SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: axial who wrote (12433)12/2/2001 5:36:16 PM
From: teevee  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Jim,

If NAFTA is abandoned, Canada will be left with a mountain of debt, its energy self-sufficiency in ruins, and the destruction of its future. If you imagine that we will be warmly receptive to that eventuality, imagine again.

The weak under belly of NAFTA is that America has consistently sought to destabilize and weaken politically and/or economically all other nations in the pursuit of its own national security and Canada is no exception.

I have drawn criticism from many Canadian posters for my expectation that the United States will, in the end, recognize that undoing NAFTA and its provisions is counterproductive.

History shows that Americans will never share your perspective.

Many have flamed me for recognizing the historical Triumph of Reason in our relationship. I have refused to take up the cause of anti-Americanism in my posts.

Your reasonableness would only be seen as capitulation to be taken advantage of. If history is our teacher, Chamberlain's reasonableness taught the world what appeasement will buy you.

I hope your post is not representative of the thinking of all Americans; if it is, then there is little hope.

Nafta is used as a tool by the Americans to destabilize the Canadian economy and currency so they can buy up our resources and companies (oil, gas and timber companies etc) for as cheaply as possible. So far they have been very successful. Add up the number of families who have lost their jobs and homes due to American abrogation of Nafta, and the disregard for the rule of law as evidenced by their refusal to abide by World Trade council's past decisions. Ignoring the Nafta dispute mechanism, and no less that three rulings in Canada's on softwood alone, is indication enough of America's intent. As I stated previously, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.

As for the oil highjacking incident, it was Exxon. To this day, Exxon moves oil through its offshore holdings and increases the cost of oil to its Canadian subsidiary (Imperial Oil) in order to reduce Canadian margins and avoid Canadian taxes. Exxon is happy to enjoy the advantages from the "Canadian way" its subsidiary receives from taxes paid by other Canadian corporate citizens.



To: axial who wrote (12433)12/2/2001 6:04:14 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The key event here occurs almost 30 years ago: the "hijacking" of a Canadian oil shipment - bought and paid for in a Canadian contractual arrangement

Y'know.. that's what courts are for. And it would seem to me that had Canadians suffered tremendous damages, they should have sued on the basis of breach of contract and NOT HUSHED IT UP.

I don't know the specifics of the actual incident (but would love it if you can provide either links or more details on the event), but I can't see how the US could "hijack" a foreign flagged ship and force them to offload their cargo in the US. I would agree that would be a case of piracy. However, if the shipper (Esso) entered into an agreement to deliver the oil to the US, breaking its contract with the Canadian purchaser, then there would be no case of piracy, but rather a breach of contract issue here.

The only thing preventing companies from breaking contracts are the legal and financial repercussions of doing so (contracts are broken all the time). So if the damage was severe, they should have sued for compensation.

Hawk