Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Canada backs out of North American missile defence system (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/84116-canada-backs-out-north-american-missile-defence-system.html)

C4 Diesel 02-23-2005 05:39 PM

Canada backs out of North American missile defence system
 
BBC news story

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC World News
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin has reportedly decided that his country would not join a missile defence system being developed by the United States.

Officials told Canadian media that Mr Martin would make a formal announcement later this week, when he returns from the Nato summit in Belgium.

He had previously backed participation in the system, designed to detect missiles fired at North America.

A majority of Canadians are opposed to the programme, opinion polls suggest.

According to Radio-Canada television and the Canadian Press news agency, Mr Martin told Nato allies in Brussels on Tuesday that Ottawa would not join the US programme.

The Canadian Press says the US has been informed of the decision.

"It is a firm 'no'. I am not sure it is an indefinite 'no'," a federal official is quoted as saying.

Row

Canada started formal talks earlier this year on its possible participation.

In the run-up to a federal election last year, Mr Martin said he thought Canada should be part of a system designed to protect North America.

But federal officials told CBC's Radio-Canada that domestic considerations may have outweighed pressure from Washington.

The proposal is opposed by many within Mr Martin's governing Liberal Party. Opinion polls indicate that nearly two-thirds of Canadians are against it.

On Tuesday Ottawa's new ambassador to the US caused an uproar by saying a defence pact the two neighbours signed last year meant Canada was effectively already part of the defence system.

Canada agreed in August to allow the joint Canadian-US air defence command to share information with the missile defence programme.

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?

Mojo_PeiPei 02-23-2005 05:45 PM

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.

tecoyah 02-23-2005 05:52 PM

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

losthellhound 02-23-2005 05:58 PM

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

munchen 02-23-2005 06:23 PM

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

Mojo_PeiPei 02-23-2005 06:34 PM

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.

filtherton 02-23-2005 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.


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

losthellhound 02-23-2005 07:26 PM

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

Lebell 02-23-2005 07:29 PM

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

Stop it now.

munchen 02-23-2005 07:31 PM

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

OFKU0 02-23-2005 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchen

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

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.

sob 02-23-2005 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, Hitler and Saddam certainly viewed diplomacy as pussyism.

So does North Korea.

And China certainly seems headed in that direction.

JJRousseau 02-23-2005 08:28 PM

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?

munchen 02-23-2005 08:33 PM

Quote:

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?
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.

C4 Diesel 02-23-2005 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchen
Are we safer now that we have nukes to "protect us"?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OFKUO
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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Zeld2.0 02-23-2005 09:18 PM

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 02-23-2005 09:25 PM

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.

Hardknock 02-24-2005 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 02-24-2005 03:06 AM

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.

tecoyah 02-24-2005 05:16 AM

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

And holds quite a bit of truth in my mind.

daswig 02-24-2005 05:34 AM

Post removed by author

alansmithee 02-24-2005 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sob
Well, Hitler and Saddam certainly viewed diplomacy as pussyism.

So does North Korea.

And China certainly seems headed in that direction.


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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 02-24-2005 05:54 AM

Post removed by author

sob 02-24-2005 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 02-24-2005 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.


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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Undoubtedly the canadian participation would be in the form of allowing us to base troops and equipment for the ground-based portion of the program there.


- 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...

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
We're preparing for war with China. In 20 years, they'll be a HUGE threat to the US. Thanks for selling them missile technology, Bill...

- 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.



Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
The Germans, Japanese, and several other countries IIRC were all working on an atomic bomb while the US bomb program was a highly guarded secret. As for us being safer, NATO and the Warsaw PAct didn't go after each other in the 1960s because there were too many nukes involved. We're statistically overdue for a major conventional war, because nukes kept an uneasy peace. So yeah, we're safer with nukes than without them. Why do you think so many countries are trying to GET nukes? Because it makes them less safe???

- 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Canadians spend squat on their military. American's JROTC program has something like FIVE TIMES the number of people in it that the entire Canadian military has.

