Mojo_PeiPei

He was in a pickle, not like he could count on the French to be of help.

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

daswig

He pays taxes in America, doesn't he?

genuinegirly

I'm not Canadian, but kudos to Canada for not getting themselves mucked up with the US military plans.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

daswig

Post removed by author

alansmithee

I would hardly declare fears over the USSR to be "paranoia".

Also, when the initial Star Wars programs were proposed, I think computers were still using cassettes (or maybe punch cards), calculators were technological marvels, and lasers were something you read about in science fiction. I don't see why so many people are against a defensive technology. It's like arguing against better bulletproof vests, or fire-retartant materials.

But by extension wouldn't mentioning Godwins's law also end productive discussion, since you are mentioning someone else's mention of Hitler?

I've never heard that before, out of curiousity where is it from?

daswig

Post removed by author

munchen

Just a question. Why? Why do you have to prepare for war? you have 20 years. If you have twenty years why not start positive diplomatic relations with them? Why not form positives ties with them and start working together in partnership so in twenty years you will be allies and not enemies? If they are such a threat why not work to dismantle the threat? I don't understand why this has to be confrontation. Why is peace not a viable option here?

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

filtherton

If paying taxes was the same as fighting a war we could've just sent saddam our w-2's.

flstf

I would like to think that expensive missile defense systems like "star wars" are not necessary and the money be better spent elsewhere. But with more unstable nations developing nuclear capability advanced defense systems may be the best way to protect ourselves in the long run rather than just destroying the facilities in nations that are a threat.

Whether Canada contributes or how much does not seem to be much of an issue in regards to their defense. The U.S. would never allow another country to attack Canada and I'm sure the rest of the world knows it. A nuclear attack on Canada would be viewed as an attack on the U.S. Unbelievable cooperation between our two countries would ensue. Keeping missiles out of Canada may just make them safer from first strike.

OFKU0

Well better to be a fool that tried than one that didn't. By the way, what year did the U.S, the victors of WWII, jump into the war,...'41 was it, and late '41 at that.

Speculate and theorize all you want. It's moot. At least England, France and Canada weren't sitting on the sidelines when push came to shove.

__________________
" 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.

daswig

Post removed by author

jorgelito

China could be a democracy in 20 years. Hey you never know.

Still, there's no harm in preparing "quietly" while still engaging diplomatically. I think China is more concerned with their own domestic stuff and the "Taiwan" issue than they are about out-muscling the US. It's a face thing, they just want a little respect.

They get it: They have an economic stake and they're certainly not going to fuck up their economy and create instability by starting a war.

The Tibetan issue is null: It's like saying the US doesn't want peace, just ask the Cherokee, Sioux, Hopi, Algonquin etc.... Or the Canadians don't want peace, just ask the Quebecois. Or how aboout Israel?

SecretMethod70

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

jorgelito

Thanks for the fix, will pay more heed next time. I do keep it civil though.

Bill O'Rights

All I have to say is that I am extremely disapointed in the pathetic direction that this thread has taken.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

KMA-628

FYI

PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY, KAUAI, Hawaii, Feb. 24, 2005 /PRNewswire/ -- The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapon System and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) destroyed a ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere during an Aegis BMD Program flight test over the Pacific Ocean. Raytheon Company develops the SM-3. Lockheed Martin develops the Aegis BMD Weapon System.

The Feb. 24 mission -- the fifth successful intercept for SM-3 -- was the first firing of the Aegis BMD "Emergency Deployment" capability using operational versions of the SM-3 Block I missile and Aegis BMD Weapon System. This was also the first test to exercise SM-3's third stage rocket motor (TSRM) single-pulse mode. The TSRM has two pulses, which can be ignited independently, providing expansion of the ballistic missile engagement battlespace.

The SM-3 was launched from the Aegis BMD cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and hit a target missile that had been launched from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii.

