Black Dog

Boy: how could Canadians not embrace this positive agenda? 'fes sup: was the original campaign slogan going to be "Stand up for Canada, you fucking morons!" until cooler heads prevailed? You CPC types need to get a handle on your own contradictions. Either Canadians are easily-swayed idiots, or they are smart, savvy people who don't need big government telling them what to do and how to spend their money. Depicting them as the former (as no less than three Con supporters here have done) really blunts your outrage over "beer and popcorn"-type sentiments.

Word. It's one of the fundamental tenants of victimhood conservatism that they would visit the same injustice on their opponents that they themselves claim to have been subjected. How can you explain, for example, the total silence of the right over the routine denunciation of war opponents as terrorists and traitors (such as Chris Matthew's statement that Osama bin Laden "sounds like Michael Moore") versus the howls of outrage over the MoveOn.org ads depicting Bush as Hitler (ads, it should be noted, that never ran)? It's becasuse modern American conservatism isn't a principled ideology, but an authoritarian system of values that prizes winning (read: power) above all else and under which no amount of slander, fearmongering, crudeness, hatred, violence and cruelty is off limits. They can dish it out, but they sure can't take it.

It's interesting, this right-wing embrace of the culture of victimhood they once claimed to despise. It's astonishing, too, given the political climate, that any reasonable people still buy their horsepuckey. Whether its this here whinging about the alleged media double standard, or railing against the "War on Christmas", voicing opposition to feminisim or affirmative action, or any other pet "conservative" cause, the argument is always based on outrage and expressed in the tone of a child sent to bed without his supper. Basicaly I have to wonder: when did conservatives turn ino a bunch of crybaby whiners who just want their daddy?

This sounds about as credible as the scheme to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch.

I think I'd be able to agree to disagree if I felt like you've seriously attempted to make a case. But you take for granted some basic assumptions that aren't neccesarily true (see below), which colour your whole argument. But we also are a nation with a a smaller economy, smaller military and smaller population, which means our defense needs are not going to be the same as the U.S.'s. Furthermore, none of the rhethoric has convinced me that even people who believe Canada should be part of BMD think our role would be an equal one or even substantive. That's a few big assumptions, none of which neccesarily point to missile defnse having any value. Terrorism is an issue for many countries, but its not one that can be addressed by a program like BMD. Similarily, the need to coordinate our defence with the U.S. does not mean we have to participate in everythin the U.S. does. As I said, our needs are different and it just doesn't make sense to be part of something that does not fall in line with our own priorities. . The ay I see it, if you can't explain why participation is necessary on principle (for exaple, what Canadian needs are being met), there's no way you'll even get to the part where you have to defend the program on its own (dubious) merits.

As I showed above, right-wingers do that kind of thing all the time(the "plantation" meme in particular seems to be a perennial Republican favorite), so this sudden outpoouring of self-righteousness rings pretty hollow.

BMD is not being billed as a counter to a massive nuclear strike. It's designed to deal with small-scale attacks from "rogues" or accidental launches. BMD would be useless in the event of a large scale nuclear exchange. And you know this how? So basically, you're saying Canada's participation in BMD has absolutely nothing to do witrh the program and is simply an exercise in prostration before the U.S. If that's the goal, there's better ways to mend fences than by taking part in a ill-concieved project with no tangible benefits to Canada. Goody! Maybe we'll gat a pat on the head and a biscuit too!

Apparently not: townhall.com NRO WSJ Rush Newsmax Washington Times The difference is when Republicans talk about the "plantation" they are specifically talking about race, claiming that the Democrats are using Black and Hispanic Americans. Clinton was talking about the Republican leadership treating its own caucus like slaves, which is not rascist. So the subject here should be "CONSERVATIVE DISTORTIONS".

You're just begging the question. "Canada needs to have a seat at the table because we need a seat at the table" doesn't answer the question of whether BMD is a good idea on principle, nor does it explain why this seat would be beneficial. If the answer to the former question is "no" then having a seat at the table (grrrr) is meaningless anyway. It's telling that's the most substantial argument anyone can come up with.

Can you tell me what possible beneift ther eis to having that information? We already know two things about this program: 1) it doesn't work and (2) it's designed to counter a threat that doesn't exisit. What else is there?

How come not a single suporter of BMD has addressed any of my points on the level of threat presented by "rogue" states (hint: it's zero)? So why missile defense? Well, it's inevitable that the Americans will continue to throw good money after bad into this pointless project. Our following suit is still up in the air. No that's not the question. The question is "Does Canada need missile defense?" I've yet to hear a good reason why we do.

Not really. It's just rhetoric. I simply can't see Quebec existing as a truly soveriegn nation. And they know it.

Funny, all this time I thought Shawinigan was in Quebec. Not these chestnuts again. Strangely enough, the bigest terror-sponsoring states are ones the U.S. remains on friendly terms with. YankAbroad: What makes you think the "prize" wasn't Iraq all along?

You also realize that the missile defense system is designed to intercept targets in the mid-course phase of flight when they are outside of the atmosphere? So if they pick up a warhead over Quebec inbound for the U.S.A, they won't have time to do much more than kiss their asses goodbye. (Another interesting BMD fact: the system is designed to operate on a "hit-to-kill" basis, meaning the interceptors don't explode, but destroy the targets through the force of kinetic energy, pulverizing the missile and sending its remains to burn up on re-entry. Of course, there's been no testing of the system under realistic conditions, even against a single missile unequipped with countermeasures.)

