02-23-2005, 05:39 PM | #1 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Troy, NY
|
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?
__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more... |
|
02-23-2005, 05:45 PM | #2 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
Canada is becoming more and more demilitarized (much like it's European counterparts), plus as far as military budgets they probably couldn't afford to do it anyways.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
02-23-2005, 05:58 PM | #4 (permalink) |
Thats MR. Muffin Face now
Location: Everywhere work sends me
|
Thank god..
Its good to know that my taxes won't go to pay for the pipe dream that is "star wars". All evidence points to the entire system being uesless in shooting down missiles, useless because no one is aiming missiles at us anyways, and against the spirit of non proliferation on the whole Thank you Mr. Martin
__________________
"Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death |
02-23-2005, 06:23 PM | #5 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
|
Actually Canada's involment would be considered minimal at best. They would not have to pay for any it. I just saw an interview on the CBC with the US ambassador to Canada stating that all they wanted is canadian input on how it should be handled. They wanted a canadian in on the decision making process. I have heard repeatedly that the US is not asking for money. We would never give it to them anyway. I've found it hard to get any facts on what they really want from us.
As for me I think the whole process is absolutly ridiculous. Any professional interview i've seen says that either it will never work or that the highest sucess rate possible would 50%, so attackers would just need to fire twice as many missles. The cost will be ridiculously high, to high to make it worthwhile. There is alot of argument that the risk of airborne missles is minimal at best. Most of the threat would be through bombs being snuck in on the ground or by water and not by air, or through creative threats like 9/11. Also do we want this technology perfected? once we have it other countries will feel they have to get it or create weapons to beat it and the arms race takes off. If we never invented nukes iran or north korea wouldn't have them now. Are we safer now that we have nukes to "protect us"? I think many Canadians and myself included beleive that we should not be putting so much money and effort into more weaponization and put effort in other places where it is has more need and would be better utilized. We just don't get the American love affair with weapons, we don't share it and we don't support it. We like to solve our problems in a more peaceful manner and not with big new expensive weapons
__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening |
02-23-2005, 06:34 PM | #6 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
That's great because you are a country of 30 million people, and you don't now, nor have you ever really pulled any weight in geo-political affairs. I don't know why we would ask for logistics from Canada, your military is a joke, plus as far as money goes what you spend on your entire budget is a spit in the ocean to us. To each their own.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
02-23-2005, 07:23 PM | #7 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
Aren't we smug for an pro-war american of prime military age unwilling to enlist in a time of war. |
|
02-23-2005, 07:26 PM | #8 (permalink) |
Thats MR. Muffin Face now
Location: Everywhere work sends me
|
Our involvement would be based on land. Places to put the system, to test the system... Same as Cruise missiles in the praries, and NORAD systems at the dew line
As for Mojo_PeiPei, I won't be goaded by trolls into a flame war
__________________
"Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death |
02-23-2005, 07:29 PM | #9 (permalink) |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
I'm about one more sarcastic comment from issuing temp bans to each individual starting at mojo peipei and working down.
Stop it now.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
02-23-2005, 07:31 PM | #10 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
|
Edit: rewording post
It's just that Canadians have a different view of the military than the American society in general. We have a small military, but thats how we like it. We would just rather spend our money and resources on other things. I realise that part of this complacency is because of your military strength, and this is probably the only reason we went into afghanistan. We're just not a nation big on military force and we don't like following this type of policy
__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening Last edited by munchen; 02-23-2005 at 07:44 PM.. |
02-23-2005, 07:40 PM | #11 (permalink) | |
Junk
|
Quote:
Having said that, I'd rather be a pussy than an asshole.
__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard. |
|
02-23-2005, 08:24 PM | #12 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
So does North Korea. And China certainly seems headed in that direction. |
|
02-23-2005, 08:28 PM | #13 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: Vancouver, Canada
|
There are five or six Canada/US topics running on the forums right now that start with a media quote. It's a good basis for discussion but really, if all we know or think about Canada or the US (or anything!) is based on what we read in the newspaper, we don't know much.
