It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Stop using oil from Venezuela and Arabia.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Frosty
You whine over $5 billion while the US and Canada participate in trade each day which amounts to nearly $1 billion traded? C'mon, give me a break Dulcimer.

Softwood lumber is a 10 billion dollar a year industry for canada. 5 Billion is big dollars for those people.

Yea we have the biggest trade relationship, but it concerns alot of products. Saying 5 billion dollars is nothing is stupid. Think about what you are saying. You are saying that 5 billion dollars is not worth worrying about.

Remember the illegal tariffs with steel? Same issue.

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Dulcimer]

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 01:37 AM
It's not a simple matter of picking and choosing where we buy our oil. Those times are long gone. Now, we have created a sub-economy of petrodollars that is hard to modify. The dollars we spend on oil are held in reserves by foreign banks, keeping the value of the dollar inflated. Whoever we wanted to buy oil from would have to be equally willing to accept dollars as payment, and use them in methods beneficial to the US. This will be harder to do with Canada than it is in the Middle East.

-koji K.

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 02:45 AM
Extracting oil from shales, sands and deep down from the ocean is expensive, it doesn't create a big enough profit. That's why I reckon everyone will be buying the cheap oil first and then once that's gone people will put more $ into extracting oil from the oil sands, shales, deep sea etc. etc.

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:53 PM

Originally posted by Dallas

Canada may consider looking after Canada first and Britain second concerning Canada's oil reserves. After that well there a lot of places oil is needed. Those Countries that promote peace and goodwill being the first on Canada's list I would think.


The Peaceful, Funloving Chinese are busy pushing ahead with a plan to build a $2.5-billion pipeline to transport oil from Alberta to the coast of British Colombia from where it will be shipped across the Pacific to China.

"The possibility of Chinese acquisition of portions of Canada's energy industry - which could lead to a loss of up to a third of Canada's potential exports to the U.S. - should be a source of concern in Washington. "

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 07:57 PM
I think most Canadians would be reluctant to increase our oil shipments to the US for one very good reason: NAFTA.

Under the terms of NAFTA, we are not allowed to reduce shipments of oil to the US without reducing our own use of our oil by an equal amount. In the event of some kind of oil crisis, we would be obligated to continue sending the US oil and meet our own domestic needs through imports.

The Mexicans were smart enough to add a clause that in such an event this section does not apply. The Canadian government wasn't. This right here should be enough to ensure that Canada will never have another Conservative government. Most of us haven't forgotten who signed us up for this horrid deal.

These conditions do not apply if we ship the oil to countries such as China or the UK.

This does tie into the $5 billion because by refusing to pay it back, you have broken the treaty with us and we do take that seriously. It doesn't bode well for our future trade relationship. Canada will do what is in the best interests for the citizens of Canada, just as the US government puts its own interests first.

While the US may not take it's obligations and treaties seriously and breaks them whenever the mood strikes, we take a little more pride in being a country that does what we say we will. We keep our end of the bargain.

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Dulcimer

Canada is self sufficient with its oil supply.

Why should we help the United States except for money. Its up to our country to make those decisions.

How do you know we dont have the resources to develop oil on a larger scale...

Well I would think it would be in your interests, but since you are so anti-US anyway, I have changed my mind.

Steps the US should take if the Canadians keep acting like a spoiled child.

To hell with Norad - Defend yourselves, you can no longer count on the US taxpayer to defend your nation. Now its true you have a fine military indeed but it is WAY to small to cover the size of your nation. Realistically, you can not deny that your government has known the the US would defend Canada so the need for large defense forces was not needed. Guess what, time for a big increase, it will take more than 23 anti-submarine planes to patrol your coastline will need many more Aurora's so but some French Atlantiques.

Forget the oil sands in Alberta, Federally fund the exploration and development of the Oil Shales in the 4 corners area of the US. Natural Gas? We have plenty of it, what most people don't know is just how many wells were CAPPED after drilling. I mean gas wells with pressure heads of 15,000 psi, and I mean a bunch in Wyoming alone.

One the shale is developed we can continue to look for alternatives and develop those so when the shale runs out in 50 years, we will have a replacement on hand.

With this, the pain on paying high prices to the US consumer which this last 6 months has shown the economy can absorb them, will be bearable.

What happens in 5 years? The Price of oil will drop as the biggest user will no longer need the imports. At this point we must be disciplined in that we don't try to buy the cheap oil and get 'hooked' again. It will have to be a federal program that will dictate this. With the price so low we can then stockpile the SPR if needed.

