US to Invade Halifax.

[rubberdinghy]

Seriously...they have a plan...

Let's try that again...

Click here, then click on • Watch: Anti-U.S. election jibes

Edited January 24, 2006 by Guest

[Im going home Donny]

and we have water...think about them beans for a moment.

[The Chameleon]

Fresh water is the "oil" of the new millenium, and we got almost all of it.

Be afraid those yanks are comin for it...sooner or later.

[ge-off]

Fresh water is the "oil" of the new millenium, and we got almost all of it.

Be afraid those yanks are comin for it...sooner or later.

thats the only thing about stephen harper, and the conservatives platform i like/support.

he if all for putting money into our pathetic military for purposes like that..

it may sound like paranoia..

anybody *cough usa* could march across our border and take our water. like people *cough americans* have done to iraq..

[StoneMtn]

Do you actually think Harper is gearing up to defend us from an American attack?

I was always under the impression that he was very interested in working with the U.S., and I've always thought of that as pretty close to (if not double-talk for) being annexed.

Have you heard Harper say that we need to strengthen our military for the reasons you suggest?

[ge-off]

Do you actually think Harper is gearing up to defend us from an American attack?

I was always under the impression that he was very interested in working with the U.S., and I've always thought of that as pretty close to (if not double-talk for) being annexed.

Have you heard Harper say that we need to strengthen our military for the reasons you suggest?

no i didnt say that harper was to defend us from the USA..

im saying that WATER like OIL will be what the next FIGHT will be over like the OIL in IRAQ and the mid-east..

i agree.. i get the impression that he is pumped up to work with the USA.. agree completely..

consider the oil aggrements that the USA had with the mid-east, places like saudi-arabia, iraq. did the USA NOT invade to "PROTECT" their claims to the oil..

would you feel its too far fetched that the USA one day just decides "SHIT were running out of water to sustain our crops, and livestock, and march across the border with military force to "PROTECT" its intrests..

military funding is part of the conservative platform. as war is big business..

USA IS A PRIME EXAMPLE..

missle defense system...

hello big military contracts..

[d_rawk]

While I agree that water is likely to be the new oil, I think that our love affair with neo-liberalism may have already effectively handed it over in the form of ill-conceived binding agreements.

I doubt the military would play a factor, or that the US would need troops to lay claim to our fresh water.

One of these days I'll get around to reading Maude Barlow's book on the subject. Probably only once it is too late, anyways.

[Birdy]

considering that water is absolutely necessary in order to sustain life in it's simplest form, i would think that if we didn't hand it over to them if they were in dire need, we should seriously sit down and re-evaluate who we are as a nation or as human beings in general. water can't be the next oil.. i mean, without it, we die.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Now just who is going to say which countries deserve to live and which ones don't?

No, don't answer that.

Anyway, whenever I think water-where-it-shouldn't-go and people-being-brutal-to-one-another-over-it, you know I always think of Chinatown, and look where that got poor Jack.

[Birdy]

lol. back to chinatown. i saw jack in person this past weekend! he looks sooo old i had to sit there and stare thinking, 'that's him, not it's not, yes it is, no it's not, yes it IS!'.. the reactions of everyone else surrounding me confirmed it all.

i soooooooooooo hope that this world never comes down to warring over water. when that day comes, i can truly say that i will be ready to cash in. you definately will not hear me complaining if harper wants to share some of it. how could we be so selfish?

[guigsy]

i would think that if we didn't hand it over to them if they were in dire need, we should seriously sit down and re-evaluate who we are as a nation or as human beings in general.

agreed. but im not so sure its a question of hording all the water and keeping it all to ourselves, rather a question of keeping control of it, ourselves. of course we're a reasonable nation, and reasonable people, but i think we should also be allowed to control our own resources, and dole 'em out as we see fit. a lot of people need a lot of things, but our neighbours to the south seem to want everything for themselves. thats the issue, as i see it.

(but truthfully, at the moment, i dont even want to think about a water war...)

[StoneMtn]

Now just who is going to say which countries deserve to live and which ones don't?

I vote for Lazlo to fill that position.

[Birdy]

i see what you're sayin' guigsy. it's odd though. it's kinda like luck of the draw i suppose, when way back when before countries, or nations or the modern world as we know it were formed, noone had "control" over nature's resources.. now comes the day when an imaginary boundary line enables us to talk about the possibilties of water wars and being responsible for doling out that which was so generously offered to us in the first place. our major concern isn't that this resource isn't "ours" to dole out, but rather which government would do a better job at it. scary that is, and for me, can only serve to reconfirm the downward spiral that we as the human race seem to be plunging ourselves headfirst into.

[guigsy]

hah. interesting.

i was thinking about that on the way home from work, the point of the resources really belonging to EVERYONE... im with you. unfortunately, as we both know, its just not the world we live in anymore.

[c-towns]

stay off my lawn hippies!

[d_rawk]

"It seemed to sneak up on us, or at least those of us living in the North. Until the past decade, the study of fresh water was left to highly specialized groups of experts--hydrologists, engineers, scientists, city planners, weather forecasters and others with a niche interest in what so many of us took for granted. Many knew about the condition of water in the Third World, including the millions who die of waterborne diseases every year. But this was seen as an issue of poverty, poor sanitation and injustice--all areas that could be addressed in the just world for which we were fighting.