I think this is another example where there is a lot more to the story. Consider a minority government trying to improve relations with its major trading partner where the balance of power in government held by a right wing pro-military party. Are they really walking away from this project?
__________________
Take from the philosopher the pleasure of being heard and his desire for knowledge ceases. |
02-23-2005, 08:33 PM | #14 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
|
Quote:
__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening |
|
02-23-2005, 08:51 PM | #15 (permalink) | |||
Crazy
Location: Troy, NY
|
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:
__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more... |
|||
02-23-2005, 09:18 PM | #16 (permalink) |
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
Location: Los Angeles
|
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.
|
02-23-2005, 09:25 PM | #17 (permalink) |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
c4, that's not quite right. india and pakistan have had both peace before nukes, and war after. it's part of the continuing balance of power....not some magical nuclear peace genie.
and Sob gets a Godwin's award... Kennedy didn't think diplomacy was for weaklings. Cuban Missle Crisis? Damn well saved the planet from nuclear distaster through a combination of diplomacy and shows of will. You hold up Chamberlain like he disproves diplomacy forever. It's just so counter-productive. Edit: Peace in context of India/Pakistan is best understood to mean stand off or truce. I think recent months show the most promise for real peace since partition.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
02-24-2005, 02:36 AM | #18 (permalink) | |
Republican slayer
Location: WA
|
Quote:
Think before you start spewing "I'm an American badass" bullshit. |
|
02-24-2005, 03:06 AM | #19 (permalink) |
Jarhead
Location: Colorado
|
I think the monolouge near the end of Team America: World Police is in order: We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes. Assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck a asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate. And it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves. Because pussies are a inch and half away from assholes. I don't know much about this crazy crazy world, but I do know this. If you don't let us fuck this asshole we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit.
Thank you, good night.
__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly |
02-24-2005, 05:49 AM | #22 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
|
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:
Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-25-2005 at 02:02 AM.. |
||
02-24-2005, 06:11 AM | #24 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
IOW, concessions are simply a sign of weakness in their minds. I also don't know what a "Godwin's award" is .... |
|
02-24-2005, 06:21 AM | #25 (permalink) | |||||||
Junkie
Location: Toronto
|
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. Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-25-2005 at 02:06 AM.. |
|||||||
02-24-2005, 07:01 AM | #26 (permalink) | |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
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.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 |
|
02-24-2005, 07:12 AM | #27 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Tobacco Road
|
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:
|
|
02-24-2005, 07:13 AM | #28 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Toronto
|
Quote:
* sigh * it's like listening to the muzak in elevators |
|
02-24-2005, 07:35 AM | #29 (permalink) |
Getting it.
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
|
Janey... you know the only system that works is the American Way... anyother system *has* to be problematic.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke |
02-24-2005, 07:57 AM | #30 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Tobacco Road
|
Quote:
Now you're talking!
__________________
Quote:
|
||
02-24-2005, 08:07 AM | #32 (permalink) | |
Illusionary
|
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
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha |
|
02-24-2005, 09:07 AM | #33 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Toronto
|
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! |
02-24-2005, 09:49 AM | #34 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Toronto
|
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. |
02-24-2005, 09:58 AM | #35 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
Who's canadian? Why would an american care? |
|
02-24-2005, 10:10 AM | #36 (permalink) |
Kiss of Death
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
|
Sorry about my harsh words. But I felt that in regards to the post I was responding too, I had to sort of yell or be forcefel with my words, only way to get the attention of someone talking down on my country.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. |
02-24-2005, 10:31 AM | #37 (permalink) |
Born Against
|
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. |
02-24-2005, 11:17 AM | #38 (permalink) |
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
Location: Los Angeles
|
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." |
02-24-2005, 11:40 AM | #39 (permalink) |
Her Jay
Location: Ontario for now....
|
I'm not a huge Martin fan by any means, but the man is starting to change my opinion of him, first same sex marriage and now this, there just might be hope for Mr. Martin after all.
__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder |
02-24-2005, 01:23 PM | #40 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: Toronto
|
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. Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-25-2005 at 02:07 AM.. |
||
Tags |
american, backs, canada, defence, missile, north, system |
|
|