# Canada Says No



## onedomino (Feb 24, 2005)

No Missile Defense for Canada.



> *Canada Says No*
> 
> http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2005/02/canada-says-no.html
> 
> ...


----------



## onedomino (Feb 24, 2005)

Unlike the Globe and Mail editorial writer posted below, only about one-third of the Canadian population thinks that it should protect its cities with Missile Defense. Meanwhile, Martin said that there should be stronger measures used against Iran if it does not give up its pursuit of nukes. Right on, Martin! Surely you are frightening the Iranians out of their wits. Let's pass a very strongly worded UN resolution. 



> *Martin's Missile Fumble*
> Thursday, February 24, 2005 - Page A22
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050224/EMISSILE24/TPComment/Editorials
> ...


see also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4289925.stm
-


----------



## Bonnie (Feb 24, 2005)

Great stuff!  It's laughable and sadening how many give into fear and capitulation over taking action.  I will never understand that state of mind nor do I want to!


----------



## Said1 (Feb 24, 2005)

Bonnie said:
			
		

> Great stuff!  It's laughable and sadening how many give into fear and capitulation over taking action.  I will never understand that state of mind nor do I want to!



Martin said no months ago, unofficially I suppose. There really is only  two options available right now 1. military spending or 2.missle sheild. Canada can't afford both. There is also some inter political appeasment going on too, Martin chose his job, and military spending.

I understand the the strategic imporatance ect, but Canada isn't that rich.


----------



## Said1 (Feb 24, 2005)

> Thursday, February 24, 2005
> 
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) -- Canada will not sign on to the controversial U.S. missile defence program, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew announced Thursday, ending months of political ambiguity.
> ...



More


----------



## Bonnie (Feb 24, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Martin said no months ago, unofficially I suppose. There really is only  two options available right now 1. military spending or 2.missle sheild. Canada can't afford both. There is also some inter political appeasment going on too, Martin chose his job, and military spending.
> 
> I understand the the strategic imporatance ect, but Canada isn't that rich.



What do you think is the more important of the two options?  How would Canada's money be best spent?


----------



## Isaac Brock (Feb 24, 2005)

It's probably a very wise decision from both a political and economic point of view.  Simply put, the missle shield in its current form does not effective work and would cost Canada money that could be (and as of yesterday, has been) diverted to increasing our conventional forces.  In addition, the creation of the US-centric missle shield makes us a tactical target for US-hostile nations, whereas there is minimal threat currently to Canada.  

The US, as an ally of Canada, needs to decide whether it wants Canada to supplement their forces on NATO missions, which are current and active or to respond to an, as of yet, unknown threat from missles.  There isn't the funds in our country to do both.  I can fathom why the US would want to have a shield, but Canada?  What Canada needs militarily is to be able to project a small self-sufficient force internationally so that it can completely undertake its own peacekeeping missions and greater fulfill international and alliance obligations.  Additionally, the money could be spent to improve our already excellent tactical ops/commando units that have been successful backing up NATO in Afghanistan.  To me, this would seem like an option that the US should prefer, given that we can increase our load of NATO missions.

It's a waste of money and certainly a wrong priority for our country.


----------



## onedomino (Feb 24, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Martin said no months ago, unofficially I suppose. There really is only  two options available right now 1. military spending or 2.missle sheild. Canada can't afford both. There is also some inter political appeasment going on too, Martin chose his job, and military spending.
> 
> I understand the the strategic imporatance ect, but Canada isn't that rich.





> a mainly symbolic sign-on, with no risk or cost to this country.


 Said1, the US was not asking Canada for Missile Defense money or investment. It was simply asking Canada to participate in the program. For Canada this would have (but will not now) include(d) Missile Defense component contracts. The rejection of Canadian Missile Defense was not a financial question. Missile Defense has political and military dimensions. Regarding the political aspect of MD, unlike Australia and Japan, Canada did not want to align itself with the US. On the military question, two-thirds of Canadians do not want to protect their cities with MD (see link reference above). Some will say that MD is not perfected. They are correct. But it will eventually function. The DIA claims that North Korea has up to 15 nukes. Soon, if not already, North Korea will have a missile capable of reaching the west coast of North America. With MD, Seattle will be protected and Vancouver will be defenseless. In rejecting MD, Martin was not doing what was best for Canada (there was no need to spend money to get under the shield), he was simply pandering to his leftist political coalition.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Feb 24, 2005)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> .  In addition, the creation of the US-centric missle shield makes us a tactical target for US-hostile nations, whereas there is minimal threat currently to Canada.