- 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee
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


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

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Just out of curiosity, what business is that of a Canadian?


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

martinguerre 02-24-2005 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Kennedy backed his diplomacy up with "the big stick". There's no way Kruschev would have backed down if he didn't think Kennedy was willing to start WWIII right there, right then over the issue at hand.

Old Neville showed the futility of appeasement. Appeasement is the concept of feeding your friends to the tiger, in the hopes that he'll eat you last. And Pakistan and India didn't have a long-term peaceful relationship until they both developed nukes...they'd been spasmodically whacking each other for decades.

For diplomacy to be effective, your side has to have the ability to assrape the other country in a figurative sense. Otherwise, you're simply begging.

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.

NCB 02-24-2005 07:12 AM

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 02-24-2005 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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)


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

Charlatan 02-24-2005 07:35 AM

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

NCB 02-24-2005 07:57 AM

Quote:

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


Now you're talking! ;)

Janey 02-24-2005 08:02 AM

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

tecoyah 02-24-2005 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Just out of curiosity, what business is that of a Canadian?


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

Janey 02-24-2005 09:07 AM

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 02-24-2005 09:49 AM

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 02-24-2005 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Just out of curiosity, what business is that of a Canadian?

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 02-24-2005 10:10 AM

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.

raveneye 02-24-2005 10:31 AM

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 02-24-2005 11:17 AM

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 02-24-2005 11:40 AM

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.

james t kirk 02-24-2005 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Old Neville showed the futility of appeasement. Appeasement is the concept of feeding your friends to the tiger, in the hopes that he'll eat you last. And Pakistan and India didn't have a long-term peaceful relationship until they both developed nukes...they'd been spasmodically whacking each other for decades.

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.

Mojo_PeiPei 02-24-2005 01:40 PM

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

daswig 02-24-2005 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

He pays taxes in America, doesn't he?

genuinegirly 02-24-2005 04:53 PM

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

daswig 02-24-2005 04:57 PM

Post removed by author

alansmithee 02-24-2005 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janey
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 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
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.

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

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

daswig 02-24-2005 05:11 PM

Post removed by author

munchen 02-24-2005 06:15 PM

Quote:

We're preparing for war with China. In 20 years, they'll be a HUGE threat to the US.
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?

filtherton 02-24-2005 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
He pays taxes in America, doesn't he?

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

flstf 02-24-2005 07:11 PM

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 02-24-2005 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
That's bullshit. If the Allies had made a stand when Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, Hitler would have HAD to back down, because he was too weak to do anything else. You're trying to tell me that England and France couldn't have taken on a SINGLE BATTALION of German troops in '36? Or that they couldn't have refused to sacrifice Czechoslavakia by simply stationing a few thousand troops there in '38 to serve as a "trip-wire"???

Chamberlain was a fool. He was an appeaser of the first order, and he should have met the same fate as Petain.

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.

daswig 02-24-2005 10:46 PM

Post removed by author

jorgelito 02-25-2005 12:57 AM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
I'd suggest you ask the Tibetian people about that....

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 02-25-2005 01:59 AM

Two things 1) Keep it more civil in here. Single sentence snipes at one another are not the quality of debate we're looking for. And 2) either learn to use the edit button or start using tabbed browsing so that you can copy and paste multiple quotes into one post. There is no need to have 4 posts in a row just because you're quoting and responding to 4 different people. Put it all in one post, and I don't care if it means a little extra work for you. It's annoying to read when done on the level it is being done at in this thread.


EDIT: And look at that, I even went through and fixed your previous posts for you - all 15 extra of them.

jorgelito 02-25-2005 02:24 AM

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

Bill O'Rights 02-25-2005 06:23 AM

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

KMA-628 02-25-2005 11:47 AM

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 02-25-2005 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito
Or the Canadians don't want peace, just ask the Quebecois.

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.

