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.


F-35, Hawks, AWACS, T50, CK1, E3A. Help my poor brain

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:32 PM
The fact that our military is getting bombers is an improvement in relations.

Our military wasn't getting bombers for a LONG time because it made the US nervous that if the did need to come over the border that we'd bomb out the roads and train lines first.

The US isn't all powerful. And I'm sure that Canadians make better partners than enemies. Keeping it that way is a better long term solution.

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Aeons
Reality however is that if we stopped providing key resources to the US in this manner, they'd topple our government with little hesitation. Water, petroleum, cobalt.... So worry on this topic makes no sense.

This option doesn't exist, acting as if it does is a waste of time and money.

Salutations Aeons,

At your leisure please read my previous (unintentionally epic post). There are quite a few comments regarding the relationship between our respective countries, there is a bit of a misunderstanding regarding energy and commodities trading trading between Canada/ U.S.

All facts and statistics are sourced to a mixture of Canadian and American news/gov sources without using blog/opinions.

The facts are, Canada supplies a much smaller percentage of the total U.S. energy requirement than what some are tossing about as fact. I have to admit that I was surprised.

That isn't to say that we aren't talking about huge quantities of money and material. We buy 90+% of total Canadian oil exports but for the U.S. energy requirement it is still a single digit percentile.

The suggestion that by refusing to trade with the U.S., the U.S. will take it by force? Really?

The U.S. and Canada share one of the closest geographical alliance on the face of the planet. If Our cultures were any closer they would be indistinguishable, we share the same history, the same morals and values, the same entertainment etc. etc. etc.

I've seen both you and Dimitri allude to a belief that the Canada lives with the idea that the U.S. would use everything from military force to political subterfuge to have our way in whatever dealing that may be.

Really? that is pushing a new low in unwarranted accusation. As a counterpoint, read the recent history of who is accusing whom of cheating on various treaty issues, playing at predatory business, overharvesting natural resources and so on. Oddly, when you read the case files, it is very clear that not only is the Canadian government, citizens etc. clearly unafraid of the U.S. doing anything worse than threatening a tariff (Canada sued us over and we had to pay back,) it would almost look to the uninitiated that be worth noting if any party could claim to be a "victim" in our relations, its not Canada.

Don't take my word, see for yourself. If you are not already familiar, read the link Posted earlier....

Canada–United States softwood lumber dispute

This has been an ongoing dispute for 30 years, from a U.S. perspective Canada has been rather dishonest regarding certain practices .

Sorry to ruin the fun but you have more to worry about with the Japanese attacking to get payback for Paul Watson and co. or the Dalai Lama claiming British Columbia in the name of Tibet..

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:37 PM
I'm sure that diversification of resources has changed this paradigm over time. However, most politically aware Canadians are well aware of this paradigm. Cobalt was a good example at one point.

Lumber really isn't a good example of this issue. Lumber isn't a key resource.

This isn't a low. DD and I may not be on the same wave length about some political issues, but clearly both of us are politically aware and knowing that this is a parameter of the relationship between the US and Canada is to understand reality.

edit on 2012/2/24 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

new topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in