Appeasement only works in the short term, dumbass.  How noble of canada to sell out to the islamofascists.  Really.  What a great fucking nation.


----------



## Said1 (Feb 24, 2005)

onedomino said:
			
		

> Said1, the US was not asking Canada for Missile Defense money or investment. It was simply asking Canada to participate in the program. For Canada this would have (but will not now) include(d) Missile Defense component contracts. The rejection of Canadian Missile Defense was not a financial question. Missile Defense has political and military demensions. Regarding the political aspect of MD, unlike Australia and Japan, Canada did not want to align itself with the US. On the military question, two-thirds of Canadians do not want to protect their cities with MD (see link reference above). Some will say that MD is not perfected. They are correct. But it will eventually function. The DIA claims that North Korea has up to 15 nukes. Soon, if not already, North Korea will have a missile capable of reaching the west coast of North America. With MD, Seattle will be protected and Vancouver will be defenseless. In rejecting MD, Martin was not doing what was best for Canada (there was no need to spend money to get under the shield), he was simply pandering to his leftist political coalition.



I'm reading conflicting stories all over the place about cost, so no comment on that for now. As for MD contracts, we'll see.

I've already indicated an understanding of the strategic importance, so there is no debate there, and I've already stated I felt it was both political pressure (appeasment) and cash (although may be wrong about cash). I read the articles, I'm aware of current events around the world and the feelings of other Canadians towards this issue, so what's with the 'tud and the rant?


----------



## MrMarbles (Feb 24, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Appeasement only works in the short term, dumbass.  How noble of canada to sell out to the islamofascists.  Really.  What a great fucking nation.



What are you talking about, Canada is not appeasing anyone, we are doing what is best for our country by not giving into pressure from the US.

Who will strike the US with IBM's? China? Why? They are becoming more capitalistic, and democratic everyday, besides they are getting to rich to bother messing things up.

North Korea? How sure are we that they even have nukes? And the delivery system to do so? Plus, their limited threat would un-doubtedly be only addressed to the US.

Anyone else? Iran? I think it would be easier for them just to smuggle one in, it probably not that hard.

The missile sheild is only going to raise tensions, just like all arms races before it. So for not helping to progress the destructio of the world, Canada is one great country.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Feb 24, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Appeasement only works in the short term, dumbass.  How noble of canada to sell out to the islamofascists.  Really.  What a great fucking nation.



Spending resources wisely is a strength of a healthy nation.  For a person who warms his cockles to the notion of economic growth, I thought you'd understand how this gives a negative cost-benefit to us.

Canada made the right military spending choice choosing people over expensive toys.


----------



## Annie (Feb 24, 2005)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Spending resources wisely is a strength of a healthy nation.  For a person who warms his cockles to the notion of economic growth, I thought you'd understand how this gives a negative cost-benefit to us.
> 
> Canada made the right military spending choice choosing people over expensive toys.



C'mon Issac, the truth of the matter is that Canada should not expend it's resources on defense, after all the US does that already. And certainly not on a 'shield' of which it will be covered, whether they spend the $ or not. 

In other words, your country is able to claim alignment with the Euros on the cheap, without fear of reprisals.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Feb 24, 2005)

onedomino said:
			
		

> Said1, the US was not asking Canada for Missile Defense money or investment. It was simply asking Canada to participate in the program. For Canada this would have (but will not now) include(d) Missile Defense component contracts. The rejection of Canadian Missile Defense was not a financial question. Missile Defense has political and military demensions. Regarding the political aspect of MD, unlike Australia and Japan, Canada did not want to align itself with the US. On the military question, two-thirds of Canadians do not want to protect their cities with MD (see link reference above). Some will say that MD is not perfected. They are correct. But it will eventually function. The DIA claims that North Korea has up to 15 nukes. Soon, if not already, North Korea will have a missile capable of reaching the west coast of North America. With MD, Seattle will be protected and Vancouver will be defenseless. In rejecting MD, Martin was not doing what was best for Canada (there was no need to spend money to get under the shield), he was simply pandering to his leftist political coalition.