Yakk 02-25-2005 12:24 PM

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.

james t kirk 02-25-2005 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
That's bullshit. If the Allies had made a stand when Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, Hitler would have HAD to back down, because he was too weak to do anything else. You're trying to tell me that England and France couldn't have taken on a SINGLE BATTALION of German troops in '36? Or that they couldn't have refused to sacrifice Czechoslavakia by simply stationing a few thousand troops there in '38 to serve as a "trip-wire"???

Chamberlain was a fool. He was an appeaser of the first order, and he should have met the same fate as Petain.


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 02-25-2005 02:49 PM

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.

Yakk 02-25-2005 03:19 PM

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:
Quote:

On September 9th, it was learned that two Canadian women were on the unarmed ocean liner, SSAthenia,” which had been sunk by German U-boats. The next day, Canada declared war on Germany independently.

Prime Minister William Lyon McKenzie King said it all in the House of Commons:

For months, indeed for years, the shadow of impending conflict in Europe has been ever present. Through these troubled years, no stone has been left unturned, no road unexplored in the patient search for peace. Unhappily for the world, Herr Hitler and the nazi regime in Germany have persisted in their attempt to extend their control over other peoples and countries, and to pursue their aggressive design in wanton disregard of all treaty obligations, and peaceful methods of adjusting international disputes. They have had to resort increasingly to agencies of deception, terrorism and violence. It is this reliance upon force, this lust for conquest, this determination to dominate throughout the world, which is the real cause of the war that today threatens the freedom of mankind.

This morning, the King (of England) speaking to his peoples at home and across the seas, appealed to all to make their own, the cause of freedom, which Britain again has taken up. Canada has already answered that call. On Friday the government, speaking on behalf of the Canadian people, announced that in the event of the United Kingdom becoming engaged in war in the effort to resist aggression, they would, as soon as parliament meets, seek its authority for effective co-operation by Canada at the side of Britain.

In what manner and to what extent Canada may most effectively be able to co-operate in the common cause is, as I have stated, something which parliament itself will have to decide. All I need to add to the moment is that Canada, as a free nation of the British Commonwealth, is bringing her co-operation voluntarily. Our effort will be voluntary.

The people of Canada will, I know, face the days of stress and strain which lies ahead with calm resolute and courage. There is no home in Canada, no family, and no individual whose fortunes and freedom are not bound up in the present struggle. I appeal to my fellow Canadians to unite in a national effort to save from destruction all that makes live itself worth living, and to preserve for future generations those liberties and institutions which others have bequeathed to us.
http://oh.essortment.com/canadaworldwar_rmdk.htm

daswig 02-25-2005 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk
Chamberlain was not Prime Minister in 1936, Baldwin was.

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.

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 02-25-2005 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Your attempted historical revisionism is laughable.

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 02-25-2005 08:22 PM

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 02-26-2005 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 02-26-2005 03:43 AM

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.

daswig 02-26-2005 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

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

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.

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.

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.

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 02-26-2005 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
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.

.


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

Charlatan 02-26-2005 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
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.

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.

silent_jay 02-26-2005 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
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.

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
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...3324328775.gif

james t kirk 02-26-2005 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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..

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
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.

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 02-26-2005 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
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.

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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
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.

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.

Lebell 02-26-2005 01:35 PM

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.

Manx 02-26-2005 02:13 PM

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 02-26-2005 02:36 PM

Quote:

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?
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.

Lebell 02-26-2005 02:39 PM

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchen
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.

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?

Charlatan 02-26-2005 03:08 PM

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

Lebell 02-26-2005 03:13 PM

Quote:

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

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.

alansmithee 02-26-2005 03:33 PM

Quote:

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

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 02-26-2005 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

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?

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

munchen 02-26-2005 08:33 PM

lebell, I think that question may involve too much speculation to be of any weight. I will admit that some reason for our this attitude is because of the US military but I don't think this is the reason. I think we feel that anti war is the best way to stay safe. Tons of organizations around the world want to attack the US and one was successful despite your military might. Why doesn't anyone want to attack Canada? I think our policies are what make us safe because we tend to make friends and not enemies. That is another reason why I don't want to be part of this program. The states has made so many enemies recently I think it could be dangerous for us to associated with your military advancement. We want to show the world that we will are still for peace.

