Should Canada Cede the island?
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11 Next
Ruxpercnd @ Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:55 pm
Here is a nice pic of Hans Island. I thought it would be covered in ice, but it looks like a nice proud Canadian rock.
Here is the Danish answer to Canada's claims... nice boat.
-MC- @ Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:07 pm
It is a boat. Now Halifax class, that's a frigate to be proud of. 4,770 tonnes
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_fleet ... _tac_e.asp
Tman1 @ Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:17 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Tman1 Tman1:
IceOwl IceOwl:
Do you have the complete inability to follow a conversation? In my second reply in this thread, I asked if you knew if gas or oil had anything to do with Hans Island, and you said you didn't know. Then you continued to ask me about gas and oil in an emotional context while still not answering the question of whether or not there even was any. That's why I asked how you could ask that question.
Then you have a problem with that as well.
Nope, it's just you. Read on and you'll see.
$1:
I suggested the potential for oil and other resources to be in the North while you came back and asked if there was any under Hans Island.
Yes, the topic of the thread is Hans Island. As far as I know, Denmark is not asking for all northern lands, only Hans Island. How that could possibly have escaped you, I don't know. Either you're playing stupid, because you're too intellectually lazy to back yourself up, or you actually are this stupid, because you are intellectually lazy and don't know it. I suspect the former.
$1:
I responded that there could be. You came out of nowhere and asked about Hans Island,
It wasn't so much out of nowhere, as it is the topic of this thread.
$1:
I merely suggested the general area of the North.
Which has what do to with this discussion?
$1:
I then asked you a fun question (you know what a fun question is right?) I can ask that question on the hopes that some intelligent fellow would follow up on it. Sorry, I chose the wrong person.
Well, you know what they say about asking stupid questions.
$1:
$1:
Ah, so you have read something. So now you can answer my question: what does gas and oil have to do with Hans Island?
Again, I mentioned the whole Arctic region where you come in specifically with Hans Island.
Who is dodging what now? I thought the topic of this thread was Hans Island? And you accuse me of not knowing what's going on...
$1:
Hans Island has the potential for oil and natural gas because it's in the arctic, am I positive there is gas there? I couldn't say, news articles have suggested that.
Ah, so we're basing our conquest of a barren rock on speculation. I was hoping for something more concrete, like actually knowing if there was any good reason to argue over a chunk of rock that nobody seems to live on.
$1:
It is a reletivly unknown land wouldn't you say?Hans Island is also important for shipping rights around the region and protecting our sovereignty. Seems you tried to spit at me but looks like you missed.
I'm sure some deal can be worked out that allows us to ship things through each others' waters. There's no really good reason we can't, you know.
$1:
$1:
A hypothetical question about what? If there was only hypothetically gas and oil, I still wouldn't care. The island is in a part of the world where I would rather not see more gas and oil discovery. There could be gas and oil under my house, or in the Sahara desert too. Maybe we should lay claim to the Sahara desert before someone gets the oil under it.
I asked if having oil and gas around the Hans Island region would benefit Canada, not exactly a mind numbing question is it?
I wouldn't be in favour of it. There's already enough pollution making its way to the Arctic, why do we need pollution from gas and oil drilling?
$1:
You call me obtuse but looks more like you fit the bill.
It would, if I weren't waffling over answering a couple of questions and then getting defensive over the waffling. But, that wasn't me.
$1:
The island is in a part of the world where you would rather not see more gas and oil discovered? Tough nuts, it will be discovered and what do you think is going to happen?
If oil were going to be discovered, don't you think Denmark would have already done that?
$1:
What will oil hungry U.S do? Sad to say, your dream world is just that.
I'm sorry. I'll stop thinking that we can pull ourselves out of willful collective stupidity and do something better. We're fucked.
"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." -Albert Einstein
$1:
$1:
There could be gas and oil under my house, or in the Sahara desert too. Maybe we should lay claim to the Sahara desert before someone gets the oil under it.
Whose the one saying stupid things?
The difference is, I knew that idea was stupid when I wrote it. I was using it to make fun of you, and you didn't get it. I win!
$1:
$1:
I read through the entire thread before I posted anything, and saw no such thing about gas or oil.
As you say, no shit sherlock, I reiterate thrice now, your the one who came at me with the notion of Hans Island having oil and gas. Seems you didn't read at all and now posing. Hypocrite.
I never said anything about oil or gas before you mentioned it.