That is simply a very optimistic view how little it will cost Canada.  When the US asked Canada to join the JSF program it cost us $150 million just to sit at the table.  End result, Canada wasn't included in the JSF program over spiralling costs.

The timing of the request could not be more ironic.  Currently, there is ressurected bitterness towards the 21 American DEW lines sites (part of the NORAD Cold-war era surveillance shield), which Canada now has to clean up at our own expense (which at last estimates has risen to 180 million).  It's hard not to feel a little shafted in terms of NORAD these days.

However, a new land based ballistic missile program would assuredly require new American bases in the Arctic.  Will we see the same thing happen again?    Can we say for sure that it won't cost us anything?  As a casual critic I see nothing but promises and nothing concrete?  Does it work currently?  No.  Is there a cost timetable.  No.  Where is the incentive?  

Smells more like we're getting burnt.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Feb 24, 2005)

Kathianne said:
			
		

> C'mon Issac, the truth of the matter is that Canada should not expend it's resources on defense, after all the US does that already. And certainly not on a 'shield' of which it will be covered, whether they spend the $ or not.
> 
> In other words, your country is able to claim alignment with the Euros on the cheap, without fear of reprisals.



Well let's put in black and white then.  Your ambassador Cellucci asked for two things from Canada.  Beef up your military and join missile defence.  Rejecting the absurd notion that the missile defence won't cost us money, we have limited resources for two competing proposals.  

As of the new budget, Canada increased its military spending $12.8 billion over 5 years, which compared to our annual budget of about $12 billion, means at about 20% increase in spending.  We're spending money on new troops and craft to be able deploy fast transporting self-sufficient divisions for peacekeeping and NATO commitments.  Does that not satisfy one of the requests?  Of course, it is of very little surprise that the US media doesn't report that.  

Perspective is everything, and the US outlets are not giving it.  Sure sounds a lot more demonizing and much better news bite when Canada rejects their friend again and again.


----------



## Annie (Feb 24, 2005)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> Well let's put in black and white then.  Your ambassador Cellucci asked for two things from Canada.  Beef up your military and join missile defence.  Rejecting the absurd notion that the missile defence won't cost us money, we have limited resources for two competing proposals.
> 
> As of the new budget, Canada increased its military spending $12.8 billion over 5 years, which compared to our annual budget of about $12 billion, means at about 20% increase in spending.  We're spending money on new troops and craft to be able deploy fast transporting self-sufficient divisions for peacekeeping and NATO commitments.  Does that not satisfy one of the requests?  Of course, it is of very little surprise that the US media doesn't report that.
> 
> Perspective is everything, and the US outlets are not giving it.  Sure sounds a lot more demonizing and much better news bite when Canada rejects their friend again and again.



See, we agree.  The US can :demand: bia the likes of Cellucci for Canada to step up and you all can say 'pound sand.' You have spoken.


----------



## onedomino (Feb 25, 2005)

Brock said:
			
		

> As of the new budget, Canada increased its military spending $12.8 billion over 5 years, which compared to our annual budget of about $12 billion, means at about 20% increase in spending.


$2.5 billion per year for five years equals 20 percent growth in military spending? Your military budget is all the way up to $14.5 billion per year! Speak loud and carry a little stick; good policy. Including military operations in Iraq, America spends close to $500 billion per year. $420 billion is next year's budget without Iraq. The US has 9 times the population of Canada, yet it is spending 35 times more money on defense. $14.5 billion is the Canadian commitment to defense? Awesome. You do not want Missile Defense. You fit right in. Neither does two-thirds of the Canadian population. So be it. No Missile Defense for Canada.


