US Missile Shield over Canada

[kimmy]

Politics Watch: some quotes

I don't think that anybody expected that there'd be any other finger on a button than the Americans. But in terms of Canadian airspace, yes, we would expect to be consulted. This is our space, our airspace. We're a sovereign nation. And you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission.

Yeah, but why bother?

We will deploy. We will defend North America.

Whether Canada's PM gives permission or not. It'd be beyond naive to imagine the Americans would spend the billions to develop the capability of defending themselves from an attack, then not use that capability because the PM of some other country didn't give permission.

What? Are they phoning a 1-800 number on missile consultation? It just defies imagination.  The missiles are coming in at 4 km/second. The President of the United States phones a 1-800 number, press "one" if you want English, press "two" if you want French, press "zero" if nobody is there? This is crazy.

Stockwell has it right, of course. In a situation where BMD would be used, time would be of crucial importance. I'm a little concerned that Stockwell is stealing my material, but oh well.

Paul Martin contends that he's not naive and that some sort of agreement can be worked out.

Obviously protocols can be worked out and I will expect that they will be. This is not a new issue or new problem. It's existed for 30 years.

Yeah, not a new issue or new problem because those protocols have been part of NORAD. But we're participants in NORAD. If we arranged some kind of protocol by which we're informed and consulted on BMD in real-time, then ... aren't we participating in BMD as well? Jack Layton phrases it thusly:

My fear has always been that there will be a public statement that we're not a part of the program, but through the backdoor, the prime minister would be making arrangements that we would be part of the program. That wouldn't be honest with Canadians.

In other words, Martin makes a great show of "standing up to the Americans", for the benefit of the Caesars and Shakeys of our country, then enters into a NORAD-style arrangement by which Canadians could be part of this "consultation" process, essentially getting us into BMD through (as Layton aptly puts it) the backdoor.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

kimmy said:

QUOTE (Paul Martin)

I don't think that anybody expected that there'd be any other finger on a button than the Americans. But in terms of Canadian airspace, yes, we would expect to be consulted. This is our space, our airspace. We're a sovereign nation. And you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission.

Yeah, but why bother?

QUOTE (Paul Cellucic)

We will deploy. We will defend North America.

Whether Canada's PM gives permission or not. It'd be beyond naive to imagine the Americans would spend the billions to develop the capability of defending themselves from an attack, then not use that capability because the PM of some other country didn't give permission.

I take it that you feel it is appropriate to dispense with the concept of state territorial sovereignty.

What new system, method, procedure, or criteria would you have replace it, then?

[The Terrible Sweal]

...There are two other American owned companies currently located inSmiths Falls that employs 600 Canadians are also think of shutting down. Why? Because of this idiotic pinko Liberal Government.

If these companies are publicly traded, could you tell me the names of them? I want to make sure that I dump any stock in any company idiotic enough to make business decisions for political reasons.

Do you folks realize that 87% of all products manufactured in Canada by Canadian citizens are exported for sale to the USA? How about the Boeing plant in Arnprior Ontario and on and on and on.

Most people here are aware that trade with the U.S. is a substantial portion of our economy. The question is, why and in what way that should be taken into account in non-economic matters.

[kimmy]

I take it that you feel it is appropriate to dispense with the concept of state territorial sovereignty.

What new system, method, procedure, or criteria would you have replace it, then?

No.

I propose that the US will not ask for Canadian permission before using their BMD system over Canadian territory, any more than some hypothetical rogue nation would ask Canadian permission to fire their hypothetical nuclear missile over Canadian territory in the first place. Therefore, I feel that Canada's opportunity to assert sovereignty in this matter begins (and ends) with having Canadian personnel involved in the BMD system.

I propose that Paul Martin knows this.

I propose that as Jack Layton asserts, Paul Martin's efforts to obtain some "protocol" for asserting Canadian sovereignty will result in, basically, Canadian participation in the BMD system. Except, see, it won't be *called* that. It'll be called "asserting our sovereignty." Which is a very key distinction to gullible people, I imagine, but a very fictional distinction to objective people.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

I  take it that you feel it is appropriate to dispense with the concept of state territorial sovereignty.

What new system, method, procedure, or criteria would you have replace it, then?

No.

I propose that the US will not ask for Canadian permission before using their BMD system over Canadian territory, any more than some hypothetical rogue nation would ask Canadian permission to fire their hypothetical nuclear missile over Canadian territory in the first place.

Ah. Alright. So you're acknowledging a parallel exists between 'rogue states' and states that ignore the sovereignty of other states. I agree.

Therefore, I feel that Canada's opportunity to assert sovereignty in this matter begins (and ends) with having Canadian personnel involved in the BMD system.

I wonder if by 'assert' you actually mean 'enforce'. A state can certainly 'assert' its sovereignty through diplomatic means.

[Iknowbest]

Canada has kissed goodbye its opportunity to protect its sovereign rights. The Liberal Government has flushed those rights down the toilet forever and it wouldn't surpise me to see the Danish Government make a territorial claim to a lot of the Eastern Arctic and Canada can't do squat about it. We have no military that matters because the Liberals destroyed it and now they are engaging in making more destructive non-decisions.