I'll stop you right at that last point above. Quebec's separation will not be quick. A soverignist referendum win will only be the begginning of a long, drawn out and ugly process of haggling, cajoling, threatining and horse-trading. My gut tells me that Quebec would use such a win to milk as many concessions out of the federal government and the R.O.C. as they can, which I'm pretty sure has been the goal all along.

Good article here on why there's been precious little action on Iran: Blame the neo-cons for Iran stand-off The bit about Iran and oil is also worth noting. In the event of an attack on their nuclear facilities, Iran could turn off the taps to the west.

I'll even use it in a sentence: "Dose is very little, and it also has very little in the way of content." Feh. I loathe Dose. I see it as little more than a vanity project for Paul Godfrey's boy and another big media assault on Canada's independent press. Rant over.

You had me right up to this bit. "My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!" Geez. I haven't heard an anti-metric rant since I was in short pants. Well, the adoption of the Maple Leaf preceded patriation by a good 20 years. And the Queen still appoints the GG based on the PM's advice, as it has always been.

Ya do know that DOSE is a CanWestGlobal property, right? So it's "little" only in terms of its physical size and the quality of content.

And to your assertion that a NDP is wasted vote; this is typical of Conservative and Liberal's scare tactics to stop people from voting NDP. I believe that the NDP is a best alternative to the corrupt Liberals and the right wing agenda of the Conservatives I suppose, technically, since parties get $1.75 for every vote they receive, no vote is truly wasted. But in terms of representation, every ballot cast for the second or third lace canduidate is wasted thanks to our electoral system, which ensures that even "majority"governments represent a minority of voters. But I digresss.

The real scandal here is that Harper isn't from Alberta at all, but a born and bred Torontonian. I am shocked and appalled that Hargove would lay responsibility for Harper at Alberta's doorstep.

Do you think our "having a seat at the table" (whatever that means) would affect that decision? Not bloody likely. Fortunately, the chances of us being confronted with such a situation are beyond slim.

Key word "should teh BMD system work". Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I don't think it's in the best interets of the people building the thing not to make it work. Continued failure means mor etrips to the4 drawing board, which means higher costs, which means more money, which means fatter bottom lines for the contracters. And really, it's highly unlikely the thing will ever be used in a real-world scenario, so the game can continue indefinitely, or until someone wises up to the scam and kills the project (a highly unlikely scenario in a state where military contracters and political leadership enjoy a symbiotic relationship). That would make sense if there were bombs dropping on our heads, or even the faintest threat of bombs dropping on our heads. But there ain't and there isn't. The amount of effort we put into defending ourselves from "rogue" nuclear states should be slightly more than preparations for a large scale Martian invasion. But not much more.

First: that doesn't make us a participant, it makes us a bystander. Second: given that missile defense is only designed to counter small-scale nuclear attacks (ie. one's launched from "rogue states") and given the inescapable fact that no such state has the ability to launch such an attack, the point that the U.S. would be blowing up missiles over Canada is moot. Put another way: the only way missile defense makes sense is if they get it to work, if a "rogue" develps both nuclear capability and long range delivery systems, if that "rogue" is underrable through traditional means and if that same rogue is willing to invite total destruction upon itself by atacking the U.S. The chances of all those variables (and others that I haven't mentioned) coming together and making missile defense a valid poroposal are slim to nil. Any discussion about the specific pros and cons of Canadian participation that fails to take into account the fundamentally flawed nature of the BMD program is simply an academic exercise. Frankly, wondering about the what would happpen in the event of a hyopthetical interception of a hypothetical missile over Canadian airspace (hypothetically) is about as relevant as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I don't accept the argumenty that not taking part in BMD is letting the Americans decide our defense for us for the reasons above. At the end of the day, I see allowing the Americans to do what they please (by pumping billions into a program with no demonstratable benefit) a far less grave threat to our soverignty than dancing to their tune on this issue.

Well, gee a majority government in Canada can ramrod anything it wants through Parliment, which really turns the whole process of garnering approval from the people's representatives into nothing more than political kabuki. Obviously, that's not new, but what is new (welll, new-ish) is the amount of pressure we can expect from our southern neighbours to join in on whatever venture they deem important. Also new would be the degree of compliance we can expect from our next probable government. I'm trying to make the distinction between the rhetoric from the reality. For example, I've noticed many advocates of increased military spending also tend to bemoan the fact Canada did not participate in the invasion of Iraq, something we were unable to do because of our apparent diminished capabilities. That's an example of a situation where a bolstered military would not be used for Canada's national defense. I would expect other examples of that should certain parties gain power. Any clearer? Notwihstanding the inconsistency above (if we're a de facto participant, we would already have a say, n'est pas?)Again, "having a seat at the table" (and, Lord how I am starting to loathe that expression) is not an end unto itself. Again: how is it a loss of sovereignty to not participate in a program that doesn't concern us and over which we will have no say even if we do participate? Most importantly: what benefit is there to Canada?