----------



## onedomino (Feb 25, 2005)

Former NORAD Deputy Chief, Canadian Lt. Gen. MacDonald, on Canadas rejection of Ballistic Missile Defense:



> February 24, 2005
> *NORAD Role Could Be Altered*
> By Stephen Thorne
> 
> ...





> *Canada Has Given Up Control of its Airspace: US Ambassador *
> 
> http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=eb7a0b0e-c2cc-43a3-b966-9e74f05dacc1
> 
> ...


----------



## Isaac Brock (Feb 25, 2005)

onedomino said:
			
		

> $2.5 billion per year for five years equals 20 percent growth in military spending? Your military budget is all the way up to $14.5 billion per year! Speak loud and carry a little stick; good policy. Including military operations in Iraq, America spends close to $500 billion per year. $420 billion is next year's budget without Iraq. The US has 9 times the population of Canada, yet it is spending 35 times more money on defense. $14.5 billion is the Canadian commitment to defense? Awesome. You do not want Missile Defense. You fit right in. Neither does two-thirds of the Canadian population. So be it. No Missile Defense for Canada.



Might I also remind you that the US spends about ten times more of their budget than any other country, with the notable exception of China and Japan.  Let's not pretend that the US military spending is the normal throughout the world.  If you're going to compare apples, don't get an orange.  

Even if we did spend the extra money on our military, which in many ways i do agree with you, that we should spend more, there are projects where the money would be better spent.  I'd like see Canada have a small air craft carrier, with a modern fleet that could also house marine operations so that Canada could project its military independently as to be of better use to our allies and more responsive in the needs of peacekeeping.

The best missile shield you can build would be to take down Iran and North Korea, but it looks like we're two years too late.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Feb 25, 2005)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> ... so that Canada could project its military independently as to be of better use to our allies and more responsive in the needs of peacekeeping.



Who are your allies again?  The REAL ones.


----------



## Said1 (Feb 25, 2005)

onedomino said:
			
		

> An August 2004 amendment expanded NORADs mission, allowing Canadians at NORAD headquarters to interpret and transfer U.S. satellite and radar data about incoming missiles to officials at the missile defense system, the United States Northern Command.
> The two commands, located side-by-side at Cheyenne Mountain, Col., issued a two-sentence, joint statement Thursday saying Canada's NORAD role has not been "diminished."
> "U.S. Northern Command will have operational control of the GMD system once the president and the U.S. secretary of defense declare a limited operational capability," said the statement.
> The current system employs no ground-based stations on Canadian soil, nor would it necessarily if Canada had signed on, said MacDonald.The current system employs no ground-based stations on Canadian soil, *nor would it necessarily if Canada had signed on*, said MacDonald. (Get that, Brock?)



Seems like it's all about moneyand investing in the development of the program, without Canada having a bigger role within the system itself. Either way, Martin said no months ago, when the system was tested. I think he did it to save his own ass too.


----------



## theim (Feb 25, 2005)

Honsestly, I can't really bring myself to care. I've pretty much written off most of the Canadian govt. as psuedo-European toadies anyways.


----------



## onedomino (Feb 25, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Seems like it's all about money and investing in the development of the program


 Where are you getting this opinion from? It is not about money. Please re-read the above posts by the Canadian press. The lack of required Canadian investment is repeatedly confirmed. *The Canadian rejection of BMD is about pandering to Martin's leftist political coalition.* Please site a source that outlines the required Canadian expenditure for BMD. Also, unlike the Brock misinformation posted above, BMD need not be based on Canadian soil. That was confirmed by Canadas own Lt. Gen. posted above. It seems that BMD disinformation in Canada has been quite effective. Further, Brock said that comparing American and Canadian defense expenditure was like comparing apples and oranges. Since his boast of increased Canadian military spending was put in context by showing that Americans shoulder 350 percent more defense spending per capita than Canadians (see above post), I am not surprised that he descended to fruit analogies.



> *Canada's Historic Missile Snub Will Have Unpredictable Consequences: Analysts*
> Alexander Panetta
> Canadian Press
> February 25, 2005
> ...