I was thinking about the pro's of this attitude and I came up with a hypothetical question. What if Canada had adapted an american pro military view from the begining of our country? If we had stockpiled weapons and troops from conception. We would definitly have been a threat to you. Would have had wars? if you would have conquered us we might have terrorist factions like the middle east. I doubt we would have had a partnership like we do now and i seriously doubt either of us would have been safer. Peace just always seems like the best option.

Hardknock 02-27-2005 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Becasue it's Bush in office! He's that swagger cowboy from Texas! Can't trust those commies!

pan6467 02-27-2005 02:15 AM

I truly have always wondered and this thread does allow the question..... if Canada is anti-war, why do they have the 3rd strongest navy?

I know this for a fact because a few PO1st's and Chiefs when I was in the US Navy, would say when they retired they were going to join the Canadian Navy as advisers. I thought at first it was a joke until a couple of them told me how the Canadian Navy was very strong.

Just wondering.

daswig 02-27-2005 05:10 AM

post removed by author

retsuki03 02-27-2005 06:38 AM

I respect Canadian's decision, but I don't understand it.

If they really didn't have to pay for anything and just give the US land, then do they really have a reason to oppose it? For a country that is supposed to be a good ally of the US, they don't seem to be acting like it.

My person opinion is that Canada is trying to assert itself as a sovereign nation, rather than being viewed as the 51st state. This coupled with the disdain for Bush and all things military, I am not at all surprised with Canada's decision.

daswig 02-27-2005 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
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.

so you're saying that all of the successful tests were fraudulent? What evidence do you have to base this on?

Quote:

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.
Absolutely. they have a right to say "no, we don't want to participate." And then they have to accept the results of that non-cooperation, whatever that may be. Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences...When certain Canadian politicians say "The US Sucks" or it's equivalent, and then the Canadians start not cooperating on things that make both them and us safer, and when terrorists try to infiltrate the US from Canada with nasty stuff and Canadian Law Enforcement doesn't catch them (like what happened in Seattle prior to Y2K), they shouldn't be surprised when Americans start thinking "Maybe the Canadians are not as friendly to us as we thought they were", and when we therefore start acting accordingly, they have no grounds to be surprised or to complain. Friendship is a two-way street, and America doesn't have an obligation to remain friendly to ANYBODY when they tell us to "piss up a rope."

retsuki03 02-27-2005 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Friendship is a two-way street, and America doesn't have an obligation to remain friendly to ANYBODY when they tell us to "piss up a rope."


What does "piss up a rope" mean?

Like you piss on the rope and it drips down on you? I don't get it. I am from Texas, and we have lots of sayings like that, but I have never heard that one.

Sorry, I know it is off topic.

silent_jay 02-27-2005 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Absolutely. they have a right to say "no, we don't want to participate." And then they have to accept the results of that non-cooperation, whatever that may be. Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences...When certain Canadian politicians say "The US Sucks" or it's equivalent, and then the Canadians start not cooperating on things that make both them and us safer, and when terrorists try to infiltrate the US from Canada with nasty stuff and Canadian Law Enforcement doesn't catch them (like what happened in Seattle prior to Y2K), they shouldn't be surprised when Americans start thinking "Maybe the Canadians are not as friendly to us as we thought they were", and when we therefore start acting accordingly, they have no grounds to be surprised or to complain. Friendship is a two-way street, and America doesn't have an obligation to remain friendly to ANYBODY when they tell us to "piss up a rope."

Not cooperating or not going along with the US? It seems the only time the US has an issue is when a country decides to make up their own minds and soemthing that the people of the country wants, then they take issue with it and decide to do things their way. When has the US tried to remain friendly with a nation? Also when did Canada say "go piss up a rope"? All Canada said was no thank you, we don't want to participate in your missle defence program, which is what the people of this country wanted. I mean whats the big deal with a country making up it's own mind, or is this not allowed in the worlds present political environment.

