Canada / U.S. relations

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-21 14:33:56

Free access across the Canada/US border has already been negotiated. It was agreed to many decades ago, removing it is reneging upon an existing agreement. There were three main reasons for this: to be good neighbours establishing good will, to avoid conflicts at the border, and because it cost so damn much money to arm the border. Our border from the Great Lakes to the Pacific is thousands of miles long, it's way too expensive to arm that. Proceeding with arming the border means the US has violated yet another treaty. The US has earned a reputation for doing that.

Free Trade doesn't mean we don't defend our borders, it doesn't mean that if youlegalize marjuana in Canada that its automatically legal here too. Free trade simply means an even playing field, but we still control our borders, we don't let illegal things or aliens through. Since our immigration agents aren't in every port in Canada and can't prevent people from entering Canada, we must instead check our own border with Canada to prevent people who shouldn't be here from coming it, that is the only way to so it short of a Customs Union, which NAFTA is not. Why am I having so much trouble explaining this to you. Its an international border, and nothing about the NAFTA treaty states that we have to let anybody walk through this international border without screening, and if our border agents aren't armed, they could be murdered by smugglers or terrorists coming across the border. Canada has alot of open and empty space, and alot of place for criminals to hide. What NAFTA deals with are tarriffs, nothing about NAFTA says that we aren't allowed to guard our borders against threats to our security. We may be a superpower, but that doesn't stop terrorists from coming across and shooting up a shopping Mall for instance. Border agents must be armed, just like any other Police need to be armed when doing their jobs, to expect otherwise is unrealistic.

How about if a black man buys a Canadian company, and drives white businesses in the area out of business?
Canadians would have no problem with that. We don't have any prejudice toward black people. I live in Winnipeg, a city that has been and multi-cultural from its founding, the longest cosmopolitan city in Canada's history. Yet I did hear prejudice expressed toward Sikh immigrants coming from Pakistan. The primary complaint was they wanted to continue their conflict with Hindus. Canadians feel strongly that if you move to Canada you have to leave your conflicts behind; you can keep your ethnic clothes, food, music, dance, but you're expected to assimilate into Canada's view towards tolerance of other cultures and peaceful settlement of disagreements. Furthermore, there is great resentment toward immigrants to immediately go on welfare; the view is immigrants must work to earn their own living. So if an immigrant buys a business and runs it successfully, fine that's what they're supposed to do.

There is a very easy solution to this. "You want welfare, then lets see your ID. If you are not a citizen, then out you go, your visa is revoked. If you can't find a job here, you have no business being here"

By the way, the founding cultures were English, French, Scottish, Ukrainian, German, Mennonite, Icelandic, Chinese, Métis, and Native. That's in no particular order; actually the local newspaper did a survey in the 1980s and found the largest single ethnic group was Ukrainian, not English or French. There are so many people of Native descent in Winnipeg that if it were a reservation it would be the largest (most populous) reservation in the Country; yet they're just people working for a living like everyone else. Métis are half Native/half French, but their culture became unique hundreds of years ago. Métis consider themselves a "first nations people" meaning native, but the native people don't. Métis were a key player in founding this province, Louis Riel is recognized as the founder of the province and he was Métis.
Let me give another colourful example. If an immigrant girl from Afghanistan wants to wear a Burke and stands next to an immigrant from Spain wearing nothing but a mini-skirt and bra, each girl has to accept the other without complaint. Yes we do have Sikh and Hindu immigrants, Palestinian and Israeli, Protestant Northern Irish and Catholic Mainland Irish, all living side-by-side. They're expected to accept each other and coexist peacefully or get out.
So realize prejudice in Canada works differently than in the US. In Canada immigrants are expected to assimilate Canada's core values, but not assimilate surface things like clothing. Most importantly, if you want to buy a Canadian business then move your ass to Canada. Business owned by immigrates are fine, but we have really hate foreign owned business.

