Black Dog

I'm sure there's serious examinations on the state of Canda-US relations available. You'll not find them in the pages of FrontPage. But if it's faulty logic and straw men aplenty, Horowitz's rag is for you!

Do you dispute that there is a tendancy for Americans to rally around their political institutions and military during times of crisis and uncertainty? How many times have you heard the sentiment that one cannot question the president (hell, I remember Dan "Liberal media" Rather himself standing up after 9-11 and peratically swearing an oath of fealty to George Dubya on national TV.) Canadians seem to have a greater distrust of their political isntitutions. Yeah we vote Liberal, but grudgingly. We like griping about politicians. And when it comes to the military, we're proud of what our soldiers do, but don't understand America's fetish-like adulation for all things military (I personally think it reeks of fascism). Just to clarify: who has no choice? If its the troops you'r etalking about, they do have a choice: don't join up. If it's th epublic, well, a democracy (which, I'm told the U.S. considers itself) is suppossed to tolerate a range of views and not mandate on specific one. I (andI'm certain many Canadians too) find the idea of unquestioned support for anything (especially the military) very, very creepy.

How does one define "hate" in this instance? Hell, how do you even define "ant-iAmericanism"? Is it bigger than a bread box? Americans certainly have cultural traits I either don't understand or outright disdain. I certainly question the intelligence of at least 60,608,582 American citizens and I'm not sure about the rest sometimes. But I've met plenty of Americans, am related to quite a few and find them, as individuals, much like us. Sometimes it's difficult to seperate individuals from the whole. Many Canadians don't like the U.S.'s political leadership, policies etc., but it's a stretch to say that anyone "hates Americans".

You missed the point: it has worked. If those principles were abandoned, we'd be talking about dozens of nuclear powers today, not a handful. Obviously. That's not the point, though, since (by your own admission) BMD isn't designed to defend against a Russia or China. And in the context of BMD: so what? New developments by current nuclear threats will continue to be deterred. If anything, BMD will only encourage more weapons development as countries like Russia and China will work to counter the precieved advantage BMD would give the U.S. (Russia is already working on a warhead that can dodge interceptor missiles). No one wants to give anyone else an edge and BMD is fuel to that fire. Saddam made a number of miscalculations. For one thing, he still didn't think the U.S. would follow through and felt he could negotiate a partial withdrawl that would allow him to keep some of Kuwait's oil fields. So he miscalculated and underestimated American interest in their oil-rich ally. A strategic blunder but not, in the end, a fatal one. (At that point the U.S. still needed Saddam in Iraq). It's difficult to see, however, how anyone could interpret a nuclear attack as an action without serious consequenses. Soviet reasoning was twofold — first, to defend this newly Communist Cuba from an invasion, and second, to shift the nuclear balance of power away from the U.S. by putting American cities directly within the range of Soviet missiles. Again, the pertinent fact is that faced with an outcome which, in Kennedy's words, "even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth", they backed down, proving the ultimate value of nuclear deterrence.

Yeah, that's why we reject all things American. Canadians don't watch American TV or movies, burn American books and refuse to shop at American franchises like Starbucks and McDonald's. We certainly wouldn't dream of doing business with them either. In fact, most Canadian exports are actually dumped into the ocean so as not to fall into American hands. American tourists are harrassed and occassionally "dissapeared" into forced labour camps in the Yukon where they toil night and day in secret sweatshops making Roots paraphanalia. This hatred has manifested itself throughout history, starting with our refusal to allow Loyalists to enter Canada after the American revolution, as they were deemed "too American" for our tastes. Later, we started an "aboveground railroad" to ship escaped slaves back to servitude in the States. And who can forget the period during the '60s whern Canada shipped U.S. war resitsors directly to North Vietnamese prison camps. Oh, and I nearly forgot about when Canada sent CF-18s up to shoot down American jetliners over Newfoundland after 9-11. A fine day for anti-Americanism that was! Yes, we hate Americans: their humility, their open-mindedness, their willingness to accept other cultures, their total lack of patriotism, their peacenik ways, and their cultural sophistication. We envy their European style social programs, their small but efficient military, their highbrow political discourse and their articulate and intelligent political leadership.

Since 1968, only two, possibly three, "new" nuclear powers have emerged. Meanwhile, Libya, Iraq, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina have all abandoned their nuclear aspirations. Your reply was misleading because it included countries that already had long range missile capability. In other words, there are no new missile threats. This is admittly false, the United States developed the MGM-134A Midgetman through the early 90s and the Russians recently admitted to a new weapons program........to say nothing about the other countires programs that I provided proof to. Nice selective editing, but the actual quote was In other words no one has long range missile capability that didn't already have it before. Where did I say that? The U.S.'s stock of ICBMs is the biggest detrrent to any country that would challenge them on a nuclear battlefield. Cop out. History and logic says they wouldn't. Oh really? Can you give an example of such? I can think of one off the bat: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Only thing is, Iraq believed that he U.S. would not intervene based on comments the American ambassador made to Saddam Hussein. So in that sense, invading Kuwait was not an illogical or irrational move. Let's go back in the day: the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviet Union challenged the U.S. on its very doorstep They knew they could push he U.S., but eventually backed off when the threat of mutual destruction became too great. Diplomacy and the threat of nuclear war won the day. In fact I have a hard time thinking of any examples where someone has threatened U.S. interests where they thouht they couldn't get away with it. That's pretty logical. So, nuclear deterrence has worked, "no matter what country we're talking about, no matter what kind of government the country has, no matter what kind of ruler the country has had." Your expectation that a despotic or tyrranical regime would abandon all semblence of rationality and self preservation just for kicks is defies both history and human nature.