Tman1 Tman1:
What to fight for? Hmm lets see. How about the oil and natural gas that has BIG potential in the North. Wait, if not that, how about asserting our rights as a sovereign nation without letting other countries step over us..right?
All I did was put things into context for you, since you were having trouble.
$1:
$1:
Yet you refuse to post any of this information, while demanding that I know it. It doesn't work that way. You make claims, you back them up. Let's see the proof.
Yes it does work that way. Im not going to waste my time doing something that perfectly capable (I hope) fellows such as you who can do it yourself.
Nope, you make claims, you back them up.
$1:
I never made concrete claims, I suggested potential, your the one spewing out this garbage of me making claims.
Potential based on what?
$1:
Oil in the North or just Hans Island that you asked out of nowhere?
Oops, looks like I have to frame the issue for you again. We're talking about Hans Island, not the entire north. If Hans Island is not ours, it won't affect the rest of the north, as far as oil goes.
$1:
$1:
I'm not answering "for the fun of it" because I don't see the "fun" in it. From what I can tell, it's a chunk of barren rock two countries are fighting over for reasons I can't really fathom, and you refuse to inject any further knowledge into the discussion after I've asked several times about things you've asserted. I'm not dodging so much as you're projecting.
Then I don't see the fun in debating with you. Im projecting? Nope, your the one whose projecting and posing.
I think what you really mean is you're not having fun because I'm not letting you win. If you want to have a discussion about Hans Island, please do so, that's what this thread was about before you started talking about gas and oil.
$1:
$1:
and you refuse to inject any further knowledge into the discussion
What have you provided with this discussion other than taking apart each and every sentence in an attempt to pass yourself off as being smart.
Dissecting your each and every sentence has been a necessary part of making sure that you weren't saying something that was total bullshit, but it turns out I was right, and it is total bullshit. I asked why this island was so important, and you tossed out two issues that barely have anything to do with it.
$1:
$1:
Then maybe you should answer my questions.
Maybe you should post more intelligent questions that have to do with said thread.
I did. I'm still waiting for answers, but unfortunately, instead, I have to deal with an obstinate waffler who doesn't seem to know what the thread is about.
$1:
First you need to get your foot out of your mouth like you always have in. I might also add you have never answered any of MY questions.
Your questions were loaded and you refused to connect them to why Hans Island is important, and are therefore not worthy of an answer.
$1:
$1:
Well, it seems I have to be condescending when I talk to people who insist on acting stupid and saying stupid things without backing them up. Quit your waffling and then maybe I can be a bit more civil with you.
Acting stupid?
Yes, you are.
$1:
saying stupid things?
Yes, you are.
$1:
People like that need professional help.
Perhaps you should find some, then.
Good god you are one sad pathetic individual. Another bullshit post by you
Read back 4 pages, this was my original viewpoints until some dumbass came floundering onto the thread but I will repeat my original assertians for the lazy
$1:
1. It's our Island and always have and always will be.
2. If we cede it to denmark, our international prestige(what little there is) will worsen and our ability to defend our national territory will ultimatly go down the drain.
3. The U.S claims it as "International" waters...why? Because the U.S doesn't give a crap what anybody else thinks.....solution? Put military outposts everywhere in the arctic(particularly the passages) and claim it.
4. Giving in to a lowly country like Denmark will disgrace us more unless we assert ourselves on the Island. Like it or leave it, it will be of benefit in the long run with the oil and other natural resources later.
2. If we cede it to denmark, our international prestige(what little there is) will worsen and our ability to defend our national territory will ultimatly go down the drain.
3. The U.S claims it as "International" waters...why? Because the U.S doesn't give a crap what anybody else thinks.....solution? Put military outposts everywhere in the arctic(particularly the passages) and claim it.
4. Giving in to a lowly country like Denmark will disgrace us more unless we assert ourselves on the Island. Like it or leave it, it will be of benefit in the long run with the oil and other natural resources later.
Looks like someone didn't read when he said he did.
Why the hell should I keep repeating whats already been posted? But no, I was waffling, as you so put it. Oil and Natural gas may become part of the problem in this dispute (and I reiterate there may be Oil and Gas in the Arctic) as well as claim to the passage in the arctic. The Arctic which by definition is in the North, where Hans Island resides, is part of the topic whether you like it or not. I already have scores of people here who seem to know what I am talking about and agree with me but not some stupid individuals like yourself..odd. But of course you know the topic and I don't. And if your still to stupid to understand and pick apart this post which I know you will, read this TWICE posted News article (still didn't read anything in this thread did you?) http://www.naval.ca/article/Heubert/The ... kings.html Now begone you piece of trash.
