C4 Diesel

BBC news story

Personally, I think the missile defence system is a GREAT idea. Anything that keeps missles away from where I live is wonderful. Mind you, I've heard reports that the current missile defence technology would fail more than it succeded, but hey, it's a start.

I'm interested in knowing precisely why many Canadians are opposed to this. Any Canadians care to speak up?

__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...

Mojo_PeiPei

Canada is becoming more and more demilitarized (much like it's European counterparts), plus as far as military budgets they probably couldn't afford to do it anyways.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

tecoyah

And it does not work yet....and likely wont for quite some time.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

losthellhound

Thank god..

Its good to know that my taxes won't go to pay for the pipe dream that is "star wars". All evidence points to the entire system being uesless in shooting down missiles, useless because no one is aiming missiles at us anyways, and against the spirit of non proliferation on the whole

Thank you Mr. Martin

__________________
"Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?"
-- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

munchen

Actually Canada's involment would be considered minimal at best. They would not have to pay for any it. I just saw an interview on the CBC with the US ambassador to Canada stating that all they wanted is canadian input on how it should be handled. They wanted a canadian in on the decision making process. I have heard repeatedly that the US is not asking for money. We would never give it to them anyway. I've found it hard to get any facts on what they really want from us.

As for me I think the whole process is absolutly ridiculous. Any professional interview i've seen says that either it will never work or that the highest sucess rate possible would 50%, so attackers would just need to fire twice as many missles. The cost will be ridiculously high, to high to make it worthwhile. There is alot of argument that the risk of airborne missles is minimal at best. Most of the threat would be through bombs being snuck in on the ground or by water and not by air, or through creative threats like 9/11.

Also do we want this technology perfected? once we have it other countries will feel they have to get it or create weapons to beat it and the arms race takes off. If we never invented nukes iran or north korea wouldn't have them now. Are we safer now that we have nukes to "protect us"?

I think many Canadians and myself included beleive that we should not be putting so much money and effort into more weaponization and put effort in other places where it is has more need and would be better utilized.

We just don't get the American love affair with weapons, we don't share it and we don't support it. We like to solve our problems in a more peaceful manner and not with big new expensive weapons

__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening

Mojo_PeiPei

That's great because you are a country of 30 million people, and you don't now, nor have you ever really pulled any weight in geo-political affairs. I don't know why we would ask for logistics from Canada, your military is a joke, plus as far as money goes what you spend on your entire budget is a spit in the ocean to us. To each their own.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

filtherton

Aren't we smug for an pro-war american of prime military age unwilling to enlist in a time of war.

losthellhound

Our involvement would be based on land. Places to put the system, to test the system... Same as Cruise missiles in the praries, and NORAD systems at the dew line

As for Mojo_PeiPei, I won't be goaded by trolls into a flame war

__________________
"Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?"
-- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

Lebell

I'm about one more sarcastic comment from issuing temp bans to each individual starting at mojo peipei and working down.

Stop it now.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

munchen

Edit: rewording post

It's just that Canadians have a different view of the military than the American society in general. We have a small military, but thats how we like it. We would just rather spend our money and resources on other things. I realise that part of this complacency is because of your military strength, and this is probably the only reason we went into afghanistan. We're just not a nation big on military force and we don't like following this type of policy

__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening

OFKU0

Amen to that. Diplomacy is often seen as soft or of being a pussy. You know instead of talking about problems, why not blow them up.

Having said that, I'd rather be a pussy than an asshole.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

sob

Well, Hitler and Saddam certainly viewed diplomacy as pussyism.

So does North Korea.

And China certainly seems headed in that direction.

JJRousseau

There are five or six Canada/US topics running on the forums right now that start with a media quote. It's a good basis for discussion but really, if all we know or think about Canada or the US (or anything!) is based on what we read in the newspaper, we don't know much.

I think this is another example where there is a lot more to the story. Consider a minority government trying to improve relations with its major trading partner where the balance of power in government held by a right wing pro-military party. Are they really walking away from this project?

__________________
Take from the philosopher the pleasure of being heard and his desire for knowledge ceases.

munchen

This minority government is also trying to stay in power. To do that it has to please the NDP and the Bloc, they dont like star wars.

__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening

C4 Diesel

Damn straight we are, and I'm no right-wing, I *heart* the military, gun-owner, either. Good example: What do you think has kept India and Pakistan from attacking each other a very long time ago? Hint: neither would survive.

So, using your terminology, when the "other" assholes doesn't listen to the pussies, I guess the pussies just get shit on, don't they? ...Talking is only useful if someone is listening, and if you don't prepare for the worst, you won't be ready for it.

Just to pose a scenario: Europe, with a few notable exceptions, is pretty much demilitarized, but wants to send weapons to China, a country that's been known to take what it wants by force (read: "Tibet"). So if China wakes up one morning and decides it wants Taiwan (or any random east Asian country), who's gonna stop them? That's right, the country with the giant high-tech military, 'cause that's the only one they might be afraid of. What else could happen to them? Are the pussies going to tell any (potential) aggressors how badly they're behaving?

