quote:A joint-Canada-U.S. committee will meet at the coast guard base in Dartmouth, N.S., to discuss the rocket debris that is expected to land near the Hibernia offshore oil site.
quote:The U.S. says it has no plans to pick a new flight path that would be farther away from the Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose oil fields.
Is it really that hard to look at satellite imagery along your flight path to make sure there's nothing there? I mean, do they even check for potential boats in the area of the projected flight path? They say that the chance of hitting any of our rigs is about one in a trillion, but I'm not entirely sure I buy that when the debris is projected to land two kilometres from the Hibernia site, and when they were charting the flight path they weren't even aware that there was anything there at all.
(The article doesn't say that, but I'm talking with one of my best friends about it right now; his father is vice president of corporate planning at Petro-Canada, which owns most of the operations in question. Yes, it's secondhand information, but it's from a reliable source.)
That said, I don't imagine anything will actually hit any of the rigs, but it's pretty rude to just chart a course over our airspace without bothering to check that you won't be potentially risking Canadian lives (even when the risk is minimal) and then not tell us about it until less than a week before the launch.
posted
Just keep in mind that we are your largest supplier of crude oil and petroleum products. You ought to treat us even more nicely than you treat Saudi Arabia.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, if they say it won't hit, it won't hit.
Oh, wait, these aren't the same guys who forgot to convert feet to meters, is it? You might be in trouble, then.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they'd just learn to do their calculations in SI like everyone else in the entire world, that might not have been a problem...
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He won't need to advocate it when the American populace realizes just how much oil and water we've got. It'll be a citizens' invasion.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it depends on whether or not we're being obnoxious intentionally or we're just that self-absorbed.
The US Military was planning on holding night maneuvers over a major urban center and either wasn't planning on telling civil authorities or didn't tell them until after the fact. Mind you, this was five or six years ago, if memory serves.
Can we say "disaster waiting to happen?" I knew we could.
posted
I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean I love the country but I can't stand the scene. And I'm neither left or right I'm just staying home tonight, getting lost in that hopeless little screen. But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags that Time cannot decay, I'm junk but I'm still holding up this little wild bouquet:
posted
I will bet that Canada and the United States will some day go to war. It sounds silly, other than feelings and politics between the two have slowly grown seriously cold.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't let them ridicule you Occasional, when the bombs are flying one way and the waffles are flying the other, you'll be able to smile smugly and say "I told you so."
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it makes you feel any better, America is the laughing stock of Canada and the World.
THey're hicks, and you live in a country where 3 out of 5 people in the most rural South of Alberta aproves of gay marriage. You have a country to be proud of.
Posts: 78 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was reading a forum somewhere about the US Army slogan "An Army of One." Someone said they hated the idea of being an Army of One because isn't the military about teamwork, blah blah, and this other guy posted and said, "You should come to Canada, then you could be in an army of about 8."
T, did you mean shamrock- weilding ?
Posts: 377 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone understand what the big sexy said? I think he was complementing Canada in that our most conservative province still supports basic human rights, but...
In other news, I enjoy all jokes, and as a Canadian was not offended in any conceivable manner by those presented here.
And on the notion of a CanUSA tilt, the last time that happened we repelled you, and we can do it again. Hell, we even have the same equipment.
[ April 09, 2005, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Lord Solar Macharius ]
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Throne, you guys (and I mean that in a unisexual way) are fast with your greetings. Thanks for the welcoming. I've been lurking for the better part of two years, so I know the faces pretty well (though I should admit my dirty little secret: for the first couple of months I thought it was Hat-trick River. Sue me, it was hockey season).
Note: I edit my posts a lot within the first few minutes of them being up. I've been accused of having OCD.
[ April 09, 2005, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Lord Solar Macharius ]
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, we're freaking jerks all right. We sure do suck. It's a good thing we buy massive amounts of everything from everyone, and also that we in large part paid for the national defense of many nations (in the past, and for some nations to this day), or else we'd be totally worthless!