----------



## Said1 (Feb 25, 2005)

onedomino said:
			
		

> Where are you getting this opinion from? It is not about money. Please re-read the above posts by the Canadian press. The lack of required Canadian investment is repeatedly confirmed. *The Canadian rejection of BMD is about pandering to Martin's leftist political coalition.* Please site a source that outlines the required Canadian expenditure for BMD. Also, unlike the Brock misinformation posted above, BMD need not be based on Canadian soil. That was confirmed by Canadas own Lt. Gen. posted above. It seems that BMD disinformation in Canada has been quite effective. Further, Brock said that comparing American and Canadian defense expenditure was like comparing apples and oranges. Since his boast of increased Canadian military spending was put in context by showing that Americans shoulder 350 percent more defense spending per capita than Canadians (see above post), I am not surprised that he descended to fruit analogies.



Did you think about what I wrote, or simply react to it?  Show me where I'm condredicting anything you just said. Chill out. :chillpill


----------



## onedomino (Feb 25, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Did you think about what I wrote, or simply react to it?  Show me where I'm condredicting anything you just said. Chill out. :chillpill


I misinterpreted the following sentence? You state that "it's all about money and investment." I assumed, due to the context of the discussion, "it's" referred to the Canadian rejection of BMD.





			
				Said1 said:
			
		

> Seems like it's all about moneyand investing in the development of the program, without Canada having a bigger role within the system itself.


-


----------



## Said1 (Feb 25, 2005)

onedomino said:
			
		

> I misinterpreted the following sentence? You state that "it's all about money and investment." I assumed, due to the context of the discussion, "it's" referred to the Canadian rejection of BMD.-



Yes, you are misinterpreting the sentence. I meant Canada's direct involvement with the program seemed like it was limited to investing a "minimal" amount of money.


----------



## theim (Feb 26, 2005)

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

There's the fighting spirit! Maybe Martin can sign a new defence treaty with Zappo and Spain. It could be the "Don't Be A Target Act". You can fool those tricky terrorist bastards by actually doing what they want, and not defending yourself (even better: you can get someone else to do it for you). It's brilliant!


Martin is deluding himself if he thinks he's actually going to be asked if we can shoot down a missile over Canadian airspace. I still don't understand why this is a bad thing that would actually REQUIRE a phone call. "Hey Mr. Martin. Mind if we save a city from utter annihilation? Form 421-C? I have 421-B filled out....I thought it was the same thing....what the hell do you mean 'plausible deniability'? What's that? Oh yeah I heard it too...too bad, Vancouver was a nice place...yeah, sorry. So I guess uh, that's that...yeah of course the UN will help....well we can try, but you might wanna keep all the prepubescent girls indoors just in ca--....no, I know this isn't-- ....well, yeah but--...Okay, your country I guess. Goodbye."


----------



## onedomino (Feb 26, 2005)

> *McKenna Goes Ballistic Over Decision*
> Don Martin
> National Post
> Saturday, February 26, 2005
> ...





> *U.S. Shoots Down Missile in Test Near Hawaii*
> Last Updated Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:36:44 EST
> CBC News
> 
> ...


-


----------



## onedomino (Mar 1, 2005)

> *U.S. Secretary of State Delays Trip to Ottawa*
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109644964763_26/?hub=TopStories
> ...


-


----------



## HorhayAtAMD (Mar 1, 2005)

One thing I don't understand is why the US would really care? If Canada wasn't expected to provide any money and none of the defense network was going to be on Canadian soil, and Canada wouldn't have the ability to say "I know there is a missile headed for New York but you can't shoot it down over Canadian soil", then how was the offer to be a part of this system anything more than a symbolic gesture anyway? The US certainly wasn't asking for permission. Whether Canada is in or out, there will be absolutely no effect on the system other than the fact that now, the US doesn't need to call us about it when they want to activate it. I guess I'm failing to see why this should cause the anger it seems to be causing.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 1, 2005)

> But here's the cost of saying a symbolic 'yes': Zip. No cash. No land required for missile launch sites. No bureaucracy to supervise the erection of the shield.
> 
> And here are the consequences of saying 'no': The thawing of a troubled relationship is back in the deep freeze, confirming Canada's place in American minds as a northern wimp who won't even join a military umbrella to protect its own air space.



