Swiss or something?
Nonsense. We can protect Canada's soverignty without resorting to aggression.
Quote
Well, notwithstanding the utter irrelevance of youir examples, there's also the factual errors. The U.S. and Soviet Union negotiated a lot during the Cold War. How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved without a war? How were agreemenmts like the ABM and SALT treaties developed?
Why NOT negotiate?
#15
Posted 02 August 2005 - 06:51 AM
Resort to military is last option i'm saying if the UN (if they are even doign anyhting) can't fix up this problem and the Danes take Hans out from are noes than we resort to military action.
Missile crisis??? Negotiated do you know any hostory at all the missile crisis was when the Soviet Union was deprting weapons and settign up camps on Cuba their allies the Cuban missile crisis is when US frigates intercepted them and blew their ships appart that wasn't to peacefull nor negotiated was it? anyways thats besides the point we are way off topic.
Canadian Conservative

Add Reply

MultiQuote