That is a stupid rule, it inhibits the raising of capital. Prejudice against foreign owned business is still prejudice. If you want a free trade agreement, then you can't have stupid rules like that, it is something a third world country like Mexico would have. So don't go poking at us and complain about how we protect our timber industry when you complain about foreign owned business, that is like trying to have tour cake and eat it too.

In a negotiation, each side seeks maximum advantage for its side, and the process of negotition, each side tries to get what it wants, and their are some things each side doesn't want as badly and so it is willing to give those things up in exchange for what it really wants.
With an ally you're supposed to work together as a team for the common good. An ally is not an opponent. If you can't understand cooperation, then you're an animal and should be treated as such.

Each side knows its own interests best, I don't know what else you expect. Do you expect US trade negotiators to represent Canadian Interests? Friends negotiate, allies negotiate, each country knows what it wants, and knows what compromises its willing to make in exchange for what it wants, its like any other business negotiation. An analogy is when you go to the store and you want to buy something, the store owner says, this item you want costs this much, and you pay the price or you haggle a little, it is not that you are the store owner are enemies otherwise he'd give the stuff away for free, it is that he needs to earn a living, and if he gave away everything for free, then he'd be out of business and unable to ffed his family, it is fundamental economics. And with trade negotiations the rule is, if you want to get something, you have to give something, allies or no, its the same situation.

Perhaps the next trade negotiation should be held in Canada, and if American negotiators attempt to push their advantage then we'll house them in a kennel instead of a hotel room.
The bi-national free trade agreement had some things Canada really didn't want. America first asked Canada for a free trade agreement after the Foreign Investment Review Agency and National Energy Policy were established, many American CEOs really hated FIRA, and American politicians hated the National Energy Policy. But when a Canadian government was willing to negotiate, they acted like they didn't want it and tried to put Canada on the spot. Canada did not want to guarantee access to any Canadian resource, our stuff is our stuff, but American wanted access to Canadian oil. The free trade agreement gave American unrestricted access to buy Canadian oil, but America could not restrict importation of any Canadian goods. But when one single steel company built a new furnace in 1992 that enabled them to make steel that was higher quality than another other American or Canadian steel company, and sell it at a lower price but still with enough profit to make their bank loan payments and pay dividends to their share holders, American steel companies screamed. The bi-national trade dispute board looked at it and said it was fair business. But a Virginia state court ordered the Canadian company to increase their prices to the point they weren't competitive any more. Where does a state court get off overruling an international court, where does a lower court get off overruling a higher court? That's why Canada insisted on writing into NAFTA that the NAFTA dispute resolution board is a court, and its decision must be obeyed. An appeals system was built in as well; the highest appeals court has heard the case for softwood lumber and made their decision. The decision was not entirely in Canada's favour, mostly but not entirely. The decision is that American cannot limit the quantity of lumber exported into the US, cannot set a minimum price, must immediately revoke all duties, and must repay 100% of every single penny of duty collected to date. The American government has still refused to comply. Canada has engaged in multiple court cases over this, the American government now promises to pay 80% but won't do so or remove the duty until after Canada cancels its litigation. The American government then told Canada's ambassador to Washington D.C. that American won't repay even one cent of the duty. Prime Minister Stephen Harper then got on the phone and got the American government to promise to pay the 80% they committed to, but they would only pay after all litigation is cancelled. You know how this works; once all litigation is cancelled they'll refuse to pay anything. They already told Canada's ambassador they intend to do that. Unfortunately Stephen Harper is believing liars. Most recently the US announced they gave 5% of what they owe Canada to charity. That's another statement of intent to not pay Canada. This is not how you treat an ally. If you want good relations with Canada then obey the treaty your country signed.