Your obvious hatred towards Canada is very apparent. But let me ask you this, why do you care do much? This affects you how?


----------



## onedomino (Mar 1, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> Your obvious hatred towards Canada is very apparent. But let me ask you this, why do you care do much? This affects you how?


I wondered how long it would take you to make some personal remark. Because I have objected to Canada's abrogation of a tradition of agreements for the common protection of North America that go back 67 years, I have an obvious hatred for Canada? To apply your logic, since Dr. Rice objects to the Canadian BMD decision and canceled a trip to Ottawa, she must have an obvious hatred of Canada. Absurd. This is what I object to: Martin knows that regardless of his decision not to protect Canadian cities against missile attack, America will nevertheless provide that protection. Thus he freeloads on American defense systems while simultaneously pandering to his leftist political coalition. Do you imagine that if a missile is ever fired at a Canadian city that America would simply let it impact? Not pulling their weight in the defense of North America is something that Canadians have gotten away with because it is known that the US will defend North America regardless of their behavior. This is the attitude that has pertained during decades of Canadian military neglect. Canada is the 2nd largest country on the planet and it spends the pathetically small amount of $14.5 billion on defense (that is with the proposed 20 percent increase!). Why? Because Canada knows the US will defend North America regardless of what it spends. Americans shoulder 350 percent more defense spending per capita than do Canadians. Part of the reason for this disparity is that Canadians do not perform their fair share in the defense of North America. Martins cancellation of Canadian participation in continental BMD is cynical and disingenuous because he knows that the US will defend North America regardless of his sniveling with Canadian leftists.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 1, 2005)

onedomino said:
			
		

> I wondered how long it would take you to make some personal remark. Because I have objected to Canada's abrogation of a tradition of agreements for the common protection of North America that go back 67 years, I have an obvious hatred for Canada?



I'm refering to your overall tone, that's all.  Now I'm suspicous since you were wondering how long it would take me make a personal remark, seems like that was your m.o. all along. In any case, pls forgive me for hurting you with such venomous remarks, inspired by the overall impression I recieved from your posts.




> To apply your logic, since Dr. Rice objects to the Canadian BMD decision and canceled a trip to Ottawa, she must have an obvious hatred of Canada. Absurd.



What makes you say that? Now you're just making up nonesense, I was under the impression that you were a little smarter than that. 

As for the rest of what you said, I know, I heard you the first time, and I think I replied at some point in this thread.


----------



## onedomino (Mar 1, 2005)

Thank you for the specious apology. Your interpretation of my "overall tone" is inaccurate and unjustified, unless you think criticism equals "obvious hatred." Most of the remarks in this thread are from the _Canadian press_.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 1, 2005)

onedomino said:
			
		

> Thank you for the specious apology. Your interpretation of my "overall tone" is inaccurate and unjustified, unless you think criticism equals "obvious hatred." Most of the remarks in this thread are from the _Canadian press_.




I think you of all people know I have no problem with criticism of the Canadian government or Canada. I was commenting on your zeal, that was also directed at some of my posts (most of which was in general agreement with a lot of what was said in this thread). How about this, I think you get fired up easy, possibly confusing your intent. Better?


----------



## Merlin1047 (Mar 1, 2005)

This decision by the Canadian government is a puzzler indeed.  I could understand it if the PM believed the missile shield to be an expensive and ineffective waste of resources.  I could understand it if he felt that it would somehow endanger Canada.  But since the US will bear the burden of the price tag and there appears to be no hostile fallout from foreign governments, I can only assume that the PM's recalcitrance on this issue is motivated simply by his desire to thumb his nose at the US.

And that's ok too.  We also have our share of stupid politicians down here.  Okay - so maybe we have more than our share.

But what really puzzles me is that the PM asserts that even though Canada refuses to participate, the US is still obliged to ask Canadian permission prior to launching an interceptor missile through Canadian airspace.  Is this guy on drugs or is he honing his stand-up comedy act?