Canadian_Mind @ Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:13 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Tman1 Tman1:
$1:
I asked you, and you said you didn't know. Personally, I don't care if there's gas or oil in the vicinity of Hans Island. You're the one who brought it up, maybe you should be the one doing the reading.
Your the one who asked why I would ask a question like that and I responded.
Do you have the complete inability to follow a conversation? In my second reply in this thread, I asked if you knew if gas or oil had anything to do with Hans Island, and you said you didn't know. Then you continued to ask me about gas and oil in an emotional context while still not answering the question of whether or not there even was any. That's why I asked how you could ask that question.
$1:
I got my information from news articles and journals, its up to YOU to read, so don't turn it around on me.
Ah, so you have read something. So now you can answer my question: what does gas and oil have to do with Hans Island?
$1:
I also mentioned if you can't take it at face value, treat it as a hypothetical question....hmm I see you failed to answer..thought so.
A hypothetical question about what? If there was only hypothetically gas and oil, I still wouldn't care. The island is in a part of the world where I would rather not see more gas and oil discovery. There could be gas and oil under my house, or in the Sahara desert too. Maybe we should lay claim to the Sahara desert before someone gets the oil under it.
$1:
$1:
Take whose word for what? You don't even know if gas or oil are in any way related to this subject, so how can I take anyone's word? As for hypothetical questions, that's bullshit. We're talking about things that either exist in the real world or don't, and you still haven't been able to produce a single grain of evidence pointing to one or the other, yet you continue to argue the position.
I was on this thread way before you, look at the previous posts,
I read through the entire thread before I posted anything, and saw no such thing about gas or oil.
$1:
I already posted my position. Hey, you flounderd onto this thread, seems you can't seem to discuss the actual topic. Take whose word for what? Do you read newspapers? Online journals? The journalists who write this stuff? My single grain of evidence is in the articles who relate to this particular topic. Nice dodge dum dum.
Yet you refuse to post any of this information, while demanding that I know it. It doesn't work that way. You make claims, you back them up. Let's see the proof.
$1:
If you can't at least answer for the fun of it, don't bother responding with this dodge material. At least I have a position to argue, I have yet to see anything substantial from your end bucko.
I'm not answering "for the fun of it" because I don't see the "fun" in it. From what I can tell, it's a chunk of barren rock two countries are fighting over for reasons I can't really fathom, and you refuse to inject any further knowledge into the discussion after I've asked several times about things you've asserted. I'm not dodging so much as you're projecting.
$1:
$1:
What implications?
The implications that Canada cannot defend itself or letting other countires take over bits and pieces of Canada. You playing dumb or you actually need to question this?
What are we using Hans Island for again?
$1:
$1:
Yes it is. Why is this issue important? You keep asking me to "consider the implications", but you don't even know what they are.
I know what the implications are.
Then maybe you should answer my questions.
$1:
Educate yourself, particularily within this thread instead of floundering and posting at the last page.
I've asked about various things, and you refuse to answer any questions. It's not my fault if you're going to be obtuse.
$1:
Why don't you separate yourself from your taking apart each and every sentence and responding with condescending bullshit and actually question the thread. Should Canada cede the Island....simple.
Well, it seems I have to be condescending when I talk to people who insist on acting stupid and saying stupid things without backing them up. Quit your waffling and then maybe I can be a bit more civil with you.
here is a question: why are you such a dumbass? hes backed up everything. even when he posts proff, you respond to that bit of info asking for the proof which is the info! wake up and read buddy!
Tman1 @ Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:24 pm
IceChicken has no argument so he picks apart peoples posts and turns them around. He said he read the posts but then asks for proof thats already been posted by others and myself.Then he goes around using the word waffling like a dork. Don't worry, I think the idiot is finished here since he came on not knowing dick all like he always does.
Canadian_Mind @ Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:39 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
IceChicken has no argument so he picks apart peoples posts and turns them around. He said he read the posts but then asks for proof thats already been posted by others and myself. He then proceeds in a cowardly fashion to accuse me that I don't know what the topic is while he does.. Then he goes around using the word waffling like a dork. Don't worry, I think the idiot is finished here since he came on not knowing dick all like he always does.
cool. how do the canadian frigates compare size for size to danish frigates? are we bigger/ more powerfull?