IC3 02-27-2005 09:13 AM

I seem to remember Bush saying "Either your with us, Or your against us" Not directly at canadians, I guess to any country who doesn't take americas side in what they want to do.

This makes my blood boil
Quote:

The US HAS assumed absolute control over Canadian Airspace, when we deem it necessary.

I have no problem with the US using Canadian airspace to intercept an enemy missile..But what i do have a problem with is, The US being told that Canada is to be in on the decision of anything happening in canadian airspace, I personally feel that canada saying no should be enough of an answer, But i guess not..This is the reply we get from america on our decision.. (Taken from the news article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv.../BNStory/Front/)
Quote:

the American ambassador said the country had given up its right to be involved in any such decision
WTF is that?

Why is it that the leaders of america think that they can do whatever they want wherever they want? Canada has made thier decision and for some reason americas leaders can't accept that..So instead they turn around and say that they will assume control when they deem necessary..How exactly does that work?

Sorry to say but, This kind of attitude is what gives america so many enemies..Canada is looked at as a peacefull country with virtually no military threat directed at us..And this decision on not supporting america's missile defense program keeps our peacefull presence in the eyes of the rest of the world, I would rather live in a peacefull country than in any country that feels threatened by another country.

daswig 02-27-2005 01:41 PM

Post removed by author

jorgelito 02-27-2005 02:11 PM

What I don't understand is, why would Canada allow an "enemies'" missiles or whatever fly through their airpace en route to the US? Isn't that a threat to them as well? Assume the following scenario: North Korea launches missiles at the US via Canadian airspace, we shoot em down (or more realistically, we shoot some of them down say, optimistically 25%). Some missiles land in Montana, a couple malfunction and land on Canadian soil, others cause close calls with various airliners of various registry. Wouldn't Canada be pissed at North Korea?

If the reverse happened: Say Mexico launched misslies at the Canadians via US airspace (ridiculous, I know): Wouldn't we be pissed at Mexico, NOT Canada?

This is silly, we're close, we've been good buddies for a long time. I'm sure we'll resolve the issues.

Sh!t daswig! You beat me to it! (LOL!)

That's a good point: many Canadian population centers are located near American ones:
Seattle-Vancouver, Toronto, etc. So, theoretically, a missile threat to US cities could be a threat to Canadian cities as well (Read: mutual interest). Especially "sloppy" North Korean or Scud types (gives new meaning to , "off by a mile").

daswig 02-27-2005 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito
What I don't understand is, why would Canada allow an "enemies'" missiles or whatever fly through their airpace en route to the US?

The problem comes in because Canada spends a pittance on defense, and will remain incapable of knocking down ICBMs overflying their territory indefinitely. America CANNOT rely on Canada to defend Canadian airspace, because they're simply not up to the task in any meaningful way. What should America do? Allow Canadian unwillingness to defend its airspace in any meaningful way to put the entire US at risk to a nuclear attack? It simply aint gonna happen. Until Canada becomes able to deny their airspace to ICBMs overflying their country, America has an obligation to take up the slack, by whatever means are necessary. And if Canada doesn't like it, well, they can file a complaint with the UN, or invade us if they are so inclined.

Quote:

Wouldn't Canada be pissed at North Korea?
Heh. What's Canada going to do if they are pissed at North Korea? Attack them with harsh language? North Korea's ground forces outnumber Canada's by a factor of more than 10 to 1. Canada's navy is, best-case scenario (in reality, they need US help to defend their shores), barely adequate to defend Canadian waters, they have no ability to project force. how would Canada express it's displeasure with North Korea? Most likely, they'd go to the UN, and the UN would ask the US to help Canada out. Somehow, if Canada refused to let us use their airspace, I doubt America would be receptive.

IC3 02-27-2005 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
It's very simple. If an ICBM or 50 is coming towards the US, and is passing through Canadian airspace, there's no time for the US to consult with the Canadian government to seek permission to shoot the ICBMs down. And the American government has one duty only...to protect AMERICAN lives, even if it means irritating Canada.