Now, however, an increasing number of voices--including human rights and environmental groups, think tanks and research organizations, official international agencies and thousands of community groups around the world--are sounding the alarm. The earth's fresh water is finite and small, representing less than one half of 1 percent of the world's total water stock. Not only are we adding 85 million new people to the planet every year, but our per capita use of water is doubling every twenty years, at more than twice the rate of human population growth. A legacy of factory farming, flood irrigation, the construction of massive dams, toxic dumping, wetlands and forest destruction, and urban and industrial pollution has damaged the Earth's surface water so badly that we are now mining the underground water reserves far faster than nature can replenish them.

The earth's "hot stains"--areas where water reserves are disappearing--include the Middle East, Northern China, Mexico, California and almost two dozen countries in Africa. Today thirty-one countries and over 1 billion people completely lack access to clean water. Every eight seconds a child dies from drinking contaminated water. The global freshwater crisis looms as one of the greatest threats ever to the survival of our planet."

No doubt that it would be inhumane to hoard a resource necessary for the sustainability of life. My concern is what the discrepency of influence between the amount of say that the GATT and WTO will have to say about such matters as opposed to you know ... sane and reasonable voices. It isn't sharing when someone has their boot on your face.

Global trade agreements have become perhaps the most important tool for corporations trading in water and their allies. All of the multinational governing bodies, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), and the World Trade Organization (WTO), define water as a commodity. As a result, water is now subject to the same rules and regulations governing other commodities like oil and natural gas. Under these combined international rules, a country cannot prohibit or limit the export of water without risking censure by the WTO. Nations are also restricted from denying the import of water from any country. NAFTA’s “proportionality clause†means that if a country turns on the tap to export its natural resources, it cannot turn off the tap until it runs out of that resource.

In addition, the push to privatize water services will be greatly enhanced by new rules governing cross-border trade in services at the WTO, known as the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services). Under the proposed GATS rules, not only will governments face added pressures to deregulate and privatize their water systems, but once a city’s water services have been taken over by a foreign-based corporation, efforts to take these services back into public hands will invite severe economic penalties under the WTO.

Anyone who has followed the legacy of water privatization should know just how horrendously, disturbingly, horrifically (feel free to add your own superlative adjectives) ugly that situation gets.

Water conservation, reclaiming water supplies from private interests in favour of public good, and vigilant disdain of perverse notions that water is anything but a fundamental right (and certainly a disdain for ideas that it should be left in the hands of private markets) are key steps that can be taken right now.

This is much bigger than Canada vs. US. Thirst doesn't give a damn about borders, as has been pointed out above.

[timouse]

Global trade agreements have become perhaps the most important tool for corporations trading in water and their allies. All of the multinational governing bodies, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), and the World Trade Organization (WTO), define water as a commodity. As a result, water is now subject to the same rules and regulations governing other commodities like oil and natural gas. Under these combined international rules, a country cannot prohibit or limit the export of water without risking censure by the WTO.

this is the single scariest thing that's happenned in terms of the future of water on the planet.

d rawk, and everyone else interested, pick up "Blue Gold" by Maude Barlow. It will scare and depress you but may also galvanize you ion to action.

because water is now a "commodity," rather than a basic human need, copmpanies like Vivendi, Bechtel and others are running around the world putting in pay as you go water taps in poor communities, and turning a handsome profit for their efforts.

The US has unilaterally been an asshat to other countries to protect it's national interests, and while i don't expect troops to come across the border carrying a big hose, i'm sure that they are looking at us and licking their lips

Edited January 25, 2006 by Guest
i kant speal.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'm reminded of that old Greenpeace ad of the guy in some smoke-choked city who collapses (and presumably dies) after failing to find enough change in his pocket for a hit off the oxygen machine on the street.

[payce-ley]

we can give them water while they charge us for oil? huh?

America has lots of fresh water sources, but they've spent 150 years polluting the hell out of it in the name of becoming one of the richest, most powerful nations on the planet (as China is now following suit)... why should we be responsible for America's gluttony?

but in any case, its not like gas prices in Canada jump up to over $1.20 a litre every time a hurricane comes within 500 miles of Texas or anything (even when the hurricane causes no damage)

energy produced from oil is required to produce food, pump water, run every industry and provide electricity, pretty essential stuff in this day and age... not to mention transporting people, food and goods... giving the states water is like taking up a collection in the poor section of town to make sure the local millionaire doesn't loose their mansion... Trudeau is flipping the bird from his coffin

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Something else to start worrying about -

Bush Calls to Congratulate Harper.

Scott McClellan, the White House's press secretary, described the call as cordial and lengthy. White House records show it lasted 16 minutes.

"They had a very good conversation," McClellan said Wednesday, adding that Bush "looks forward to working with him."

...

Harper has said he hopes to improve relations between the countries. He said he would revisit the issue of missile defence and may bring it to a vote in the House of Commons if he gets a deal favourable to Canada.

[Birdy]

^ i think this the pretty normal and civil thing to do when a new PM is elected. i'm sure harper had a number of phone calls.

[payce-ley]

I actually felt it was kind of a diss that Bush didn't get around to calling Harper until today... CNN said Bush was too busy to call yesterday because he was speaking with the prime minister of Paraguay

[d_rawk]

I have a vague recollection of CBC running a miniseries about a standoff between Canada and the US over water ... maybe a year or so ago?

I never saw it, but think I remember the advertisements. Anybody see that?

[edit:] ah, this is what I was thinking of. H2O

Edited January 25, 2006 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I didn't mean to single out the call per se as something noteworthy - you're right, everybody does it (though I'd love to have been an electronic fly on the wall for that 16-minute call) - but as context for the comment about missile defence, which I think is noteworthy. I don't know about anyone else, but it scares the piss out of me that Harper's prepared to move forward on it.

[Birdy]

hahah oops.

scary that is. agreed on this one.