"This successful flight test demonstrates the tactical, operational capability of SM-3 and the Aegis BMD Weapon System in real-world conditions," said Edward Miyashiro, Raytheon Missile Systems vice president, Naval Weapon Systems. "Successes like we've seen today provide decision makers the confidence to proceed with deploying in quantity, providing the Nation with a robust capability that will defend the U.S., deployed American forces, our friends and our allies. Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense is for real."

Japan has made decision to procure Aegis BMD with SM-3 for its Kongo class ships.

While it may not work every time, it is not the complete failure many here would like us to think.

It is worth pursuing, in my opinion.

Charlatan

Just for clarity... this doesn't qualify in your list.

What later became Lower Canada and then Quebec was granted to England by the French in exchange for some other English territories.

The Quebequois were not a conquered people but rather a people abandoned by their colonial homeland.

You must also note that once that trade occured the French who stayed behind, were not squashed, or culturally obliterated. They were encouraged to maintian their customs, laws, etc. This compromise position is at the heart of what it means to be Canadian...

While America is a melting pot... Canada is a mosaic.

There are those in Quebec who would like to seperate but this is not due, as your list would suggest, to oppression of any sort.

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

Yakk

Charlatan, the British Empire did technically conquer Quebec. It was ratified in a treaty with France, and Quebec was treated well for a conquered province, but it was taken by force of arms.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

james t kirk

Not quite.

The French lost the 7 years war to the British.

During the peace talks, the British were seeking several French Colonies, including Quebec.

France was allowed, however, to "protect" some of its colonies, i.e. to pick which ones they would keep while sceding control of the remaining ones to Britain.

France could have kept Quebec, but instead chose to protect Guadaloupe because Guadaloupe had sugar and sugar was a very valuable commodity back then.

True Story.

Quebecers never forgave the French.

I have worked a great deal in Quebec and let me tell you the Quebecers that I have worked with do not like the French French whatsoever.


Chamberlain was not Prime Minister in 1936, Baldwin was.

Chamberlain and the British were in no position to take on the Germans in 36. Chamberlain was furiously building up the British military during his time in office. He tripled the size of the Royal Navy and was responsible for replaning the RAF into modern fighters and bombers that ultimately won Britain the war. The Hurricane, the Spitfire, the Lancaster were all brought into the design phase during Chamberlain's time, with the Spitfire being the newest. The Hurricane was actually the fighter that won the Battle of Britain and was commissioned under Chamberlain.

And where was the USA in all of this by the way? I seem to recall that WW2 started in September of 1939 as far as Canada, France and Britain were concerned. Uncle Sam didn't get involved until 1942.

Here kid, read and learn a bit before you spout off...

http://www.historyman.co.uk/road2war/

Charlatan

Add to this the fact that the world was still exhausted after WW1... Chamberlain was acting on the will of the people to avoid war at all costs.

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

Yakk

I'm most probably over-proud of Canada's WWII legacy, because I wasn't alive back then.

However, I figure the speech that Willion Lyon McKenzie King gave in the House of Commons is probably worth reading:
http://oh.essortment.com/canadaworldwar_rmdk.htm

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

daswig

Ever hear of lend-lease? Ever hear of the US Navy tracking German ships and reporting their location to the Brits so the brits could attack them before the US officially entered the war? Ever hear of the US supplying England with american-made weaponry, while "officially" claiming to be neutral? Ever hear of the US shipping Canadian-produced military material from Hampton Roads to England in US-flagged ships because the British and Canadian flagged ships leaving from Canadian ports were being sunk? Yeah, the US wasn't involved officially until December 8, 1941, but for being "neutrals", we sure as shit did a LOT of stuff to help England out.


Ever hear of the Sitzkreig or "phony war", where the Brits and French sat on their asses while Hitler attacked their allies? Chamberlain was most certainly in charge when the partition of Czechoslavakia went down. He effectively sold Germany the Sudatenland in the hopes that it would appease Hitler, effectively feeding his friends to the tiger in the hopes that the tiger would eat England last. History has judged Chamberlain, and he ranks up there with Petain and Quisling. Your attempted historical revisionism is laughable.

