For the doves
Babble on.
Alan from GenX at 40 is apparently writing under a pseudonym for the Globe and Mail these days:
I guess Professor Griffiths' case has merit if you're of the opinion that Canadian territorial boundaries should be determined by someone other than Canada.
OK, that's not fair. He uses the weasel-word "mainly" to qualify the statement, and I'd agree: relying mainly on military means to win our Arctic sovereignty disputes is poor policy. But relying entirely upon diplomacy with no military presence to speak of is equally foolhardy.
I say if we think it should be ours, we patrol it and control it. Negotiate if you must, but negotiate from a position of strength. It's not like we have nothing to lose.
Babble off.
Cross-posted to Babbling Brooks
Alan from GenX at 40 is apparently writing under a pseudonym for the Globe and Mail these days:
To rely mainly on military means is to court disaster in the defence of sovereignty. We do, however, have a practical and inexpensive way of exercising Canadian jurisdiction in the Arctic waters we call our own. Strangely, it involves talking to Washington about matters of common concern.
I guess Professor Griffiths' case has merit if you're of the opinion that Canadian territorial boundaries should be determined by someone other than Canada.
OK, that's not fair. He uses the weasel-word "mainly" to qualify the statement, and I'd agree: relying mainly on military means to win our Arctic sovereignty disputes is poor policy. But relying entirely upon diplomacy with no military presence to speak of is equally foolhardy.
I say if we think it should be ours, we patrol it and control it. Negotiate if you must, but negotiate from a position of strength. It's not like we have nothing to lose.
Babble off.
Cross-posted to Babbling Brooks
posted by Babbling Brooks at 12:24 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home