![]() |
Canada backs out of North American missile defence system
BBC news story
Quote:
I'm interested in knowing precisely why many Canadians are opposed to this. Any Canadians care to speak up? |
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.
|
And it does not work yet....and likely wont for quite some time.
|
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 |
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 |
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.
|
Quote:
Aren't we smug for an pro-war american of prime military age unwilling to enlist in a time of war.;) |
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 |
I'm about one more sarcastic comment from issuing temp bans to each individual starting at mojo peipei and working down.
Stop it now. |
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 |
Quote:
Having said that, I'd rather be a pussy than an asshole. |
Quote:
So does North Korea. And China certainly seems headed in that direction. |
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
Think before you start spewing "I'm an American badass" bullshit. |
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 must say....this is a wonderful Anal-ogy.
And holds quite a bit of truth in my mind. |
Post removed by author
|
Quote:
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:
|
Post removed by author
|
Quote:
IOW, concessions are simply a sign of weakness in their minds. I also don't know what a "Godwin's award" is .... |
Quote:
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:
- 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:
Quote:
Quote:
- 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:
Well there was the 'rap' that Jay and Silent Bob did about the band 'Time'.... that was righteous... Quote:
huh? you are asking what? yoiu're being confrontational. |
Quote:
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. |
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)
|
Quote:
* sigh * it's like listening to the muzak in elevators |
Janey... you know the only system that works is the American Way... anyother system *has* to be problematic.
|
Quote:
Now you're talking! ;) |
hehe... we got us an Archie Bunker here!
|
Quote:
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 |
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! |
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. |
Quote:
Who's canadian? Why would an american care?;) |
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.
|
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. |
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." |
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
He was in a pickle, not like he could count on the French to be of help.
|
Quote:
|
I'm not Canadian, but kudos to Canada for not getting themselves mucked up with the US military plans.
|
Post removed by author
|
Quote:
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:
I've never heard that before, out of curiousity where is it from? |
Post removed by author
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Post removed by author
|
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:
|
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. |
Thanks for the fix, will pay more heed next time. I do keep it civil though.
|
All I have to say is that I am extremely disapointed in the pathetic direction that this thread has taken.
|
|
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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:
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/ |
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.
|
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:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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...
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
not the way we see it, speaking as a Canadian. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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:
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. |
Quote:
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:
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Thanks for the reply.
Regarding this: Quote:
In otherwords, if there was no US, do you think that Canada would spend more on defense? |
Lebell if there was no US what would be there instead? That's the real question... Who would be on our border.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
post removed by author
|
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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:
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:
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. |
Post removed by author
|
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"). |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
|
Post removed by author
|
Quote:
I doubt Canada still has the 3rd largest navy. Quote:
I don't nessicarially agree with it, but I understand it. Quote:
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:
|
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Post removed by author
|
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.
|
Quote:
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