Think about it if the situation was reversed, and, say, Mexico wanted to nuke Canada. (I know, it's an unlikely scenario, but that's what hypotheticals are all about) Let's say that Canada had an effective ABM system in place, but the US told Canada that they could not use American airspace to shoot down the incoming missiles. Considering that most large Canadian population centers are close to the US border, that would effectively leave Canada's population unprotected and at great risk of immediately being killed, since there wouldn't be enough of a reaction time for the Canadian ABM system to function properly. That would turn the US into a shield for Canada's enemy to destroy Canada, and that would simply be unacceptable to the Canadian government.

I know what your saying and i agree, Like i said..I have no problem with the whole issue. I just have a problem with america pretty much saying fck you were doing what we want, It just seems when america doesn't get thier way it becomes a problem.

If it actually came down to a situation where there was a missile passing through canadian airspace towards america..I highly doubt Canadian leaders would have anything to say about an american missile intercepting it in canadian airspace.

America always seems to predict when terrorism threats are high and they raise the threat levels, So i would think that if they felt tensions building between them and another powerfull country that poses a threat of missile attacks that they would in a sense be ready for it or atleast expecting something..That's when america would say to canada that the threat level is high and that thier missiles are on stand by.

Quote:

I doubt America would be receptive.
We still got britain, I'm sure they would side with us if it ever came to it..I just don't see any real threat to canada.

daswig 02-27-2005 02:59 PM

Post removed by author

Yakk 02-27-2005 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467
I truly have always wondered and this thread does allow the question..... if Canada is anti-war, why do they have the 3rd strongest navy?

I know this for a fact because a few PO1st's and Chiefs when I was in the US Navy, would say when they retired they were going to join the Canadian Navy as advisers. I thought at first it was a joke until a couple of them told me how the Canadian Navy was very strong.

Just wondering.

Canada had the world's 3rd largest navy as of the end of WW2, mostly because every other navy had been sunk. Well, and we had a huge merchane marine (to ship goods over the atlantic).

I doubt Canada still has the 3rd largest navy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsuki03
I respect Canadian's decision, but I don't understand it.

If they really didn't have to pay for anything and just give the US land, then do they really have a reason to oppose it? For a country that is supposed to be a good ally of the US, they don't seem to be acting like it.

My person opinion is that Canada is trying to assert itself as a sovereign nation, rather than being viewed as the 51st state. This coupled with the disdain for Bush and all things military, I am not at all surprised with Canada's decision.

Because the technology leads to the weaponization of space. Because the star wars program is viewed with distain. Because Canadians are upset with some of the US's foriegn policy decisions. Because it may lead to a new arms race.

I don't nessicarially agree with it, but I understand it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Heh. What's Canada going to do if they are pissed at North Korea? Attack them with harsh language? North Korea's ground forces outnumber Canada's by a factor of more than 10 to 1. Canada's navy is, best-case scenario (in reality, they need US help to defend their shores), barely adequate to defend Canadian waters, they have no ability to project force. how would Canada express it's displeasure with North Korea? Most likely, they'd go to the UN, and the UN would ask the US to help Canada out. Somehow, if Canada refused to let us use their airspace, I doubt America would be receptive.

If we had to, we'd nuke them. More practically, we'd invote NATO mutial defence. If NATO falls apart, it wouldn't take Canada long to build nuclear weapons and retaliate. You do know that Canada know how to build them, we just choose not to out of a point of policy, right?

If that fails, we could invoke conscription. Our economy makes the N.K. economy look tiny -- even with 1/3 of the NK economy devoted to the military, and 1.1% of Canada's, Canada outspends the NK's on military spending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
Britain is a paper kitten (they no longer qualify as a paper tiger) from a military perspective. Remember how touch and go the Faulklands War was?

That war was against a higher technology military than any the US has fought since WW2, wasn't it? Maybe I missed a war...

jorgelito 02-27-2005 04:25 PM

daswig,

My point is that Canada's (hypothetical) anger at us if we defended North American airspace against hypothetical North Korean missile barrage is misdirected: I would think you'd be angry at whomever launched said missiles, not the friend that helped protect you. I think that is retsuki03's question too.