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 11:03 AM

Great idea, and while we are at you can take your pesky dogs too!! LOL!!

Man it is like watching a kid have a temper tantrum. The US broke a trade agreement, and now you are shocked that we would be reluctent to enter into another one?

How about you live up to the arrangements already made before you start asking more more huh?

"We will stop protecting you" - Man, it is like a skit from second city.

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Passer By

Man it is like watching a kid have a temper tantrum. The US broke a trade agreement, and now you are shocked that we would be reluctent to enter into another one?

How about you live up to the arrangements already made before you start asking more more huh?

Well think what you wish, but Canada has not been exactly helpful in the last few years. As for the trade agreement, I do not know much about it. Send me a link of what you speak.

Temper Tantrum? Thats funny. I at least hold Canada higher than France but that is waining. The denial to help the US with the ballistic missile defense program says a lot. Oh when its done you will want to have its protection but when the help is needed Canada doesn't want the political risk.

Just join the EU...its what most of you want anyway...

[edit on 27-8-2005 by edsinger]

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:41 PM

Over the past few years, you mean while the US has been off causing unprovoked wars? I'd say by not being envolved we did help - we helped world peace, which is the call for all nations.

Not helping someone committ a crime is not "not helping", even trying to bring that up only underlines your initiation into the darkness of war.

As for the ballistic missle thing, well, when the technology is there that has a targeting system better than a one eye'd drunkard with A.D.D, then maybe there is something for it, but until then it is a pie eye'd wish dream that the US can continue acting anyway they wish while being completely safe.

BS. However, because you are my American friend, I will tell you the best security system this contenent could have is the same system that works best for people - Stop acting like jerks and people may stop trying to hurt you.

Treat people with kindness and respect and they will generall treat you with kindness or respect. That seems to work for everyone on this planet, except for one.

Man, this is stuff most people I know learend by middle school. Why is it taking the US so long?

Seriously Ed, I don't know if you make money on the arms trade or something, but when you look at a little kid, don't you wish that maybe they could live without the fear you apparently have in your heart?

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Passer ByEDSLINGER:

Over the past few years, you mean while the US has been off causing unprovoked wars?

Well, therein lies the problem, you think the war was unnecessary. I do not.

I would request you read this mans posts...maybe you will then understand that this war was needed and why I feel our Canadian 'allies' failed to heed the need.


posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:18 PM

I have read his posts and to be poilte I find him as confused as most neo cons that are merely walking mantra's.

The war was not needed, the recent justifications from WMD's, to getting Saddam, to spreading democracy, to fighting terror - each one came about has the previous idea was shown to be a lie, and like a new born reaching for whatever bottle is close at hand the neocon's, and those that were snowed by them, latched on to each new idea in order to justify their decisions, and or hide their shame from being tricked so easily by them.

Saddam was not a threat, and hasn't been since the US stopped arming him. If he ever was a threat it was because of the US, at the time of the invasion he couldn't wipe his arse without someone knowing about it. No, I am afraid there is not one legitimate reason to go to war with Iraq other than oil and a strategic centre, but both are for political purposes and not the official ones, and this too underlines the house of cards the neocons have built.

You were lied to to beleive in a war, and then you were lied to to cover the lies of the starting of the war, then you were lied to about the reasons for starting the war, and then you were given 5 or six different "possible" reasons(Because really, it was obvious that there was no real reason capable of withstanding all the evidense) for use depending on which topic is being debated.

The war was wrong, Saddam was not a threat, he had no WMD's and he was obeying the UN directives to the standards that the UN requested(Which is more than I can say for other countries including the US and Israel, as well as many other countries).

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:18 PM
I'll throw my 2 cents in for some of the things edsinger has brought up. Different perspectives are always nice.

First, BMD.

The Canadian refusal for missile defence was nothing more than bad timing on the part of the US government. We have a minority government at the moment and this was one of the few issues that would have toppled the government. When George came up here to chat and make nice, this was explained to him. Our government was assured that he would not mention the topic, because it was fully understood that, at this point in time, our government could not push it through because of it's precarious position.

So what happens? George comes up and makes a speech, televised across Canada, and mentions the dirty words, thus making headline news. Now all of a sudden, BMD is first and foremost in the minds of Canadians and front page news across the country.

Now Paul Martin is in a tough position; sign on and lose the post he's schemed for so long to acheive or say no, and keep it. He went for self-preservation, as most politicians do.