One of the problems is the younger generation has never been educated about WWI & WWII or the Korean War or been given the truth rather than fiction by the Quebec controlled Federal Government. You may criticise this statment all you want but you haven't been involved or had access to what is really going on and I have. That is why I took an early retirement along with a bunch of others because of the wrong direction this country was headed for and soon will arive at. You have no idea what the hidden agenda is by Quebecers but I do. They want and will get total control of Canada because they are pissed off that they lost the battle of the Plains of Abrahem and they want revenge. They want this country to be totally french and they will win as long as we continue down this road. When all is said and done you will see the western part of Canada separate and I wouldn't blame them.

Nuff said..

[Black Dog]

In regards to thier common laws..true as most are taken from thier Koran or bible....whipping,cutting off of hands are all in thier common laws...

The Gassing of kurds happened between the Gulf wars, the disappearance of thousands happen before,during and after the gulf war... The hundreds of public excutions that happened in Afgan were a dialy event,held in a sports arenas for all to veiw.... it is these acts that is not happening in Suadi, or Egypt...

Saudi Arabia also still engages in capital punishment, including public executions by beheading, stoning and crucifixion.

Since 1990 Saudi Arabia is reported to have executed 33 women including at least 12 for murder. Both public beheading and shooting in private are allowed under Saudi law for women, although the latter seems to be no longer used.

Give me a break...Canada has a military force of 53,000 out of 32 million people....besides most join the military for the adventure, the idea that it is cool to go to war...it is after that all veterns who have experiance war will tell you it is "HELL" for the lack of a better description

I assume that if it came down to it, those peopel would still kill and die for their country, seeing as how its their job?

Muslims reason are religous and are based on hate...

So when American soldiers in Iraq kill civilians, they do it out of kindness?

Only the village idiot would be against using common sense to ensure the physical security of the North American Continent. One co-operates with their neighbour to ensure that this takes place. .

there's certainly an argument to be made for safeguarding North American security. Missile defense isn't the way to do it.

The Canadian Government under the Liberal Party blew it big time and it is going to cost us Canadians. Hello injunction against Canadian beef cattle invoked yesterday in Montana. Softwood products another and there is more to come

Puh-leeze. American protectionism is behind those actions, plain and simple.

The majority of Canadian Citizens who are so over taxed by this corrupt government are spending most of their time trying to make enough money to survive rather than care about the securitry of North America.

I am certainly more concerned with paying off my credit card bill than I am with protecting North America from incoming missiles. For one thing, there;s a 100 per cent chanc eof me getting my credit card bill and a microscopic chance of getting hit with a North Korean nuke.

As for taxes, ar our taxes high?

Taxes at the bottom end are high relative to income levels due to the existence of the PST, GST, medical insurance premiums, user fees for government services, and otehr regressive non-tax taxes.

On the other hand our taxes can be considered high, but relative to what? And are we getting as much bang for our buck as we should be. if notr, why (hint: it has nothing to do with them goshdurned Quebecois and much more to do with the government's chop chop policies of the past 25 years, policies pushed for by Bay Street and conservative groups like the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation).

You may criticise this statment all you want but you haven't been involved or had access to what is really going on and I have.

Yeah. Sure you do.

That is why I took an early retirement along with a bunch of others because of the wrong direction this country was headed for and soon will arive at.

And I'm sure that had nothing to do with you being bughouse loco...

[caesar]

Oh, the moral high ground... and what do we get from that other than a smug feeling of superiority? NOTHING

Self respect PLUS: the respect of other nations who do not agree with the Bush administrations acts of aggression.

Perhaps when the USA decides to abide by international laws and agreements; we could look at this issue again.

[Army Guy]

I am not going to defend either for their human rights records....but you can't tell me that Sadam and his regime are the same monsters...

assume that if it came down to it, those peopel would still kill and die for their country, seeing as how its their job?

Key word here is "Job"....Yes that job entails that they may have to kill or be killed....but remember it's a job...

you can not compare the motivation of a Muslim bomber to a Canadian Soldier in regards to dieing for a cause or believe... your not going to get a Canadian soldier to strap on 50 lbs of C-4 and detonate in a crowd....

So when American soldiers in Iraq kill civilians, they do it out of kindness?

Your comment has left me speechless...what can i say...if this is what you think is happening over there then it is your opinon ...an uneducated one... but yours...

[I miss Reagan]

In other words, Martin makes a great show of "standing up to the Americans", for the benefit of the Caesars and Shakeys of our country, then enters into a NORAD-style arrangement by which Canadians could be part of this "consultation" process, essentially getting us into BMD through (as Layton aptly puts it) the backdoor.

I completely agree with Kimmy. This is about satisfying the egos of a certain segment of Canadians. And it appears to have worked:

Self respect PLUS: the respect of other nations who do not agree with the Bush administrations acts of aggression.