Our posts were near identical so I assume we're thinking along similar lines in this particular case.

RE: Canada's 3rd largest navy. In the given context, I think it may have been a gag on the sailor's part but someone should check with either Jane's or CIA.gov to see naval strengths (I'm too lazy, sorry). I would have thought either UK or France have larger navies or even China (quantitative, not qualitative) than Canada given their own downsizing etc.

Is the missile defense just a bunch of Patriot batteries or is it something else? Maybe Canada has a problem with success rate?

IC3 02-27-2005 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig
We've learned from Von Paulus and the Romanians in WWII. You never, EVER leave your flank defense to an "ally" that's not able to hold up it's end of the deal or carry the weight.

If America was TRULY saying "fuck you, we'll do what we want" to Canada, we'd go ahead and put the bases in Canada without Canadian permission. There are excellent technical reasons why it is far better for the bases to be in Northern Canada instead of the Northern US. We don't do that because we're nice people. But there's a very finite limit to our niceness when people are spitting in our faces. To this point, the US response has basically been "OK, sorry you don't want to play with us, but we're going to play anyway, we'll try to stay out of your way". We haven't come REMOTELY close to being nasty about it, even though it negatively affects our defensive posture.

This is what i am talking about, You state that if america wanted to get nasty they would put thier bases on our land..I don't care that america or any other country is powerfull or poor..I don't see how they can justify doing what they want and disregarding what the other country has to say about what's going on on thier own land..I know that this isn't really an issue, But i'm just going along with what you said.

I don't know if you reffering to us being the ones spitting in your face..That's not what Canada's doing Canada made thier decision based on that we are our own country and not gonna get "bent over"..The way it seems to me is that Canada doesn't want to be seen as a pro war country in any shape or form..Which i am all for it as is alot of canadians.

To my knowledge when it comes to anything war related this is really the only major issue that america & canada don't see eye to eye on..But i trust that if it actually came down to america being invaded, America would want Canada involved and i don't think Canada would back out of a situation like that.

Right now though, Is there any real threat at all of a missile attack on america? Someone already stated that we should put more money into security on the borders and other present threats.

I think the success rate has alot to do with it also..I gotta look into this more.

daswig 02-27-2005 05:26 PM

Post removed by author

SecretMethod70 02-27-2005 06:19 PM

PLEASE, the level of debate in this thread is improving (that's not to say more work at it wouldn't be appreciated), but I'm serious about people using the edit button. There's simply no need for every other person in this thread to make 3-4 posts in a row every time they have a few people or points to respond to. There are occasional instances where it is useful, such as Janey's second post explaining the House of Commons' official vote - that second post is more like an update to the thread itself than to one's own comment and, thus, there is reason behind it standing on its own. That is the only such case in this thread. I've gone through (AGAIN) and compacted these multi-posts (11 this time, 7 from one person alone - you know who you are) some of you have been making (you know who you are), but this is the last time I will be making a general statement about it in this thread. I'm fairly tolerant of such minor issues, but like I said before, the extent to which it is occuring in this thread is simply rediculous.

IC3 02-27-2005 06:38 PM

Quote:

Canada's historic missile snub will have unpredictable consequences: analysts

ALEXANDER PANETTA

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's rejection of missile defence is a historic shift in its relationship with the United States and could have deep unforeseen consequences, analysts warn.

This week's announcement is more significant than Canada's refusal to join fighting in Iraq or Vietnam because, some say, this time the country has rejected a domestic defence plan. One military analyst in Washington says Canada has turned its back on a 67-year-old agreement signed by then-prime minister Mackenzie King and president Franklin Roosevelt to jointly defend North America.

"This is a significant policy change, and it will clearly have consequences," says a briefing paper released Friday by Dwight Mason.

He served for eight years as chairman of the American section of the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defense and was a diplomat in Ottawa.