Yeah, those, "America sucks," remarks are always so penetrating, so insightful. Sorry for, you know, making jokes on occassion about Canadians. Totally out of line, since that kind of thing isn't ever sent south
Edit: [quoteAnd on the notion of a CanUSA tilt, the last time that happened we repelled you, and we can do it again. Hell, we even have the same equipment.[/quote]
These kinds of statements, when my by Americans about America, are generally regarded as imperialist, jingoist, arrogant, or condescending. But I suspect that when a Canadian makes such a statement about Canada-even though it is absurd-I expect it will be taken in stride and regarded as normal, healthy patriotism.
posted
It is incumbent upon those with the most power -- you -- to be even nicer than the rest of us, who all have to bargain with you from a position of relative weakness.
Edit:
quote:These kinds of statements, when my by Americans about America, are generally regarded as imperialist, jingoist, arrogant, or condescending. But I suspect that when a Canadian makes such a statement about Canada-even though it is absurd-I expect it will be taken in stride and regarded as normal, healthy patriotism.
And, unsurprisingly, this is equally true of Americans making statements that, coming from north of the border, are considered anti-American.
posted
Well, on a personal level, I agree with you, Twink. I think people should operate that way. But gratitude, charity, and normal courtesy don't really apply to international relations, unfortunately (and no, I'm not just meaning gratitude towards America, I mean between ALL nations, really).
But since America rarely gets the gratitude it deserves (I believe), and instead gets largely the scorn it deserves (I believe), why exactly should America deal more kindly with those in weaker positions?
---
Thanks, Rivka and Twinky:) Figures that while I'm gone, the OSC starts posting with apparent regularity! Geeze. I should post on more forums regularly, and then leave, to summon up famous authors! heh
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But since America rarely gets the gratitude it deserves (I believe), and instead gets largely the scorn it deserves (I believe), why exactly should America deal more kindly with those in weaker positions?
The thing is that this is an artifact of having way more power than everyone else. I think that it comes with the territory. In a way, we've discussed this before (when we were talking about the Israeli-Palestinian issue some time ago).
In the specific case of Canada and America, you haven't, particularly in the last few years, dealt terribly fairly with us from a trade standpoint. Add to that the fact that your government takes its access to our oil and water reserves for granted, and I think you'll see why we're a bit annoyed with you.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my experience, high level talks between nations seem almost entirely founded on politeness. Furthermore, even were they not, America's economy is no longer so strong that it can dictate terms. Other countries can cause significant damage with retaliatory sanctions.
Pushing Canada as far as we can when we need their cooperation on security, and depend on their oil, is silly in the extreme. We've repeatedly insulted them over the past few years, which is notable because it is atypical; we do have a history of politeness with Canada, as with many other nations, who are rightly out of sorts by the present uncouthness. The notion that relations between nations can procede far without a basis in polite dealings is a myth certain politicans like to tout despite it not working in the real world.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, I wasn't talking about the discourse between nations, but rather about what ends up actually happening. In other words, there are often polite tit for tat agreements, but they aren't made (I believe) because that is how polite people act, but rather because there's something in it for us or them.
I do believe that America and Americans in general should treat Canada more as a friend and less as a butt of jokes, and I am rarely fond of our diplomatic approach to dealing with other nations lately.
I just think it should go both ways, that's all. America, too, has been the butt of jokes and object of contempt for quite awhile longer than the past few years, you know.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And on the notion of a CanUSA tilt, the last time that happened we repelled you, and we can do it again. Hell, we even have the same equipment.
Since this comment references the war of 1812, I'd say it actually falls under the category of "tired, unfunny jokes about the Canadian military" that both Americans and Canadians make altogether too much for my taste. Canadians more so, actually, since most Americans don't know very much about Canada anyway. We did burn down the White House that time, but somehow I don't think we could manage that feat again.
My real problem with the jokes in this thread, though, is that they deflected the whole focus of the thread away from the issue I tried to raise in the original post, which is that this is yet another example of America taking Canada for granted, as has been happening with increasing frequency of late.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I apologize, I read your initial comment as a commentary on America's stance, not on the jokes. Yes, I think most nations must endure being the butt of jokes, and that most of them are harmless.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
LSM! Welcome to Hatrack!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