Actually it has. Diplomacy has resulted in significant reductions in the number of nukes world wide. Please. Your proof was a list of three NPT nations that were already known to have long-range missile capability. I've posted this before. The declining ballistic missile threat I answered your question. It's one word: deterrence. So? Doesn't mean they'll use them. Yes it is. It's called deterrence. It worked throughout the Cold War and it will continue to work. Here's a question for you: if, as you concede, any attack on North America would be met with overwhelming force, why would any nation attack North America?

That still doesn't mean missiles would be any more of a threat. Any nuclear attack on the U.S. would be met with an overwhelming response. That simple fact has kept North America safe for 60 years and will continue to work into the future. There is every reason to believe that currwent and future threats can be addressed through diplomacy and measured military preparedness.

Yawn. I would certainly take issue with characterizing the Elightenment ideals of democracy, equality and frredom (inasmuch as these words have been debased) as American inventions. Ah nothing like building your argument around a premise and then refusing to accept challenges to said premise. A sure winner everytime.

So? Even if these countries actually develop into a threat, I don't see missile defence as being necessary as the threat of nuclear annihalation has always proven to be a successful detrrent. Diplomacy and containment are a better way to address the problem of proliferation than a system that doesn't even work. Everything I've read on the system indicates its designed to counter land based missiles. given that the system is designed to target missiles during the boost phase, I simply surmised that the system doesn't have the reaction time to deploy against a close-range threat. According to Theodore A. Postol, a professor of science, technology, and national-security policy at the MIT , a former Defense Department consultant and missile-defense critic: The raw numbers. There's fewer long-range missiles and fewer countries developing ballistic missiles today than 20 years ago. The unspoken part of the the question being "if they don't intend to use them?" Well, let's look at Israel, a country who's had anuclear program for decades and who's nuclear arsenal numbers 75-130 weapons. Yet despite being faced with hostile neighbours (neighbours who lack nuclear capability), it has yet to use its weapons. Why? Because they are a deterrent. The logic is: push them far enouh and they will retaliate with nukes. But it's unlikely they would use them as an offensive weapon. Similarily, Iran and North Korea want a means of deterring their enemies. I mean really: how would you react if you knew the most powerful nation on earth has put you on its hit list? Actually BMD was hatched by the Republicans under Bush 1. Even if a Dem were in the White House, it would still be a bad idea, but the Bush doctrine adds a new dimension, giving the U.S. the capability to strike against nuclear powers without fear of reprisal (assuming the system ever actually works). That's an angle that I'm sure has been discussed, but I don't believe it to be the primary raison d'etre of BMD. I also think the government's been doing rather poorly in preparing us for the possibility of inavsion by subterranian mole-people. But then, mole people aren't really a threat, just as ICBM's aren't much of a threat. Well the simple numbers, as I stated above. Every realistic assessment of the missile threat says that, while there is a possibility of more countries developing ballistic missiles, the likelihood of North Ameria or even Europe being targetted is very small. That's enough reason for me to rank missile defense as a low priority. Why? Just because the Yanks cook up some cockamamie scheme, we're obliged to hear it out? Jesus Christ, if they wanted to build a giant laser in the Yukon to defend against incoming asteroids (hey, you must've seen "Armageddon" or at least "Deep Impact"), should we be all ears, even though the probability of an asteroid hitting the earth is miniscule? I say, if they want to sink more money into the black hole of BMD, that's their problem. Canada needs to call a spade a spade and tell them to take a hike.

A UN operation that the US oppossed and handicapped (f'r instance, by refusing to jam radio broadcasts inciting the violence) Nobody but the U.S. considers it genocide. It's a deplorable situation fo rsure, but the U.S. is making a fuss because they want the curent regime out. It has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns. So the US won't stand up to anyone who's not a third-rate pisspot, dirt poor backwater? ooh..tough guys! You clearly know nothing of Chechnya. Or how about the fallujans living in tents and makeshift camps because they have no homes to go to? How about the children who's parents were gunned down as they drove past a U.S. patrol? Or the mothers of children born deformed from exposure to depeleted uranium. Ah yes, another shining victory for democracy, that. Money which funds paramilitary death squads that make the country safe from unions, indiginous persons and anyone else who gets in the way of Occidental Petroleum and the CIA's drug business. There's more going on in the world than what you see on Fox, boy.