If the US had just been patient and waited for a liberal majority government, I have no doubt we would have signed on. Our government would have counted on the fact that they had 4 years to distract us with something else before election time.

The Iraq war

When we were approached about joining the coalition, Chretien asked if he could see this 'proof' that the US and the UK were talking about. Does that not seem reasonable and responsible to you? After all, joining a war because someone 'says' there is WMD is slightly irresponsible.

The US refused to show us the proof, so we passed on the opportunity.

To quote Chretien at the time: A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.

What it comes down to is that the US government was unwilling to show us the intelligence that led to this.

[edit on 27-8-2005 by Duzey]

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Duzey
The Canadian refusal for missile defence was nothing more than bad timing on the part of the US government. We have a minority government at the moment and this was one of the few issues that would have toppled the government. When George came up here to chat and make nice, this was explained to him. Our government was assured that he would not mention the topic, because it was fully understood that, at this point in time, our government could not push it through because of it's precarious position.

[edit on 27-8-2005 by Duzey]

And here we see what our system is truly like. Because they "could not push it through"?? Whatever happened with voting with respect to the constituents wishes? What happened to voting with what Canadian's want?

Alas, it is just a political game to them and they are no different than any other roach and leach on society, selfserving and prying on those unable to distingwish that they work for us, not the other way around.

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:40 PM
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." – Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan never met George Bush.

WE all know how well documented the lies of the Bush Administration are along with the illegal invasion of a sovereign country. If George Bush had really wanted to pursue those that make and train the terrorist he would have followed the advise of the intelligence community - go after Saudi Arabia amd eliminate the Wahabiists.

Now lets get back to the topic at hand shall we?

How on earth are you going to enforce the exclusion of Venezuelan and Arabian oil in a free market economy? You can rest assured that people willing to 'move' the oil will bring it into the United States at a substantial profit and the Border Patrol will be as effective in stopping that as they are at stopping illegal immigration. Oil, like religion is a drug for the masses.

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:54 PM
Yeah, it is pretty pathetic. I would love to be able to say that we refused on BMD because we didn't think it was best for our country. When it comes right down to it, I have to be honest and say that we refused because it wasn't in the best interests of Martin and the Liberals. That doesn't mean I disagree with their decision though.

And now I will get back on topic

To exclude oil from these two sources would cause more pain for the American economy and average citizen than I think they are willing to bear. Many large corporations would scream, and they are the ones who make the big donations to the parties.

For a country that makes such a big deal out of capitalism, I find it odd how often the US puts restrictions on imports. Well not odd, just contradictory.

I know that the US has plenty of oil within their borders, but I thought your plan was to use everyone else's up first?

posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 02:19 PM
I can say, pretty much without a doubt that even though its against my interest, the United will most likely be seeing alot more oil from Canada in the near future.

I would say that after Dick Cheney comes here, and if they can convince other officials to make the trip, that some big agreements could be in order.

posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 03:13 AM
Those US people live on some other planet

posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:06 AM

Originally posted by DigitalSpyThose US people live on some other planet

Take me to your leader.....

We are all nuts arent we? Look at teh past 50 years and we are the most evil vile nation on earth.....

You remember the movie Wargames?

[edit on 28-8-2005 by edsinger]


posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 04:04 PM
You know.. this subject is something I actually like to talk about.. Seeing as we're all being screwed at the gas pump.. Hurrican Katrina hits and gas prices per barrel SOAR!.. So gas at the pump soars to over $3 a gallon.. Gas today according to the Wall Street Journal is sitting at just over $63 a barrel.. yet gas is still at $2.70 a gallon and Bushling has "tapped" the reserves.. *cough* yeah ok.. This is something that isnt going to go away.. They are tempering us.. they raise the price and lower it just a little.. then raise it up to that high price.. and again.. raise it and lower it alittle... and so on.. And before someone replies saying "But Ox.. The refineries in the gulf are still shut down" yes.. I know.. but. . of the 7 refineries that shut down due to the hurricane.. They only produce 10% of the Nation's gas supply.. so what gives?

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 01:17 AM
Let me sum up Canadian feelings on this matter:

You want us to provide you with more oil?

When the US proves itself to be a responcible trade partner, I would support this... otherwise, enjoy the bed you *lie* in.
It's NOT our fault that you're over reliant on Middle Eastern oil. We have no great urge to destroy out enviroment to placate a thankless nation who doesn't even pay it's bills!

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in