Call me crazy, but isn't the whole idea of a forum to discuss things? That being the case I think we're doing just fine. I don't think anyone is claiming that they obtain the entirety of their knowledge from the news.

__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...

Zeld2.0

The bigger thing IMO is that its a lot of money being put into a system that simply has failed its tests over and over again. Even if its the 50% best rating some have given, I don't like the idea of things failing half the time, and for what its costing, its better to just forget it.

martinguerre

c4, that's not quite right. india and pakistan have had both peace before nukes, and war after. it's part of the continuing balance of power....not some magical nuclear peace genie.

and Sob gets a Godwin's award...

Kennedy didn't think diplomacy was for weaklings. Cuban Missle Crisis? Damn well saved the planet from nuclear distaster through a combination of diplomacy and shows of will.

You hold up Chamberlain like he disproves diplomacy forever. It's just so counter-productive.

Edit: Peace in context of India/Pakistan is best understood to mean stand off or truce. I think recent months show the most promise for real peace since partition.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

Hardknock

Which is why they've had a running budget surplus for the last 7 years and we don't.

Think before you start spewing "I'm an American badass" bullshit.

whocarz

I think the monolouge near the end of Team America: World Police is in order: We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes. Assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck a asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate. And it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves. Because pussies are a inch and half away from assholes. I don't know much about this crazy crazy world, but I do know this. If you don't let us fuck this asshole we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit.

Thank you, good night.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

tecoyah

I must say....this is a wonderful Anal-ogy.

And holds quite a bit of truth in my mind.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

daswig

Post removed by author

alansmithee

Hitler's biggest gains were through diplomacy. And diplomacy without any threat is pretty much just grovelling. That is why the earlier claims about Canada's relatively low profile on the global stage are somewhat true (although I wouldn't phrase it so negatively). If they were to approach any situation in a diplomatic fashion, they have no barganing weight.

I don't think something so true has ever before been said in such a vulgar fashion. Trey Parker should get some sort of Pulitzer for that

daswig

Post removed by author

sob

I admit to confusion here. What I meant to point out in my post is that some leaders (this was especially true of the Russians) engage in diplomacy only as a way to gain concessions from the other side. They never GRANT any concessions--upon receiving them from the other party, they simply ask for more, without responding in kind.

IOW, concessions are simply a sign of weakness in their minds.

I also don't know what a "Godwin's award" is ....

Janey

Wow. Just... wow.

and you wonder why?

holy smokes.

At any rate, the title of this thread is a bit misleading. Canadians are not backing out of the North american missile defence system. The house of commons has YET to vote on it. So there is nothing to back out of YET.

as for why are Canadians against it? isn't it obvious? think back to the Reagan paranoia that was the Star Wars initiative. This is more of the same, throwing good money after bad. the only efective result from this would be the spin off industires in aerospace technologies and job contracts (probably going to the favoured few yet again) which results in jobs for those that can qualify.


- i see no real problem with assisting in treaty obligations in the same manner as during the cold war (re - the DEW line, NORAD, NATO ect) but there is no treaty yet. This missle defence is just s pipe dream so far. Yournext pres may put it on the back burner...

- a facile arguement. China is the the big threat to the world. I agree. But the threat is more in line of the economic tiger that Japan was. I think that focusing on and fostering mutual respect will go a long way. 20 yrs from now is a long time to fester a grudge.



- yes they were afraid. It's a classic mexican standoff argument. Just like the boys in the 'hood, all needing to pack. but in absolute terms, you're incorrect, wer are not safer with nukes than without them. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle, so we need to be able to control them.

- simplistic again: to use your statistics, your JRTOC (whatever that is) is drawn from a population roughly 10 times ours. plus you're comparing apples and oranges.



- I just want to know why you guys get so hot under the collar when somebody doesn't agree with you... It gets very annoying.


Well there was the 'rap' that Jay and Silent Bob did about the band 'Time'.... that was righteous...


huh? you are asking what? yoiu're being confrontational.

martinguerre

Daswig, you didn't read what i said. I said Kennedy blended shows of will with diplomacy. I said India and Pakistan had had both peace and war before and after nukes.

Sob, Godwins's Law is the idea that the productive discussion is over when someone mentions Hitler. i'm not always an adherant to the idea, but i don't think your example served the debate.

My point is not that diplomacy will always solve problems. It will fail, from time to time. It's the worst option, except for all the other ones...to steal a phrase from Churchill. But to hold up Neville and to say that diplomacy is inheriently bad, weak, ineffective is so logically fallacious and morally dubious...

And so i say to the people insistant on talking about Hitler...you've won yourselves a shiny new Godwin's award.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

NCB

Somewhere down the road when the kinks of the system are in place, Canada will be changing their tune. Right now, they just don't see the value in it. Plus, they need to spend their money on other more valuable programs, like their debacle of a health care system and sex education (gay sex ed too, of course)

__________________

Janey

* sigh * it's like listening to the muzak in elevators

Charlatan

Janey... you know the only system that works is the American Way... anyother system *has* to be problematic.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

NCB

Now you're talking!