The NAFTA treaty is a complicated document, and I'm not a lawyer. I do know that the NAFTA treaty is not a customs union, the problem is there are two governments each with his own interpretation of what the NAFTA treaty means, and each government has its own judicial system, and enforcement agencies, and they have legislatures that write their own laws. The US Government's idea of what NAFTA means does not always correspond 100% with what the Canadian Government thinks it means, so long as we remain soverign independent nations and their is no higher authority to arbitrate these disputes, things are always going to be messy, and nothing is going to be perfect. if you want a freely tranversible border, such as between New York and New Jersey, then you have to be part of the same country and under the same Federal Authority, otherwise any treaty signed is going to be interpreted differently by different court systems and different governments, and it is also voluntary. This isn't a perfect world when you have many nations. Saying that harms international relations because lawyers don't agree in a complicated legal dispute, is absurd. For instance, if the Canadians clear cut their environment and destroy a forest habitiat while our lumber companies carefully manage their forests, you are forcing us to abandon our enviromental regulations and destroy our natural environments in order to compete with Canadian companies whose regs may be more lax. If we have power plants with scrubbers and you don't because your government doesn't, does that mean you get to sell us cheap electricity from coal fired plants and drive our power companies out of busniness because they adhere to our Federal regulations? These are just a few examples, and a Free Trade aggreement doesn't offer any simple answers. That we disagree on some things, it no excuse for an hate America campaign. Part of being an ally is to agree to disagree on some issues, and not hold other issues hostage to other things. Life is not simple, and that disagreements on both sides exist is only to be expected, no treaty can cover everything.

As for an American billionaire owning a Canadian business: where do you think the profits go? We don't want our wealth sucked out of this country to subsidize another.

The profits go into the billionare's pocket as a return on his investment, regardless of whether he is an American or a Canadian citizen, he pays his taxes of course, if it is a company operating in Canada, he pays Canadian taxes, whether he's a Canadian or not and afterwards, its his money, not Canada's or America's, whether he's an American or a Canadian. I don't see why American Investors should be discriminated against, isn't their money just as good as a Canadian Citizen, and doesn't he deserve a return on his investment just like a Canadian Citizen would. By discriminating against certain investors, you are choking off growth to the Canadian economy by reducing the amount of capital available. if you are a Canadian business owner who wants to sell his business and retire, you are reducing the value of his company and his retirement savings by restricting who he can sell to.

I didn't want Canada to enter into a free trade agreement with Mexico because it has a third world economy, but now that they are part of NAFTA why are you attempting to establish trade and immigration barriers with them?
If you want Canada's coast guard patrolling Canadian waters, we already do that. Here is a list of Canadian Coast Guard vessels.

But Canada's Coast Guard is not the US Coast Guard, it is not out looking for US interests, it is looking out for Canadian interests. I don't see why we should rely on a Foreign coast guard to guarantee our security, and that would be exactly what we'd be doing if we didn't guard the US/Canada border, if we didn't do that then some other arrangements need to be made for our security like a Customs union and a Jointly run coast guard, since we don't have that, we guard our borders, that is not so hard to understand I think. If you keep on thinking your the good guys and we're they bad guys, and you wonder why we don't give things away for free just because we're allies, then were not going to get anywhere in this debate.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-21 16:18:27

The undefended border was established by treaties much older than NAFTA. The Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817 followed the war of 1812. It limits ships on the Great Lakes to

On Lake Ontario to one vessel not exceeding one hundred Tons burthen and armed with one eighteen pound cannon.
On the upper lakes to two vessels not exceeding like burthen each and armed with like force.
On the waters of Lake Champlain to one vessel not exceeding like burthen and armed with like force.
… all other armed vessels on these Lakes shall be forthwith dismantled, and that no other vessels of war shall be there built or armed.

The term "burthen" referrs to the carry capacity of a ship including cargo, weapons, and ammunition. A limit of 100 tons means a coast guard vessel; modern NAVY ships are larger than this, even the smallest destroyers, frigates, or maritime coastal defence vessels.

This was signed before modern weapons were invented, when cannons firing 18 pound cannon balls were a significant naval weapon. This has been interpreted as "weapons of war". Read US or Canadian law, an automatic repeating fire riffle is a weapon of war. A 50 calibre machine gun is much more than a .223 calibre assault riffle, it can shoot down a helicopter. Look at the picture, it's a mounted deck gun.