Zeld2.0

You do realize that your own statements reek of revisionism. History isn't fact - its the intepretation of events. To say one is true or another false is what is laughable.

Janey

Daswig? how old are you? Can you keep the tone of this debate respectable or is it beyond your years? I would certainly hate to cut you off on the road...

daswig

Please explain how my view on history is revisionist. Both "Monsieur J'aime Berlin" and Petain were loathed, to the point that, IIRC, Petain was put on trial for collaboration after the war and was sentenced to death. For an example of how he was viewed during the war, see: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWpetCa.JPG As for calling Chamberlain an appeaser, THAT'S HOW HE REFERRED TO HIMSELF AND HIS POLICIES.

pan6467

Hmmm let's see.....

War of 1812, Canada remained neutral (even though they were still under British rule) and did what they could to keep the British from having any military there. (This fact alone, helped us, immensely to win the the war.)

Spanish -American War Canada sent troops to help the US, even though the "bombing" of the Maine had nothing to do with Canada.

WW1 Canada sent troops with the US EVEN though Canada was not involved in anyway.

WW2 Canada sent troops into the Pacific even though they were not attacked in anyway.

1979 Iran...... Our embassy is taken hostage, Canada's ambassador and Embassy risk life to help as many US citizens as possible free and safe passage out, including my uncle and aunt.

During the Cold War, Canada allowed us to freely put Nukes in their country, thus making them a target to the Soviets.

The Canadian Navy is 3rd in muscle next to the US and Britain.

Canada is not hated throughout the world, their economy is growing stronger, and they are far, far more respected throughout the international community.

Seems to me when ever we have needed Canada they have been there to watch our backs, and while we have tried to influence, bully, threaten and so on Canada to do what we wish them to, they have NOT ONCE as a country done anything to interfere with our country.

For all they have done to help us, I say thank you my friends to the North, (Merci Beaucoup) and I appologize for the extremists in our country, who do not appreciate the fact that we could not have a better neighbor country.

As far as "Star Wars", it came out in the early 90's that it had been a hell of an expensive bluff. That the Reagan Administration believed (and they were proven right) that the USSR would economically destroy itself trying to keep up with "Star Wars" and that the program had never passed any tests.

If we develop a true working system, I believe Canada, again, would be right there with us. However, why should they spend money, allow us to destroy their prairies and wildlands for our pipedream, and become a target to our enemies, once more, when we show them very little respect.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

daswig

Canadian troops were in the Pacific because that was the plan... Europe first, Japan second. And in case you missed it, during WWII, BRITISH colonies/Dominions were in jeopardy, and that held true for WWI, also. Canada has far more serious national ties with ENGLAND than with us, and ENGLAND was involved in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. They weren't backing the US up, they were backing ENGLAND up.

As for successful missile tests, well, hey! See: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/neth026_1.html
There have been successful ABM tests going on for quite a while.

As for our destroying their ecology by putting radar stations, et cetera on their territory, yup, you're 100% right, that tundra/permafrost climate sure is a thriving ecosystem, and the vast majority of Canadians live way North, not anywhere near the US borders.

Janey

not the way we see it, speaking as a Canadian.

Charlatan

The fact that there is a triving eco system in the north aside... The fact that we allowed US installations in the north should speak volumes... Let's reverse it for a moment.

Would you allow Canadian troops to put bases in Alaska?


The fact of the matter is that Canada is it's own country, just like the US is it's own country. We choose when and how we would like to cooperate... because we have chosen to not support a missle defense system or a "preemptive" invasion of Iraq (both of which we generally view as folly) doesn't mean we won't be there when it matters (Afaghanistan).