__________________

Janey

hehe... we got us an Archie Bunker here!

tecoyah

It is the business of anyone who is a member of this Forum......period.

This thread is quickly becoming pointless , which is a pity as it started out with relatively healthy discussion......as usual it has been degraded by a select few.
I grow weary of watching this happen.....as this is far from an isolated case. If you indeed hold disdain for another country, understand that we are a multinational forum, and insulting ones home counrty can be as bad as insulting the individual.

Please keep this in Mind

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Janey

Thankyou. Now to get back on topic, this system has not yet even been voted on in the House of Commons, which is required. so, whether or not we join in (remember that because it only a proposal, so there is nothing to 'back out of' yet) is yet to be decided.

Also, if the current minority government does not wish to fall, they have to consider this during a commons vote. so. We may not join in this time, and it would be for all the right reasons: the wishes of the people, as represented by our Members of Parliament. These truths we hold to be self evident.

Ah, democracy in action!

Janey

Well It's official, the House of Commons voted:


NO.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ada050224.html

So while we did not back out of anything, the people have spoken.

!~~~~~~~~~~~~


OTTAWA - Canada has said no to the U.S. missile defence program, Prime Minister Paul Martin announced Thursday.


INDEPTH: Ballistic missile defence


Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew in the Commons, Thursday.
The prime minister said the decision was made following extensive discussions with Foreign Affairs and National Defence.

"Let me be clear: we respect the right of the United States to defend itself and its people," said Martin.

"Indeed, we will continue to work in partnership with our southern neighbours on the common defence of North America and on continental security."

Earlier, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew told the House of Commons about the prime minister's decision, which Pettigrew said was based on policy, and not emotion.

Pettigrew said he informed U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of Canada's decision on Tuesday during NATO meetings in Brussels.

"Of course, the U.S. is disappointed. They recognize and respect our decision," said Pettigrew.

NDP member of Parliament Alexa McDonough praised the decision.

Canada's new ambassador to Washington, Frank McKenna, said earlier this week that Canada is already taking part in the program through Norad.

And the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, said Americans don't understand why Canada doesn't want to be responsible for its own sovereignty on the issue.

In the months leading up to the decision, Martin had repeatedly said he believed Canada should be at the table when it comes to any discussion of the defence of North America.

filtherton

Well, it is ironic for one to chastise canada for benefitting from america's military power without contributing to it while one is benefitting from america's military power without contributing to it.

Who's canadian? Why would an american care?

Mojo_PeiPei

Sorry about my harsh words. But I felt that in regards to the post I was responding too, I had to sort of yell or be forcefel with my words, only way to get the attention of someone talking down on my country.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

raveneye

1. I don't really see how a "defense" system can be a deterrent to anything. It threatens nothing in response to attack, other than to intercept missiles.

2. This defense system is in reality not a defensive system at all. It is a system to develop advanced missile guidance technology. That technology has unlimited offensive utility. I'm sure a lot of the technology behind all those guided missiles used in Afghanistan and Iraq was developed in part by this "missile defense system." That would mean 100% of practical benefits of the program, so far, have been offensive.

3. It is of no advantage to Canada to contribute to this program, because in reality its primarily purpose is offensive, which will not benefit Canadians in any significant way whatsoever.

Zeld2.0

Funny how Canadians are supposedly not involved in this yet the thread title starts out with Canada. Strange, huh?

Next, comparing this to the space program is laughable. Think about it - the space program didn't fail 90% of the time. The current system has failed miserably in every test. I'd rather spend that money elsewhere - as in space travel, alternate energy, and so on. Stuff thats more likely to be needed, than a system that you say 5% is fine.

Even if it stops 5%, what does that matter if the other guy swarms your system? Launch a MIRV, 14 warheads come out, you shoot down one, good job, the other 13 have hit your cities. Not to mention that no one sends just one missile at a major city - maybe 5+ warheads are directed at one target.

The idea of this being a deterrent in anyway to China is laughable. What they'll do is simple - build more nukes, build more warheads. And why the thought that such a war would go nuclear immediately? Simply because neither side could at this point conceivably occupy/invade either country?

I dont think people realize that diplomacy doesn't have to be a show of force - it can be economic, logical, ethical, or other methods. Did the U.S. threaten China when it opened relations? No, Nixon decided he would do some clever diplomacy - recognize China, which in turn meant pulling relations from Taiwan, but it would benefit the U.S. in trade, in the Cold War by playing off preferences between China and the Soviet Union (thus turning their attention to each other instead of Vietnam) which in turn gave leverage to the U.S. in Vietnam negotiations.

Theres much more to international relationships than "war or diplomacy."

silent_jay

I'm not a huge Martin fan by any means, but the man is starting to change my opinion of him, first same sex marriage and now this, there just might be hope for Mr. Martin after all.

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

james t kirk

The military just got it's budget doubled yesterday in the budget, albeit over 5 years.

Give old Neville a break.

He was nobody's fool. He knew there was going to be a war, but he also knew that Britain was in no position to fight and win that war. Under old Neville Britain had the biggest military build up in her history.