Tman1 @ Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:58 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
Tman1 Tman1:
IceChicken has no argument so he picks apart peoples posts and turns them around. He said he read the posts but then asks for proof thats already been posted by others and myself. He then proceeds in a cowardly fashion to accuse me that I don't know what the topic is while he does.. Then he goes around using the word waffling like a dork. Don't worry, I think the idiot is finished here since he came on not knowing dick all like he always does.
cool. how do the canadian frigates compare size for size to danish frigates? are we bigger/ more powerfull?
Hmm in my opinion, they are both more or less equal in size and power, I think we have a few more then them though. However, their ships have the ability to break the ice and head into Arctic waters while ours cannot. That is the biggest advantage so far. Heres a site for our navy. http://www.navy.dnd.ca/mspa_fleet/fleet_home_e.asp
We also have air defense destroyers which I don't think they have. Not sure where to get the info for the Danish fleet but if you go on Wikipedia and type in danish fleet, they have a rough outline for them. Basically, both fleets are small and equal in size but we have the potential to build our navy up quicker than them.
Canadian_Mind @ Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:46 am
IceOwl IceOwl:
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
here is a question: why are you such a dumbass? hes backed up everything. even when he posts proff, you respond to that bit of info asking for the proof which is the info! wake up and read buddy!
I didn't see any proof. I saw a lot of baseless assertions, which do not make proof.
when has a news article been a baseless assertion?
themasta @ Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:02 am
If Canada cannot asert its sovereignty against DENMARK over an insignificant island than how can we be expected to asert sovereignty over other more important parts of the north against far more powerful (economically and militarily) belligerents?
bootlegga @ Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:03 am
I offer two possible solutions to this problem and the politicians who say that no one lives up there.
Option 1. Next summer we should go up into the Arctic and build a prison, ala Pelican Bay. Build a small maximum security prison and fill it with Paul Bernardo and all the other high risk criminals we have. This accomplishes two things, establishes a permanent presence for us and isolates Canada's worst offenders. If someone tries to escape, where is he/she going to go in the middle of an Arctic winter (or a summer for that matter)? No trees to hide in, cut down for heat or a boat, and the oceans are frigid even in the summer, so they can't even swim away.
Option 2. Build a house for me and I'll go live there. Provide me with a satellite dish and telephone and a way to hook up to the Internet, as well as pay off my student loans, and I'll go live there to establish a 'presence'. Give me a big rifle to fight off polar bears,a huge supply of army rations, and a Playstation 3 and you got a deal. Hell, if you want to make it pay for itself, turn it into Survivor: Hans Island and put 20 people up there and eliminate them one by one. You won't get beautiful people in thongs and swimsuits, but an attack by a polar bear would bring in some ratings! The advertising revenue alone should pay for construction costs...LOL
CaptainDodd @ Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:05 pm
Tman1 Tman1:
CaptainDodd CaptainDodd:
Look.. the boarders don't even include Nunavut and its capital..that is undisputedly canadian, especially considering we have a form of government in place there...
I would only further ignore that map, and assume it to be another example of the incorrect trash that appears on the net...
As for those who say, who cares about the island, and than the long dispute over the possibility of there being fossil fuels under or near it.. You guys are being a little narrow minded.. Oil.. maybe, Sovereignty.. FOR SURE..
IT is more an issue of Canadians being able to hold their claims to the north, and visa versa for denmark.. The possibility of a tremendous trade route if the artic opens as a sea route, than Canada and Denmark are interested in the profits that follow..
I would only further ignore that map, and assume it to be another example of the incorrect trash that appears on the net...
As for those who say, who cares about the island, and than the long dispute over the possibility of there being fossil fuels under or near it.. You guys are being a little narrow minded.. Oil.. maybe, Sovereignty.. FOR SURE..
IT is more an issue of Canadians being able to hold their claims to the north, and visa versa for denmark.. The possibility of a tremendous trade route if the artic opens as a sea route, than Canada and Denmark are interested in the profits that follow..
Hmm for once we agree completely CaptainDodd. Yes, Canada does need to assert its claims to its territory unless others claim it. Canada does indeed benefit from claiming the passage and the arctic when global warming reveals oil and other resources there. Can we honestly let a tiny lame country like Denmark take a little island over? Think on how it would look on the world stage.
Come on, is the water under the bridge? We only argued on that one post, and i was having trouble keeping track of your posts and mustangs posts, all over the place
... We haven't argued anywhere else have we?
you aren't holding a grudge are you? ..lol
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 11 Next