As a weapon of war covered by the Rush-Bagot Treaty treaty, the US coast guard is permitted only one such weapon per ship and only one vessel so equiped on Lake Ontario, one on Lake Champlain, and two on the upper lakes (Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron). Notice it also says "all other armed vessels on these Lakes shall be forthwith dismantled". That means any vessels exceeding these limits must be dismantled. Removing the weapon isn't enough; the entire ship must be dismantled.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-21 16:53:27

if you want a freely tranversible border, such as between New York and New Jersey, then you have to be part of the same country and under the same Federal Authority, otherwise any treaty signed is going to be interpreted differently by different court systems and different governments, and it is also voluntary.

First we aren't going to join the United States. When the US declared independence from Britain, Benjamin Franklin went to all 16 colonies; 13 signed the declaration of independence, 3 did not. Those that did not were Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Many within the 13 colonies saw themselves as loyal British subjects, they didn't want anything to do with a war. They moved to Ontario or the mainland of what was then Nova Scotia. Most Nova Scotia settlers before that lived on the peninsula, only a handful lived on the mainland. So many refugees from the 13 colonies settled there that it was separated into a new province; that's how New Brunswick was founded. With an entire province founded by Americans who didn't want to be American, we aren't going to join now. Look at this announcement:
Bush signing terror bill into law
So much for the US constitution that grants everyone a right to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and the right to legal counsel. U.S. Constitution - Amendment 6:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Since the United States is in such a rush to tear up its own constitution, we certainly cannot trust its federal government.

As for treaties being "interpreted" or "voluntary", you just admitted we can't trust anything any American government representative ever says or signs. Why should we feel compelled to comply with the clause that guarantees access to Canadian oil?

RobertDyck · 2006-10-21 17:25:07

But Canada's Coast Guard is not the US Coast Guard, it is not out looking for US interests, it is looking out for Canadian interests. I don't see why we should rely on a Foreign coast guard to guarantee our security, and that would be exactly what we'd be doing if we didn't guard the US/Canada border, if we didn't do that then some other arrangements need to be made for our security like a Customs union and a Jointly run coast guard, since we don't have that, we guard our borders, that is not so hard to understand I think. If you keep on thinking your the good guys and we're they bad guys, and you wonder why we don't give things away for free just because we're allies, then were not going to get anywhere in this debate.

Canada does believe in teamwork. Canada does protect the interests of our ally. We do understand the concept of cooperation. NORAD has been a mutual defence against the Soviet Union for decades, we're as dependant on the US as the US is on Canada. If you seriously believe you can't count on Canada's coast guard to defend America's interests, then that's a confession the American coast guard will not defend Canada's interests.

Let me give another example. After the Canadian Avro Arrow was abandoned, Canada needed something to take out Russian bombers. The CF-105 Arrow was designed to intercept the Russian Tu-95 Bear bomber. That was Russia's equivalent to the B-52, capable of flying over the north pole and Canada to reach American targets. To intercept the Bear, Canada maintained CF-101 Voodoo fighters from 1961 through 1984. If Bear bombers were detected, they would fly to the US Air Force base in Bangor Maine where their armament would be swapped out with air-to-air missiles with nuclear warheads. As protection over Canada's Atlantic provinces, American fighters from Bangor would fly opposite to cover Canadian Atlantic airspace. Then the Voodoo fighters would fly a suicide mission to take out the Bear bombers. The pilots knew perfectly well that their plane would be inside the blast radius when the nuclear warhead exploded. They were ready and willing to sacrifice themselves for our ally. Can you say the same of American soldiers; are they ready to sacrifice themselves to protect Canada?

