[Stellar]

$1:

Because its territory we claim to be ours? If China wants it, they should expect to pay top dollar or fight for it.

Simply on the bases of "claiming" it? There's as much rational there than that of a school yard bully claiming another's milk money. Top dollar shouldn't determine the division of land - thats how modern industry has influenced you to think, it should be thought out in the light of humanity.

$1:

That's not the world we live in.

I urge you to make the distinction between how man acts, and how man ought to act.

[BartSimpson]

Stellar Stellar:

I urge you to make the distinction between how man acts, and how man ought to act.

So you expect China to act the way you think they 'ought' to? Or do you just expect Canada to act the way you want it to?

[Stellar]

So long as they have the same attitude echoed here in this forum, then unfortunatly no; corporate interests will dictate foreign policy as always. But there's still hope, some Chinese admiral has it right.

[saturn_656]

Stellar Stellar:

Simply on the bases of "claiming" it? There's as much rational there than that of a school yard bully claiming another's milk money. Top dollar shouldn't determine the division of land - thats how modern industry has influenced you to think, it should be thought out in the light of humanity.

Your bully analogy only works if the Canadian arctic claim belonged to another entity.

We claim it on the basis of proximity, for all intents and purposes the area has been ours for the past eighty plus years.

Why should "johnny come lately" China be allowed to steal 1/5th of the resources based solely on their overpopulation?

$1:

I urge you to make the distinction between how man acts, and how man ought to act.

I don't advocate Canada being the first nation-state down "altruistic avenue".

[2Cdo]

Stellar Stellar:

So geography should dictate who has ownership of the arctic? Actualy, I feel it more fair that China does get 1/5 of the arctic because of their size. Stop being territorial and good things will come.

Your first post in this thread and it is quite alarming. Alarming that their are people like you in Canada who would gladly let others take our resources away.

The rest of your posts just get dumber as the thread grows.

[DrCaleb]

Stellar Stellar:

So geography should dictate who has ownership of the arctic? Actualy, I feel it more fair that China does get 1/5 of the arctic because of their size. Stop being territorial and good things will come.

Hey, I've got a large load of used tires and last years pig manure I need to put somewhere. I'm going to put it in your back yard, because the population of my family is larger than yours. You won't mind, because you are not territorial and I deserve the extra room, right?

[Stellar]

$1:

Your bully analogy only works if the Canadian arctic claim belonged to another entity.

We claim it on the basis of proximity, for all intents and purposes the area has been ours for the past eighty plus years.

Why should "johnny come lately" China be allowed to steal 1/5th of the resources based solely on their overpopulation?

You judge fairness in the scope of "proximity" while I, popular-benifit. Let it be, but i'll chose the more ethical option. An "ownership entity" is another brainwashing term to make people think that they need to fight in the name of it.

$1:

I don't advocate Canada being the first nation-state down "altruistic avenue".

So long as I have what I think is entitled to me I won't fight for what I think isn't. I've got my half ounce and a lawnchair, I don't need 30% of the arctic for it either, so let it go to whoever needs it.

$1:

Hey, I've got a large load of used tires and last years pig manure I need to put somewhere. I'm going to put it in your back yard, because the population of my family is larger than yours. You won't mind, because you are not territorial and I deserve the extra room, right?

This is an issue of land division, not a cross-nation waste dispute.

[saturn_656]

Stellar Stellar:

You judge fairness in the scope of "proximity" while I, popular-benifit. Let it be, but i'll chose the more ethical option. An "ownership entity" is another brainwashing term to make people think that they need to fight in the name of it.

What is ethical about giving away Canadian territory and resources to the Chinese dictatorship in Beijing?

$1:

So long as I have what I think is entitled to me I won't fight for what I think isn't. I've got my half ounce and a lawnchair, I don't need 30% of the arctic for it either, so let it go to whoever needs it.

I don't look at it as what is entitled to me personally, but Canadians as a collective and our descendants.

[mentalfloss]

I agree that if one were to try and follow a utilitarian motto here, the right thing to do would be the altruistic thing and we should realize that losing any stake in the Arctic would truly have very little impact on our everyday lives.

That said, it needs to be shown that giving up such land to China would actually be a cause that benefits both their nation and the world as a whole.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

It may come to Peace Through Superior Firepower.

Unfortunately, they have the superior firepower...

Time we got it.

I agree too, but it's pretty damning that the last time we built an icebreaker was under Trudeau! Yes, that's right, we haven't built one in more than 20 fucking years!

First Mulroney promised us the biggest and best icebreaker in the world, backed by 8-12 nuclear subs, then reneged on both because of cost and the rationale that because the Cold War was over, we didn't need to spend time in the Arctic. Then the Liberals spent a decade in office and never looked north except for when Denmark planted a flag on Hans Island in 2005. More than four years ago, Harper's election platform included not one but three heavy armed icebreakers, an arctic port and more priority for Arctic sovereignty. Since then though, dick all has been done. Now he's promising to build one heavy unarmed icebreaker by 2017 and six-eight (more likely six because of cost) Arctic patrol vessels that will really only be capable of summer operations in the Arctic. Yet, four years on, we don't even have plans for those shipseither, nevermind an order for them. The stimulus program was the perfect opportunity to get cracking on all of these projects and Harper didn't do that either.

God, I wish there was an alternative to the Libs and Cons...

[GreenTiger]

Okay China wants 1/5, India should get 1/5, The French want their share, Zimbabwe will want its share before you know it Canada will get screwed.

The argument of give it away good things will come is living in a fantasy world.

Canada owns a large share of the Arctic as that is your country, don't let China or India or Zimbabwe take it away from you.

[DrCaleb]

Stellar Stellar:

$1:

Hey, I've got a large load of used tires and last years pig manure I need to put somewhere. I'm going to put it in your back yard, because the population of my family is larger than yours. You won't mind, because you are not territorial and I deserve the extra room, right?

This is an issue of land division, not a cross-nation waste dispute.

So is this Arctic issue. The only difference seems to be if it's your back yard, not your countries'.

The land China wants is nowhere near their borders. Yet, you are willing to just give it to them with no argument. And if you think Chinese drilling will post no waste problem for Canada's Arctic shores, you've never seen Chinese companies doing business abroad.

[Stellar]

$1:

What is ethical about giving away Canadian territory and resources to the Chinese dictatorship in Beijing?

To put it simply, because Canadian labour has put less man-power in "occupying" it than the fruits that 1/5 of the world's population would have to gain from it.

One Canadian ice-breaker by 2017 speaks for itself.

$1:

I don't look at it as what is entitled to me personally, but Canadians as a collective and our descendants.

Ay, your almost there - just think even further to the collective benifit of the world's people and descendants.

As simple as it is to tie distant resources to your personal entity, its link is cut by the corporate elite which only gain from fighting for it. The trickle down will be felt only on paper, and national self determination will forever be a myth that disillusions people to the point that it becomes paramount to their well-being.

[BartSimpson]

China is not going to get to claim any part of the Arctic for the simple fact that neither the US nor the Russians will tolerate them in the Arctic. And if Canada is stupid enough to give away the Canadian Arctic simply because the Chinese have too many people then you're creating a very dangerous precedent for the argument that China has a rightful claim to 1/5 of Canada itself as additional living space for their people. And anyone who doesn't think that will happen knows sh*t about China.

[Stellar]

$1:

So is this Arctic issue. The only difference seems to be if it's your back yard, not your countries'.

My backyard doesn't consist of the arctic circle. Its too cold there to set up my lawnchair, and too windy to spark a blunt. I got all the backyard that is nescessary to me, as most Canadians should, right out my window.