Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Row

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

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

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

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

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

Canada agreed in August to allow the joint Canadian-US air defence command to share information with the missile defence programme.
Personally, I think the missile defence system is a GREAT idea. Anything that keeps missles away from where I live is wonderful. Mind you, I've heard reports that the current missile defence technology would fail more than it succeded, but hey, it's a start.

I'm interested in knowing precisely why many Canadians are opposed to this. Any Canadians care to speak up?
__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...
C4 Diesel is offline  
Old 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.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 05:52 PM   #3 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
And it does not work yet....and likely wont for quite some time.
__________________
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
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 05:58 PM   #4 (permalink)
Thats MR. Muffin Face now
 
losthellhound's Avatar
 
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
losthellhound is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 06:23 PM   #5 (permalink)
Crazy
 
munchen's Avatar
 
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
munchen is offline  
Old 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.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 07:23 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
That's great because you are a country of 30 million people, and you don't now, nor have you ever really pulled any weight in geo-political affairs. I don't know why we would ask for logistics from Canada, your military is a joke, plus as far as money goes what you spend on your entire budget is a spit in the ocean to us. To each their own.

Aren't we smug for an pro-war american of prime military age unwilling to enlist in a time of war.
filtherton is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 07:26 PM   #8 (permalink)
Thats MR. Muffin Face now
 
losthellhound's Avatar
 
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
losthellhound is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 07:29 PM   #9 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
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!
Lebell is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 07:31 PM   #10 (permalink)
Crazy
 
munchen's Avatar
 
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..
munchen is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 07:40 PM   #11 (permalink)
Junk
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchen

We just don't get the American love affair with weapons, we don't share it and we don't support it. We like to solve our problems in a more peaceful manner and not with big new expensive weapons
Amen to that. Diplomacy is often seen as soft or of being a pussy. You know instead of talking about problems, why not blow them up.

Having said that, I'd rather be a pussy than an asshole.
__________________
" 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.
OFKU0 is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 08:24 PM   #12 (permalink)
sob
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OFKU0
Amen to that. Diplomacy is often seen as soft or of being a pussy. You know instead of talking about problems, why not blow them up.

Having said that, I'd rather be a pussy than an asshole.
Well, Hitler and Saddam certainly viewed diplomacy as pussyism.

So does North Korea.

And China certainly seems headed in that direction.
sob is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 08:28 PM   #13 (permalink)
Psycho
 
JJRousseau's Avatar
 
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.
JJRousseau is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 08:33 PM   #14 (permalink)
Crazy
 
munchen's Avatar
 
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Quote:
Consider a minority government trying to improve relations with its major trading partner where the balance of power in government held by a right wing pro-military party. Are they really walking away from this project?
This minority government is also trying to stay in power. To do that it has to please the NDP and the Bloc, they dont like star wars.
__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening
munchen is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 08:51 PM   #15 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Troy, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchen
Are we safer now that we have nukes to "protect us"?
Damn straight we are, and I'm no right-wing, I *heart* the military, gun-owner, either. Good example: What do you think has kept India and Pakistan from attacking each other a very long time ago? Hint: neither would survive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OFKUO
Amen to that. Diplomacy is often seen as soft or of being a pussy. You know instead of talking about problems, why not blow them up.

Having said that, I'd rather be a pussy than an asshole.
So, using your terminology, when the "other" assholes doesn't listen to the pussies, I guess the pussies just get shit on, don't they? ...Talking is only useful if someone is listening, and if you don't prepare for the worst, you won't be ready for it.

Just to pose a scenario: Europe, with a few notable exceptions, is pretty much demilitarized, but wants to send weapons to China, a country that's been known to take what it wants by force (read: "Tibet"). So if China wakes up one morning and decides it wants Taiwan (or any random east Asian country), who's gonna stop them? That's right, the country with the giant high-tech military, 'cause that's the only one they might be afraid of. What else could happen to them? Are the pussies going to tell any (potential) aggressors how badly they're behaving?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JJRousseau
There are five or six Canada/US topics running on the forums right now that start with a media quote. It's a good basis for discussion but really, if all we know or think about Canada or the US (or anything!) is based on what we read in the newspaper, we don't know much.
Call me crazy, but isn't the whole idea of a forum to discuss things? That being the case I think we're doing just fine. I don't think anyone is claiming that they obtain the entirety of their knowledge from the news.
__________________
C4 to your door, no beef no more...
C4 Diesel is offline  
Old 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.
Zeld2.0 is offline  
Old 02-23-2005, 09:25 PM   #17 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
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
martinguerre is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 02:36 AM   #18 (permalink)
Republican slayer
 
Hardknock's Avatar
 
Location: WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
That's great because you are a country of 30 million people, and you don't now, nor have you ever really pulled any weight in geo-political affairs. I don't know why we would ask for logistics from Canada, your military is a joke, plus as far as money goes what you spend on your entire budget is a spit in the ocean to us. To each their own.
Which is why they've had a running budget surplus for the last 7 years and we don't.