SpaceNut · 2006-10-21 20:01:39

Wow 16 that could have signed... that was never taught when I went to school here in NH. Thanks for that ...
I agree laws in the US have become distorted and that most who have had to go before a court of law are assumed guilty and not innocent while a lengthy trail is the attempt to get off free when you know that oneself is guilty.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-22 08:50:03

...This was signed before modern weapons were invented, when cannons firing 18 pound cannon balls were a significant naval weapon. This has been interpreted as "weapons of war". Read US or Canadian law, an automatic repeating fire riffle is a weapon of war. A 50 calibre machine gun is much more than a .223 calibre assault riffle, it can shoot down a helicopter. Look at the picture, it's a mounted deck gun.

As a weapon of war covered by the Rush-Bagot Treaty treaty, the US coast guard is permitted only one such weapon per ship and only one vessel so equiped on Lake Ontario, one on Lake Champlain, and two on the upper lakes (Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron). Notice it also says "all other armed vessels on these Lakes shall be forthwith dismantled". That means any vessels exceeding these limits must be dismantled. Removing the weapon isn't enough; the entire ship must be dismantled.

What if criminals are better armed than the border patrol? Do you think we're going to adhere to a 100+ year old treaty and allow crime lords to take over the Great Lakes Region? I believe Al Capone once ran smuggling operations across the US/Canada border, and Al Capone had machineguns. Machineguns are clearly a weapon of war, but Al Capone did not sign that treaty.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-22 09:06:11

if you want a freely tranversible border, such as between New York and New Jersey, then you have to be part of the same country and under the same Federal Authority, otherwise any treaty signed is going to be interpreted differently by different court systems and different governments, and it is also voluntary.
First we aren't going to join the United States. When the US declared independence from Britain, Benjamin Franklin went to all 16 colonies; 13 signed the declaration of independence, 3 did not. Those that did not were Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. Many within the 13 colonies saw themselves as loyal British subjects, they didn't want anything to do with a war. They moved to Ontario or the mainland of what was then Nova Scotia. Most Nova Scotia settlers before that lived on the peninsula, only a handful lived on the mainland. So many refugees from the 13 colonies settled there that it was separated into a new province; that's how New Brunswick was founded. With an entire province founded by Americans who didn't want to be American, we aren't going to join now. Look at this announcement:
Bush signing terror bill into law
So much for the US constitution that grants everyone a right to a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and the right to legal counsel. U.S. Constitution - Amendment 6:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Since the United States is in such a rush to tear up its own constitution, we certainly cannot trust its federal government.
As for treaties being "interpreted" or "voluntary", you just admitted we can't trust anything any American government representative ever says or signs. Why should we feel compelled to comply with the clause that guarantees access to Canadian oil?

Because Canada is just the same. Canadians elect their own government seperately and so do US Citizens. Just as you can't control who we put into power, we can't control who you put into power. If one Canadian government is friendly, the next one might not be. You can understand the reluctance of one independent nation to trust another independent nation to defend its borders, while not doing so itself. It is not the Canadian Military we're worried about so much as criminal elements operating out of Canada and using it as a base for terrorists attacks in the United States. The concept is very simple, lets say there is a terrorist organization operating out of Canada, and their is a liberal government in Canada that is very keen on observing the privacy rights of its citizens. The terror group begins training, and launching attacks across the US border, machine gunning down some US border patrol agents as it crosses the border, and then taking over an elementary school and then starts shooting the children. The FBI chases them across the US border again, and then the FBI stops because the their jurisdiction ends. The Canadian government is contacted, but the liberals in power don't like the US very much, considering them a bunch of imperialist aggressive bullies, so it does the minimum and the terror group flourishes, launching attack after attack after attack, and the Canadian police persistently insist that they can't find them, or they can't obtain the search warrant, or they are suffereing from budget cuts and don't have sufficient manpower to hunt down the terror suspects, besides they aren't bothering the Canadian citizens much, they are minding their own business and only killing American Children. Why should Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for hunting them down? But don't you dare send American troops into Canada to hunt them down, we've got our soverighty top protect after all. When situations like that develop, we need to protect our border, and your whipping up anti-US sentiment by saying we're being unfair sure doesn't help. I'm saying that both sides are not perfect and holding a magnifying glass to the imperfections of the opposite side, sure doesn't help things. Canada is not inherently better or morally superior to the United States. Such one-sided views do not help in the fight against terrorism. If we are going to fight them. we've got to work together, and not have such aggreived public finger pointing and accusations. Again. I'm not a Lawyer, and I'm not going to make legal arguments with you ovwer who violated which treaty. what is important is that both sides interests need to be considered and addressed, you only want to consider one side and make legal arguments about who violates the technical letter of a 100-year old treaty. The important thing to me is winning the war on terrorism, it is the general principle of the thing that is important to me. That we don't always operate on the same page must be addressed, but not the way you address them by finger pointing, and trying to worsen relations between the two countries. These disputes must be bridged in a civilized fashion behind closed doors, not by public orators trying to inflame public passions and whipping up anti-US hatred and Us-Them US-bashing, that is excactly what they terrorists want, and you are playing right into their hands with your Canadian chauvanism. I agree with you that there should be freerer trade between the US and Canada, and that their should be an open border, but I don't use the lack of such as an opportunity to point fingers and cast blame on the other side. If you want an open border, then both sides are going to have to work together on this.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-22 11:30:29