Not really. Both North Korea and Iran (the two big BMD boogeymen) have been working on developing long-range missile capabilities for more than a decade. Neither one has gotten very far, Now you're talking alternate delivery (ie. SLBMs), which only the five NPT countries (United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and France) possess. Keep in mind, too, that if someone was to get that close to launch a missile attack, BMD wouldn't work because the system wouldn't have enough time to detect, track and kill the incoming warhead(s). So you're just going to disregard the evidence which indicates the threat is minimal? Even if they come from the U.S. themselves? Besides, in light of the Bush doctrine, I'm not sure I buy the rhetoric that this is a "defensive" weapon. Actually, those odds are pretty short. Certainly much more likely than an ICBM attack, that's for sure. The government can't protect us from every potential threat. That's the simple reality. I'd rather see them focus on realistic threats to the country than one's that rank below massive earthquakes and just above alien invasions. Sure, just like the four subs we bought were suposed to be an accounting offset for the British rental of our training bases. We're already allocating personnel and resources to the program. Why are so many ordinarily skeptical people so willing to believe PM PM on this particular issue? So, in other words, it will cost us.

A closer look at U.S. generosity: "Tied Aid" strangling nations Keep in mind that more than 70 per cent of all U.S. aid commitments are tied to the purchase of goods and services from the U.S. Aid stinginess isn't limited to the U.S.. Every year, more money is sent from poor countries to rich one sthan the other way around.

Oh yeah: I forgot how America stopped the genocide in Rwanada, boldly forged ahead in the Sudan, and stood up to the Russians in Chechnya. Heck those Americans are so great, sometimes they don't even wait to be asked.... I imagine the prostitution industry is pretty distressed. How about Iraqis? Columbians? Chileans? Salvadorians? How do i owe my freedom to a country that's never lifted a finger in my defence and is not currently protecting me from anybody? In fact, they're making my life more dangerous these days.

Why? In the context of BMD, it's only missiles that matter. Regardless, there are fewer countries with nuclear, programs today then there were twenty years ago. Here's question: what prevented the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear strike against the U.S. during the course of the Cold War? I believe the threat BMD is designed to counter is minimal. So the whole idea is a non-starter in my opinion. That's a cost. Why should the Canadian military allocate personnel and resources to this program when there are other, far more urgent gaps to fill within our own forces? Because you need to realistically assess the threat. The key fact is the likelihood of any nation attacking the United States or Canada with a ballistic missile is exceptionally low. Strike one. Next, the system itself is wracked with flaws. So even if, eventually, it is able to do what it's suppossed to do, there's nothing to say that countermeasures or otehr technology won't be develped to rende rit useless. Strike two. Finally the cost of this system is astronomical. Canada's forces are already streched thin and operating on a shoestring. Those should be our first priority, not some harebrained scheme that seems to be designed for the sole benefit of American aerospace companies. Strike three.

Fortunata...shhhh. Don't mention the FD word: they might hear you and come here.

Only an American or American wannabe would see the Canadian tendency to define ourselves based on our differences with our bellicose neighbour as a negative. The rest of us don't really care. Nor do I think most Canadians care much about Canada's place in the world or how we are viewed by the rest of the planet. That seems to be an American obsession. You certainly don't see Canadian headlines blaring "Why do they hate us?"

Four brigades would be sufficient if we scaled back the number of deployments, yes?

Two factual errors here: Error #1 "the Liberal Party-controlled CRTC would only allow something called "Fox News Canada"..." Fox News Canada was a creation of Fox News U.S. and Global Television. Thei rplans to launch this were what kille dthe original CCTA appilcation. Error #2: "An excellent article yesterday from Paul Jackson" There is, in fact, no such thing as an excellent article from Paul Jackson. So wait: we leftists are suppossed to tolerate intolerance now? I don't think that's how this works.

Oh yeah: about that:U.S. eyes humanitarian aid cuts, military aid increases I suppose the U.S. doesn't want to spend more money on the military than the next 15 or so nations combined: it's all those ungrateful foreigners who are pushing U.S. military expenditures to Cold War levels. I think that's the kind of "generosity" a lot of foreign countries can live without.

Read the rest.

Actually, that's false. In 2003, the U.S. gave 15 cents for every $100 of national income to poor countries. Denmark gave 84 cents, the Netherlands gave 80 cents, Belgium gave 60 cents, France gave 41 cents, and Greece gave 21 cents (that was the lowest share, beside our own). As wel, by OECD calculations, private donations add 6 cents a day to the official U.S. figure - meaning that the U.S. still give only 21 cents a day per person. So, in proportion to actual income, the U.S. is still the lowest of the low.

Oh yeah: the U.S.A is really qualified to lecture people on humanitarian grounds. Americans give 15 cents per day per person in official development assistance to poor countries. The average American spends four times that on soft drinks daily.

Well, can you tell me where that figure came from? I'm not a big fan of peacekeeping, but I don't think one needs to be the biggest. If peackeeping were to be a Canadian priority, I think a small, well trained, rapid deployment force would do the job.

Why? As I said, I don't care about "the world stage". Far too much of the disccussion around military issues reflects the view that the military is a status symbol and that we have to have the shiniest toys to be taken seriously. I take a more pragmatic approach. Worry about what we need, not how we look.