----------



## Said1 (Mar 1, 2005)

Merlin1047 said:
			
		

> This decision by the Canadian government is a puzzler indeed.  I could understand it if the PM believed the missile shield to be an expensive and ineffective waste of resources.  I could understand it if he felt that it would somehow endanger Canada.  But since the US will bear the burden of the price tag and there appears to be no hostile fallout from foreign governments, I can only assume that the PM's recalcitrance on this issue is motivated simply by his desire to thumb his nose at the US.
> 
> And that's ok too.  We also have our share of stupid politicians down here.  Okay - so maybe we have more than our share.
> 
> But what really puzzles me is that the PM asserts that even though Canada refuses to participate, the US is still obliged to ask Canadian permission prior to launching an interceptor missile through Canadian airspace.  Is this guy on drugs or is he honing his stand-up comedy act?




He obviously sold out, I think the opposition was just too extreme. Harper's conservatives don't appear to care that much one way or another, but the bloc and NDP were adamant, and so was most of Canada.....which would include his own party. 
I don't know enough about the legalities of it, but I'm pretty sure the missile shield violates certain UN resolutions or something (but I would have to look it up, and I don't feel like it right now). If this is the case, we all know Canada won't be going against the UN anytime soon.


----------



## HorhayAtAMD (Mar 1, 2005)

onedomino said:
			
		

> Canada is the 2nd largest country on the planet and it spends the pathetically small amount of $14.5 billion on defense (that is with the proposed 20 percent increase!).


I'm glad you brought up Canada's size because it is actually one thing that COSTS us an incredible amount of money. We have a tiny population trying to support a huge land mass, 70% of which is barely inhabitable but still needs roads, mail service, and government offices. If you said we didn't spend enough on defense, I would agree with you but to suggest that we should spend an amount that is proportional to our geographic size is simply not realistic.


----------



## theim (Mar 1, 2005)

Said1 said:
			
		

> He obviously sold out, I think the opposition was just too extreme. Harper's conservatives don't appear to care that much one way or another, but the bloc and NDP were adamant, and so was most of Canada.....which would include his own party.
> I don't know enough about the legalities of it, but I'm pretty sure the missile shield violates certain UN resolutions or something (but I would have to look it up, and I don't feel like it right now). If this is the case, we all know Canada won't be going against the UN anytime soon.



because the UN is such a benevolent and thoughtful organization that more than merits obediance from every nation on earth.


----------



## Merlin1047 (Mar 2, 2005)

HorhayAtAMD said:
			
		

> I'm glad you brought up Canada's size because it is actually one thing that COSTS us an incredible amount of money. We have a tiny population trying to support a huge land mass, 70% of which is barely inhabitable but still needs roads, mail service, and government offices. If you said we didn't spend enough on defense, I would agree with you but to suggest that we should spend an amount that is proportional to our geographic size is simply not realistic.



Look - how much you spend on defense is your own damn business.  Canadian priorities are up to Canadians to decide.  The same applies to the US.  If we decide to proceed with a missile shield and actually manage to get the thing working, Canadians are going to have to accept the fact that we're not going to ask anybody's permission to do what is necessary to prevent an ICBM from getting to its target.  Hopefully we will do that even if the target happens to be on Canadian soil.  Unless, of course, y'all don't want us to do that.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Mar 3, 2005)

> I wondered how long it would take you to make some personal remark. Because I have objected to Canada's abrogation of a tradition of agreements for the common protection of North America that go back 67 years, I have an obvious hatred for Canada? To apply your logic, since Dr. Rice objects to the Canadian BMD decision and canceled a trip to Ottawa, she must have an obvious hatred of Canada. Absurd. This is what I object to: Martin knows that regardless of his decision not to protect Canadian cities against missile attack, America will nevertheless provide that protection. Thus he freeloads on American defense systems while simultaneously pandering to his leftist political coalition. Do you imagine that if a missile is ever fired at a Canadian city that America would simply let it impact? Not pulling their weight in the defense of North America is something that Canadians have gotten away with because it is known that the US will defend North America regardless of their behavior. This is the attitude that has pertained during decades of Canadian military neglect. Canada is the 2nd largest country on the planet and it spends the pathetically small amount of $14.5 billion on defense (that is with the proposed 20 percent increase!). Why? Because Canada knows the US will defend North America regardless of what it spends. Americans shoulder 350 percent more defense spending per capita than do Canadians. Part of the reason for this disparity is that Canadians do not perform their fair share in the defense of North America. Martins cancellation of Canadian participation in continental BMD is cynical and disingenuous because he knows that the US will defend North America regardless of his sniveling with Canadian leftists.