As a sovreign nation and not just another state in the Union we do what is in our best interests, just as the US does what is in her best interest. Like or choice or not, I would hope you could respect it.

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

silent_jay

Way North? Where exactly is way North? To me way North is like Nunavut, or Elesmere Island.

As for the majority of Canadians living "way North" I think this population distribution map shows different. I mean way North to an American could be Toronto or something, but way North to a Canadian is something totally different. As for the North not being a thriving eco system, I will have to search for some things about that, but for the moment I beg to differ.
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps...stribution2001

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

james t kirk

Sure, no doubt about it. The US sold a great deal and profitted considerably selling to Britain.

As far as lend lease goes, that act was only passed in March of 1941, by then, France and all of western Europe had fallen, the Battle of Britain was long over, and Hitler moved in on Russia.

Too little too late for the lend lease thing.

Are you aware that the US also sold arms to Germany

Are you aware that guys like Henry Ford, Dupont, and even Disney supported Hitler, even after the war was declared

Read this....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...nazicars30.htm

Are you aware that American companies continued to do business with Nazi Germany until 1942, including Prescott Bush, Grand daddy of you know who.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fa..._excerpts.html

The so called phony war lasted the final months of 39 and into the spring of 40. All the while, both sides were probing for weakness, building up their resources and waiting for the right moment.

A big so what is your point.

No doubt about the Sudatenland, but not much could be done about it. Chamberlain could only do so much and it bought him valuable time. The fact of the matter was that Britain had a very diminished military between 1930 and 1936, and only when Chamberlain started building it up did things turn round.

I love and admire Winston Churchill, but if you really think that he walked in there, snapped his fingers, and poof appeared sqadrons of Hurricanes and Spitfires, you are sadly mistaken.

pan6467

I see, so the Canadians weren't in the Pacific at all until after the European theatre was over?

How was Canada threatened in WWI, I maybe wrong but I believe they were an independant country by then.

Canada may have the British royalty on their currency and stamps, but I would have to say they are thier own country. I would guess Canada has closer ties to the US as a majority of trade is between the US and Canada not Canada and Europe.


I see, our country has never fudged test results. Even if they are successful, we obviously have not sold the Canadians on it. They are a sovereign nation, bullying them into our will is NOT a good thing.


I am sure there is a thriving ecosystem up there, but that was not my point.

My point is we are destroying our lands here, Canada may not wish us to destroy theirs. NOR DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO. They have the right to say no and we should respect their rights.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Lebell

I dunno,

IMO, this thread has degenerated into sillyness.

Canada is our closest ally for a number of good reasons, and we are their closest ally for the same reasons.

I really don't think this post modern tribalism some of you are exhibiting helps in our relationship, nor do I think it is reasonable to expect either of our countries to march lock step in policy.

As to WW2, I think the discussion particularly silly, as both countries made huge sacrifices to defeat the axis and this whole "well, we did more" argument disparages those sacrifices.

So I personally would like to get back to the original post regarding the missle program.

I think the Canadians have the right to do as they have, but I question the reasoning behind it. Is it because they truly don't support it or is it because it is politically unpopular among some voters to support anything Bush is proposing?

As has been pointed out, if we waited for perfect technology before building anything, then we would have damn little advanced technology. The Wright brothers would never have flown (they didn't have jets, you know), Alexander Graham Bell wouldn't have called Watson (he couldn't dial San Francisco), and Edison would never have invented movies or much of anything else (no sound, imperfect storage medium, etc.)

So personally, I think the system is a good idea if it only works half the time, especially with that lunatic on the Korean pennisula making bombs and missles.

__________________
"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!

Manx

Who wouldn't want a pick-the-missles-out-of-the-sky system? If it were cheap enough, I'd take one for my house.