What if criminals are better armed than the border patrol? Do you think we're going to adhere to a 100+ year old treaty and allow crime lords to take over the Great Lakes Region? I believe Al Capone once ran smuggling operations across the US/Canada border, and Al Capone had machineguns. Machineguns are clearly a weapon of war, but Al Capone did not sign that treaty.

Al Capone was American. Terrorists don't come from Canada; they come from the United States.

Canada has very strict laws regarding guns; those same liberals you hate so much are so against guns they're almost paranoid. Any American who crosses the border with guns will be prime target, hunted down and arrested.

One other fact you ignore: RCMP cooperates with the FBI to capture American criminals who cross the border into Canada. It isn't a military issue, it's a police issue. Read this article:
U.S. investigations on Canadian soil done within the law: Day
Those liberals are concerned with FBI crossing into Canada without permission. But even when the Liberal party was the government there was frequent authorized activity within Canada. In fact the FBI has field offices in Canada.

A dramatic shoot-out with big guns is part of American culture, but it's very primitive and stupid. Competent police arrest criminals without firing a shot. Even in the United States, most real police go their entire career without ever firing their weapon. Perhaps at a shooting range, but never at a suspect. A single shot from a .38 calibre police revolver can take out a suspect with a .45 calibre Tommy gun. A good police officer can make the arrest without killing anyone. Coast guard vessels have been equipped with side arms for years, and each ship equipped with a single-shot riffle. If you know what you're doing that's all you need, if you don't know what you're doing possession of an automatic weapon is very dangerous.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-22 13:33:45

RobertDyck wrote:

What if criminals are better armed than the border patrol? Do you think we're going to adhere to a 100+ year old treaty and allow crime lords to take over the Great Lakes Region? I believe Al Capone once ran smuggling operations across the US/Canada border, and Al Capone had machineguns. Machineguns are clearly a weapon of war, but Al Capone did not sign that treaty.
Al Capone was American. Terrorists don't come from Canada; they come from the United States.
Al Capone didn't have to be a Canadian citizen, and it wouldn't have mattered if he was or he wasn't. Al Capone could and did sneak into Canada, in Canada there was no Prohibition, he could just order some spirits from a distillery and then ship them across the border into the United States. Whenever the US authorities gave him too much trouble, he could always hide out in Canada.
Canada has very strict laws regarding guns; those same liberals you hate so much are so against guns they're almost paranoid. Any American who crosses the border with guns will be prime target, hunted down and arrested.
Its not the liberal part that I mind so much but the America bashing part that I don't like so much about Canadian Liberals. Because Canada is so similar to the United States, they often treat George Bush as the opposition, that means whenever liberals get into power in the Canadian government, intergovernmental relations gets worse. If they want to raise taxes and increase welfare spending, that is their business, but when you have Canadian fans booing and hissing American teams whenever they play in Canadian cities, that is also part of the liberal platform, it is wedded to this other stuff about social welfare spending and the like.
Do you want to solve the problems of cross border trade and movement, or do you just want to use it as an excuse to say bad things about the United States. Whipping up anti-US feelings in Canada is not going to bring down the trade barrier at the border. Things always change, so the relationship has got to be managed so long as their are two government. Do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution. The solution means coming to terms with why the border is not as free as it could be. Obviously the US Government does not feel so secure that it does not guard the border. Canada has an immigration policy that's seperate from the US, so their is the potential on Canada admitting immigrants that the US would not admit. I'm in favor of a dual key approach to admitting immigrants into our two countries, with something like that, we wouldn't need to guard the US Canada border.
[One other fact you ignore: RCMP cooperates with the FBI to capture American criminals who cross the border into Canada. It isn't a military issue, it's a police issue. Read this article:
U.S. investigations on Canadian soil done within the law: Day
Those liberals are concerned with FBI crossing into Canada without permission. But even when the Liberal party was the government there was frequent authorized activity within Canada. In fact the FBI has field offices in Canada.
A dramatic shoot-out with big guns is part of American culture, but it's very primitive and stupid.
Don't blame us, blame the criminals!
Competent police arrest criminals without firing a shot. Even in the United States, most real police go their entire career without ever firing their weapon. Perhaps at a shooting range, but never at a suspect. A single shot from a .38 calibre police revolver can take out a suspect with a .45 calibre Tommy gun. A good police officer can make the arrest without killing anyone. Coast guard vessels have been equipped with side arms for years, and each ship equipped with a single-shot riffle. If you know what you're doing that's all you need, if you don't know what you're doing possession of an automatic weapon is very dangerous.
Small time petty theives and burgalars aren't what I'm worried about. Police don't fire shots because they want to, but because they have to, it is not a matter of American culture. If a police officer goes unarmed into certain situations, he will be killed, and it doesn't matter how good a police officer he is. Yes, most police situations don't involve shooting, but the trouble is, you translate most into all. Just because a police officer is not likely to need his sidearm any given day of the week, doesn't mean he shouldn't have one. Otherwise when he encounters a terrorist group or something he won't be prepared. Liberals tend to be inflexible when it comes to law enforcement, they insist that police do everything according to the book and they write the book, but what you don't consider is that the book doesn't consider every possible situation that police might face. And have you, by the way, been to the hinterland of your own country?
Police: "Hello, this is the police."
Caller: "Help their is a Grizzly bear chewing on my leg!"
Police: "Just hold on tight, we're sending a patrol car over right away to shoot this bear, he'll be over there in 15 minutes."
Caller: "Well what do you suggest I do with the bear in the meantime?"
Police: "Don't offer him your other leg."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-10-21 14:33:56

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#27 2006-10-21 16:18:27

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#28 2006-10-21 16:53:27

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#29 2006-10-21 17:25:07

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#30 2006-10-21 20:01:39

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#31 2006-10-22 08:50:03

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#32 2006-10-22 09:06:11

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#33 2006-10-22 11:30:29

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#34 2006-10-22 13:33:45

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#35 2006-10-22 15:37:36

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#36 2006-10-22 19:35:01

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#37 2006-10-24 06:40:04

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#38 2006-10-24 07:08:43

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#39 2006-10-24 08:08:28

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#40 2006-10-24 08:36:47

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#41 2006-10-25 06:06:17

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#42 2006-10-25 07:38:18

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#43 2006-10-25 07:47:18

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#44 2006-10-25 07:57:12

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#45 2006-10-25 08:37:11

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#46 2006-10-25 08:51:00

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#47 2006-10-25 12:57:10

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#48 2006-10-25 18:07:28

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#49 2006-10-26 13:51:17

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

#50 2006-10-26 22:59:42

Re: Canada / U.S. relations

Board footer