I greatly wish those who cannot understand Canada's decision to opt out of BMD to cross the border, if not for a few moments.  Despite your idea that BMD will cost us a cloud, experience and economics show us that nothing comes for free as I've previously explained in the relevant case before (Dew Line).  (On a side note, for why you docked me reputation for that, I'll never fathom.)  To those who do, I have a bottle of snake oil that also cures all disease, only shipping and handling!

BMD, is the start of a new arms race.  Given Canada's support of all disarment programs including landmines, biological and nuclear weapons, the concept of a new, potentially destabilizing program does not bode well with Canadians.  However, the US has all rights to make its case to Canada and show us that it is not as we perceive it.  My question is why didn't Dr. Rice or another Sr. US administration official come to Canadian Caucus and Cabinet and make her case for the shield.  Other presidents such as Bill Clinton and most notably Ronald Regan did that, when they asked for support in a foreign policy initiative.  Understand that the only mention of the missile defense programs from the US comes from media and non-senior US adminstrators.

Additionally, the US telling Canada to sign on the BMD comes at a very low point in US-Canada relations.  The speaking points strangely have very little to do with US foreign policy, but rather real domestic policy and trade.  Currently, the US will not open its borders to Canadian cattle as promised on the May 7th openning date.  The US has placed illegal tarrifs (as determined by the Nafta panel) on Canadian softwood lumber.  The US is suing the Canadian Wheat Board for a monopoly at the WTO despite US subsidizing its own farmers.  There are other issues such as PEI potatoes, steel tarrifs, salmon fishing that compound this into an almost full blown trade dispute.

The sum of all this is that Canada is being talked down to from the US administration.  There isn't even dialogue.  Why I certainly cant blame this squarely on the US (Canada's US ambassador bumbled our position and our PM flip-flopped), the fact is that every one's talking, but no one is listening.  I think it's time for a US-Canada summit.  Resolve the trade issues, compromise on foreign policy and get back to the Reagan-Clinton days of US-Canada relations.


----------



## rtwngAvngr (Mar 3, 2005)

Isaac, you're still naive enough to believe that we're not in a world made safe for you by men with guns, THOUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY.  


Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
 We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!


----------



## Isaac Brock (Mar 3, 2005)

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Isaac, you're still naive enough to believe that we're not in a world made safe for you by men with guns, THOUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY.
> 
> 
> Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
> We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!



Well at least now I got my "A Few Good Men"  fill for like... ever.


----------



## Said1 (Mar 3, 2005)

Isaac Brock said:
			
		

> My question is why didn't Dr. Rice or another Sr. US administration official come to Canadian Caucus and Cabinet and make her case for the shield.



I believe this was already done in the fall or early winter.



> Additionally, the US telling Canada to sign on the BMD comes at a very low point in US-Canada relations.  The speaking points strangely have very little to do with US foreign policy, but rather real domestic policy and trade.  Currently, the US will not open its borders to Canadian cattle as promised on the May 7th openning date.  The US has placed illegal tarrifs (as determined by the Nafta panel) on Canadian softwood lumber.  The US is suing the Canadian Wheat Board for a monopoly at the WTO despite US subsidizing its own farmers.  There are other issues such as PEI potatoes, steel tarrifs, salmon fishing that compound this into an almost full blown trade dispute.



Reasoning for most of the above mentioned has already been stated prior to Martin's refusal to sign. I don't think signing would have solved things anytime soon. Proloning matters yes, solving no.

Forgive me for being brief, but I'm in a hurry!


----------



## onedomino (Mar 4, 2005)

http://www.coxandforkum.com/


----------