Think before you start spewing "I'm an American badass" bullshit.
Hardknock is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 03:06 AM   #19 (permalink)
Jarhead
 
whocarz's Avatar
 
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
whocarz is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:16 AM   #20 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
I must say....this is a wonderful Anal-ogy.

And holds quite a bit of truth in my 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
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:34 AM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Post removed by author

Last edited by daswig; 02-28-2005 at 12:42 PM..
daswig is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:49 AM   #22 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sob
Well, Hitler and Saddam certainly viewed diplomacy as pussyism.

So does North Korea.

And China certainly seems headed in that direction.

Hitler's biggest gains were through diplomacy. And diplomacy without any threat is pretty much just grovelling. That is why the earlier claims about Canada's relatively low profile on the global stage are somewhat true (although I wouldn't phrase it so negatively). If they were to approach any situation in a diplomatic fashion, they have no barganing weight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whocarz
I think the monolouge near the end of Team America: World Police is in order: We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes. Assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck a asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate. And it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves. Because pussies are a inch and half away from assholes. I don't know much about this crazy crazy world, but I do know this. If you don't let us fuck this asshole we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit.

Thank you, good night.
I don't think something so true has ever before been said in such a vulgar fashion. Trey Parker should get some sort of Pulitzer for that

Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-25-2005 at 02:02 AM..
alansmithee is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:54 AM   #23 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Post removed by author

Last edited by daswig; 02-28-2005 at 12:42 PM..
daswig is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 06:11 AM   #24 (permalink)
sob
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
c4, that's not quite right. india and pakistan have had both peace before nukes, and war after. it's part of the continuing balance of power....not some magical nuclear peace genie.

and Sob gets a Godwin's award...

Kennedy didn't think diplomacy was for weaklings. Cuban Missle Crisis? Damn well saved the planet from nuclear distaster through a combination of diplomacy and shows of will.

You hold up Chamberlain like he disproves diplomacy forever. It's just so counter-productive.

Edit: Peace in context of India/Pakistan is best understood to mean stand off or truce. I think recent months show the most promise for real peace since partition.
I admit to confusion here. What I meant to point out in my post is that some leaders (this was especially true of the Russians) engage in diplomacy only as a way to gain concessions from the other side. They never GRANT any concessions--upon receiving them from the other party, they simply ask for more, without responding in kind.

IOW, concessions are simply a sign of weakness in their minds.

I also don't know what a "Godwin's award" is ....
sob is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 06:21 AM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Janey's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
That's great because you are a country of 30 million people, and you don't now, nor have you ever really pulled any weight in geo-political affairs. I don't know why we would ask for logistics from Canada, your military is a joke, plus as far as money goes what you spend on your entire budget is a spit in the ocean to us. To each their own.

Wow. Just... wow.

and you wonder why?

holy smokes.

At any rate, the title of this thread is a bit misleading. Canadians are not backing out of the North american missile defence system. The house of commons has YET to vote on it. So there is nothing to back out of YET.

as for why are Canadians against it? isn't it obvious? think back to the Reagan paranoia that was the Star Wars initiative. This is more of the same, throwing good money after bad. the only efective result from this would be the spin off industires in aerospace technologies and job contracts (probably going to the favoured few yet again) which results in jobs for those that can qualify.

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

- i see no real problem with assisting in treaty obligations in the same manner as during the cold war (re - the DEW line, NORAD, NATO ect) but there is no treaty yet. This missle defence is just s pipe dream so far. Yournext pres may put it on the back burner...

Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
We're preparing for war with China. In 20 years, they'll be a HUGE threat to the US. Thanks for selling them missile technology, Bill...
- a facile arguement. China is the the big threat to the world. I agree. But the threat is more in line of the economic tiger that Japan was. I think that focusing on and fostering mutual respect will go a long way. 20 yrs from now is a long time to fester a grudge.



Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
The Germans, Japanese, and several other countries IIRC were all working on an atomic bomb while the US bomb program was a highly guarded secret. As for us being safer, NATO and the Warsaw PAct didn't go after each other in the 1960s because there were too many nukes involved. We're statistically overdue for a major conventional war, because nukes kept an uneasy peace. So yeah, we're safer with nukes than without them. Why do you think so many countries are trying to GET nukes? Because it makes them less safe???
- yes they were afraid. It's a classic mexican standoff argument. Just like the boys in the 'hood, all needing to pack. but in absolute terms, you're incorrect, wer are not safer with nukes than without them. Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle, so we need to be able to control them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Canadians spend squat on their military. American's JROTC program has something like FIVE TIMES the number of people in it that the entire Canadian military has.
- simplistic again: to use your statistics, your JRTOC (whatever that is) is drawn from a population roughly 10 times ours. plus you're comparing apples and oranges.



- I just want to know why you guys get so hot under the collar when somebody doesn't agree with you... It gets very annoying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alansmithee
I don't think something so true has ever before been said in such a vulgar fashion. Trey Parker should get some sort of Pulitzer for that

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

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

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

Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-25-2005 at 02:06 AM..
Janey is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:01 AM   #26 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Kennedy backed his diplomacy up with "the big stick". There's no way Kruschev would have backed down if he didn't think Kennedy was willing to start WWIII right there, right then over the issue at hand.

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

For diplomacy to be effective, your side has to have the ability to assrape the other country in a figurative sense. Otherwise, you're simply begging.
Daswig, you didn't read what i said. I said Kennedy blended shows of will with diplomacy. I said India and Pakistan had had both peace and war before and after nukes.

Sob, Godwins's Law is the idea that the productive discussion is over when someone mentions Hitler. i'm not always an adherant to the idea, but i don't think your example served the debate.

My point is not that diplomacy will always solve problems. It will fail, from time to time. It's the worst option, except for all the other ones...to steal a phrase from Churchill. But to hold up Neville and to say that diplomacy is inheriently bad, weak, ineffective is so logically fallacious and morally dubious...

And so i say to the people insistant on talking about Hitler...you've won yourselves a shiny new Godwin's award.
__________________
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
martinguerre is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:12 AM   #27 (permalink)
NCB
Junkie
 
NCB's Avatar
 
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:
Originally Posted by Christine Stewart, Former Minister of the Environment of Canada
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
NCB is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:13 AM   #28 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Janey's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCB
Somewhere down the road when the kinks of the system are in place, Canada will be changing their tune. Right now, they just don't see the value in it. Plus, they need to spend their money on other more valuable programs, like their debacle of a health care system and sex education (gay sex ed too, of course)

* sigh * it's like listening to the muzak in elevators
Janey is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:35 AM   #29 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
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
Charlatan is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:57 AM   #30 (permalink)
NCB
Junkie
 
NCB's Avatar
 
Location: Tobacco Road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Janey... you know the only system that works is the American Way... anyother system *has* to be problematic.

Now you're talking!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine Stewart, Former Minister of the Environment of Canada
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
NCB is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 08:02 AM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Janey's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
hehe... we got us an Archie Bunker here!
Janey is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 08:07 AM   #32 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Just out of curiosity, what business is that of a Canadian?

It is the business of anyone who is a member of this Forum......period.

This thread is quickly becoming pointless , which is a pity as it started out with relatively healthy discussion......as usual it has been degraded by a select few.
I grow weary of watching this happen.....as this is far from an isolated case. If you indeed hold disdain for another country, understand that we are a multinational forum, and insulting ones home counrty can be as bad as insulting the individual.

Please keep this in Mind
__________________
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
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 09:07 AM   #33 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Janey's Avatar
 
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!
Janey is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 09:49 AM   #34 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Janey's Avatar
 
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.
Janey is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 09:58 AM   #35 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Just out of curiosity, what business is that of a Canadian?
Well, it is ironic for one to chastise canada for benefitting from america's military power without contributing to it while one is benefitting from america's military power without contributing to it.

Who's canadian? Why would an american care?
filtherton is offline  
Old 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.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 10:31 AM   #37 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
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.
raveneye is offline  
Old 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."
Zeld2.0 is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 11:40 AM   #39 (permalink)
Her Jay
 
silent_jay's Avatar
 
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
silent_jay is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 01:23 PM   #40 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Canada is becoming more and more demilitarized (much like it's European counterparts), plus as far as military budgets they probably couldn't afford to do it anyways.
The military just got it's budget doubled yesterday in the budget, albeit over 5 years.

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

He was nobody's fool. He knew there was going to be a war, but he also knew that Britain was in no position to fight and win that war. Under old Neville Britain had the biggest military build up in her history.

Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-25-2005 at 02:07 AM..
james t kirk is offline  
 

Tags
american, backs, canada, defence, missile, north, system

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:26 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

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