QUOTE(IR5FORMUMSIE @ Jan 21 2008, 09:23 PM)

QUOTE(trailmix @ Jan 21 2008, 09:08 PM)

ok you're in, no preliminary visas here so nessa is in too. easy.
Only one question before Charles reaches the Don Cherry level of Canuckdom. Explain any two of the following (most Canucks don't know these so if you don't get it maybe some of my fellow Canuckleheads will help):
1. Polar Sea and/or Manhattan
2. Dammit, Les, you pissed on my rug!
3. Manicouagan Fu**-You Call (this one's too easy)
*wondering how many people are going to answer one of these or all three?*
1. Canada regards the Passage as lying within its territorial waters, while other nations (especially the United States) regard it as an international waterway. The result is a long-simmering dispute between Canada and the U.S. on the question of Canadian sovereignty. Canadians were incensed when Americans drove the reinforced oil tanker Manhattan through the Northwest Passage in 1969, followed by the icebreaker Polar Sea in 1985, both without asking for Canadian permission. In 1970, the Canadian government enacted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which asserts Canadian regulatory control over pollution within a 100-mile zone. In response, the Americans in 1970 stated, “We cannot accept the assertion of a Canadian claim that the Arctic waters are internal waters of Canada.... Such acceptance would jeopardize the freedom of navigation essential for United States naval activities worldwide.” A compromise of sorts was reached in 1988, by an agreement on “Arctic Cooperation,” which pledges that voyages of American icebreakers “will be undertaken with the consent of the Government of Canada.” However the agreement did not alter either country’s basic legal position. In January 2006 David Wilkins, the American ambassador to Canada, said his government opposes Stephen Harper's proposed plan to deploy military icebreakers in the Arctic to detect interlopers and assert Canadian sovereignty over those waters.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage2. While in office, Pearson resisted U.S. pressure to enter the Vietnam War. Pearson spoke at Temple University in Philadelphia on April 2, 1965, while visiting the United States, and voiced his support for a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam War. When he visited U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson the next day, Johnson strongly berated Pearson. According to Canadian legend, Johnson grabbed Pearson by the lapels, shook him, and shouted "Dammit, Les, you pissed on my rug!" Pearson later recounted that the meeting was acrimonious, but insisted the two parted cordially. After this incident, LBJ and Pearson did have further contacts, including two further meetings together, both times in Canada. (Canadians most remember the Pearson years as a time Canada-U.S. relations greatly improved.)
http://www.canadiancontent.net/people/poli...B.-Pearson.html3. ?
I am obviously bored at work and did a bit of googling...