The first impact, he suggested, will come next year when the Norad agreement comes up for renewal, but it could also have economic consequences as yet unknown.

"The decision to opt out of missile defence is an abandonment of some Canadian sovereignty," he writes.

"This brings the basic partnership policy underlying the U.S.-Canadian defence relationship into question. These developments will have long-term consequences that will take time to be revealed fully."

One immediate consequence could affect Prime Minister Paul Martin's role on the international stage.

If he had any hope the United States would help him create his cherished G-20 group of world leaders, those hopes may have been extinguished permanently.

One U.S. official emitted a deep, extended laugh when asked for an assessment of the prime minister and said Canada no longer qualifies as a trusted ally.

While wary of speaking on the record, the Americans are particularly annoyed with Martin over what they perceive as weak leadership.

They say he expressed support for missile defence, then did nothing to refute misconceptions about it, and finally pulled out when public opinion mushroomed against it.

Most analysts believe the Canada-U.S. trade relationship will continue unhindered because the countries rely heavily on each other's goods and services.

But Canada's refusal to sign on to the missile plan could further marginalize its concerns and interests when trade-related issues like softwood lumber appear before U.S. Congress, said one Calgary observer.

"This is one more issue that goes into the balance scale, one more reason to say, 'Screw Canada,' " said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

"There's a lot of precedent for us not participating (in military operations) overseas.

"To my knowledge, this is the first time we've said no to the United States on what the Americans consider a crucial matter of continental defence."

He said the missile-defence snub was more significant even than the debate over whether to store nuclear-tipped Bomarc missiles on Canadian soil.

Thursday's announcement already has both countries debating some of the consequences.

A defiant Martin declared again Friday that the United States must seek permission before firing any missile over Canadian airspace.

He was responding to warnings that Canada has abdicated sovereignty by refusing to take part in the U.S. project.

The top U.S. envoy to Canada - Ambassador Paul Cellucci - says Canada would be "outside of the room" when his country decides whether to fire at incoming missiles.

But Martin said Friday: "We would expect to be consulted.

"This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission."

Martin repeated Friday that Canada reaffirmed its sovereignty this week with a $12.8-billion investment over five years to help rebuild the military.

But critics said the prime minister is deluding himself if he expects a heads-up. Bercuson said only military officials involved in missile defence would be in on any strike.

"Somebody has obviously not explained to the prime minister how these arrangements work," Bercuson said.

"The reason you put these arrangements in place beforehand . . . is that you don't have to run back to your respective government every time you have to make a decision.

"The White House would be informed that there was a missile launch against North America. It would not be asked for its permission to shoot the missile down."

One Conservative critic openly mocked the idea that Martin would get a phone call.

"What, are (the Americans) phoning a 1-800 number on missile consultation?" said Conservative foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day.

"These missiles are coming in at, you know, four kilometres a second."

But the leader of the NDP said the only delusion is in the minds of people imagining scare scenarios of some potential missile attack.

"These are the kind of hypothetical questions that (George) Bush has tried to create in the minds of people to elevate a sense of fear," said Jack Layton.

"The fact is that if Canada is a part of a program like this, then we become a target."
Link To Article

It's kinda of a lose lose situation for Canada, We said no for the missile defense system and that screws up the relations with america as far as defense goes and maybe even more. If we agreed with it, we would become a target having to rely on america's military to help defend canada..Which isn't a bad thing, But the whole point is..Canada doesn't want to be a target.

I will admit after reading this and other information it opened my eyes more to the whole situation.

Daswig also made a good point which didn't even cross my mind, at first..I didn't know that missile launchers would be placed on Canadian soil..I thought the whole argument was about america shooting thier missile's into Canadian airspace..When in fact if they were placed on Canadian soil as daswig stated, enemy missile's would be intercepted over the ocean and not canada. Which makes more sense to me than shooting them down over Canada if one were to be over Canada.

What about alaska, America is going to place some of these missile defense systems there aren't they? Especially if enemy missile's will be coming from the west..That's kind of a gimme.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360