I don't think it's a question of whether anyone does or does not want it. It is simply a question of need vs. cost. As the Bush admin, and all previous admins back to Nixon have been promoting it (and assuredly, the Republican administration have traditionally promoted it far more so than the Democratic administrations), it is an "absolute need". But no, it isn't an absolute need. There have been an entirety of 2 atomic weapons dropped on people in the history of man. With three major failures in testing in the last year or so, it is no wonder that Canada has withdrawn - Canada is not dependent on the electoral votes of the pro-military bloc in America.

I'd MUCH (and I can't emphasize that enough) prefer these billions and billions and billions of dollars that are being wasted go towards developing teleportation.

There's nothing worse in this life than the 6 inches of leg room in Economy class on a 9 hour flight.

I'm not kidding, either. Teleportation, son. It's the wave of the future.

Or maybe we could spend those billions and billions and billions on fighting malaria. Or optimizing the distribution of food so that instead of having it rot in the fields or on container ships, it makes its way to the stomachs of the millions of starving people.

There are just too many, far more important things that could be done with the money that has been spent and produced nothing at all. Hopefully soon we'll see the "America backs out of North American missle defense system" headline.

munchen

This is definitly not the reasoning behind us dropping out of missle defense. This sounds more like the tactics the democrats and their followers are employing down in the states. Our gavernment is too smart to adapt an anti Bush stance. There have been a couple of mp's that have spoke up against Bush and they have been dealt with. We pride ourselves on our abilities in international relations and our government would not adapt that attitude.

The reason is most likely a combination of Canada's anti war/violence/ect. attitude and the fact that two major parties are against this system so the liberals need to keep them happy to hold on to power.

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

Lebell

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding this:

Do you think Canadians consciously or subconciously are anti-war because they know that while the US exists, there will never be threat of an invasion on the continent?

In otherwords, if there was no US, do you think that Canada would spend more on defense?

__________________
"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!

Charlatan

Lebell if there was no US what would be there instead? That's the real question... Who would be on our border.

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

Lebell

I'm trying to decide if it dodges the question or not.

But for sake of argument, let's say that there is nobody of any importance and that you have no threat along with no umbrella to the south. All the other world geopolitical situations remain the same.

Or if you like, the US broke up with the civil war and Mexico retained much of the western US.

OR, all of what is the US is now possessed by Mexico and they haven't done any better job with it than they have with what they currently possess.

__________________
"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!

alansmithee

Would Canada still have the same anti-war policies if their souther neighbor was not a military superpower. If the US had the military policy seen around the turn of the century, would Canada's military policy be different?

Or to put it in more aggressive terms, is Canada the benefactor of a free rider problem, where they gain benefit from US military might without any contribution.

I think this feeling has contributed to the difficult relations between the US and it's cold-war allies. The cold war was won mainly because the USSR's economy collapsed in an arms race against the US. It could also be thought that the US suffered economic damage in keeping up their end of the arms race. Many in America might think they are owed something because it's western allies gained benefit from the US's military buildup.

OFKU0

I'll try that one. I'll preface that this is not a dig at American's, just an observation.

I believe Canadians are anti-war consciously. We recognize Remembrance Day on November 11th, the 11th month on the 11th hour at the 11th minute. It is a somber ceremony remembering those who fought and died to give us the freedom we have today. It is very personal. It reminds us of everything we don't want to see again, that being war.

When I view America's Vererans Day ceremonies I see it as a reason to be proud also, in part of those who fought and died, but also as a reason to dictate war accomplishments and remember the conquests and the military mite. In other words, it almost seems more important of how America's military has reigned supreme over that of those who were lost.

Canadians do that also. D-Day, Vimy Ridge and so forth but their is a sadness attached and not the bravado. Again no offence intended.

As for knowing that the U.S has our backs covered, absolutely, but I don't feel that the Canadian government is using that in order to let the Americans take care of us. I would like to think because of Canada's relationship with the U.S and the respect that Canada has in the world as diplomats helps America for what they may lack in that department. I think if Canada mirrored the U.S policy wise, at least with this administration, North America would be a bigger target

__________________
" 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.