Perhaps when the USA decides to abide by international laws and agreements; we could look at this issue again.

Behind the scenes PM( ) is madly dialing Bush in an attempt to kiss a$$ and say "I didn't mean it, I didn't mean it".

[Black Dog]

I am not going to defend either for their human rights records....but you can't tell me that Sadam and his regime are the same monsters...

I think once you establish that they are monsters, the question of to what degree becomes less important. If freedom and democracy are the ends we seek, whay are we still tolerant of such vileness in our allies?

Key word here is "Job"....Yes that job entails that they may have to kill or be killed....but remember it's a job...

you can not compare the motivation of a Muslim bomber to a Canadian Soldier in regards to dieing for a cause or believe... your not going to get a Canadian soldier to strap on 50 lbs of C-4 and detonate in a crowd....

I dunno why the fact that someone is willing to kill and die for a living (that is: pay) makes it any better than killing and dying for a cause. Nor do I know why someone could be less of a terrorist simply because they wear a uniform and use an assault rifle. (Not that I'm talking about Canadians specifically, mind you).

Ultimately, someone like Charles Graner or the American sniper who (allegedly) picked off an entire family in Fallujah while they were under a flag of truce is on the same moral plane than a sucide bomber.

Your comment has left me speechless...what can i say...if this is what you think is happening over there then it is your opinon ...an uneducated one... but yours...

So you're saying that no Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of American troops? Or that it happens, but only occassionally and by accident?

Iraq veteran speaks

[Shakeyhands]

QUOTE 

That is why I took an early retirement along with a bunch of others because of the wrong direction this country was headed for and soon will arive at.

And I'm sure that had nothing to do with you being bughouse loco...

hahaha... now, THAT was funny.

[Iknowbest]

QUOTE 

That is why I took an early retirement along with a bunch of others because of the wrong direction this country was headed for and soon will arive at.

And I'm sure that had nothing to do with you being bughouse loco...

hahaha... now, THAT was funny.

In a few years from now your LOL will turn to anguish and you will deserve it.

[kimmy]

Ah.  Alright.  So you're acknowledging a parallel exists between 'rogue states' and states that ignore the sovereignty of other states.  I agree.

Yes, I agree that there is certainly a parallel between a country that invades our airspace by launching a nuclear missile through it, and a country that invades our arespace by launching an interceptor missile through it. However, in the situation described, I think the invading of Canadian airspace is rather low on the totem-pole of rogue activities, don't you?

However, if you do sincerely feel that invasion of Canadian territory is the key issue in determining who we should view as rogue states, then I imagine you're quite furious with the Danes, whose occupation of Hans Island in Canada's north is undoubtably a far more serious offence against Canadian sovereignty than the transition of a missile which would only be in Canadian airspace for a matter of minutes.

Given the ... er, "outrage" which Canada as a whole feels over the Hans Island "crisis", I get the feeling that sovereignty is an issue that Canadians care about when it suits them to.

Therefore, I feel that Canada's opportunity to assert sovereignty in this matter begins (and ends) with having Canadian personnel involved in the BMD system.

I wonder if by 'assert' you actually mean 'enforce'. A state can certainly 'assert' its sovereignty through diplomatic means.

I suppose you're right. Very well, "enforce" or "protect", then. Other than semantics, do you have any issues with the statement?

-kimmy

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

I think once you establish that they are monsters, the question of to what degree becomes less important. If freedom and democracy are the ends we seek, whay are we still tolerant of such vileness in our allies?

Those two contries we were talking about , are light years ahead of the other middle east countries and are still making progress, then the process is working...it is an extreme slow one....if you understood people then change has to be made slowly...you don't undo 5000 years of history over night...

dunno why the fact that someone is willing to kill and die for a living (that is: pay) makes it any better than killing and dying for a cause.

In most cases it does not make any difference....except when you mix in religion ie the mulsim faith ...or revenge as a cause...these make it a whole new ball game...enough to make them strap on plastic explosives and kill your self for the cause...

Nor do I know why someone could be less of a terrorist simply because they wear a uniform and use an assault rifle. (Not that I'm talking about Canadians specifically, mind you).

Soldiers who wear uniforms and form a part of an army of a country that has signed the geneva convention,are bound to follow the convention or be punished with commiting war crimes....not wearing a uniform makes you a civilian or non combative person...unless you arm your self or are seen helping the bad guys ......if your seen to have picked up a wpn then drop it your still a combative an by law can be targeted by your enemy...

That said soldiers are only allowed to target military targets...churchs ,musems,etc are non targets ...unless the enemy is using said building to hide or engage you from...then they can be fired upon,until the enemy is dislodged...there are many more laws that guide a soldier through combat...

that is the difference between a soldier and a terrorist...terrorists did not sign the convention and regularly target civilian targets to creat fear and terror within the population so that they will put presure on thier goverment s to comply with the terrorist demands...

Ultimately, someone like Charles Graner or the American sniper who (allegedly) picked off an entire family in Fallujah while they were under a flag of truce is on the same moral plane than a sucide bomber.

I not familar with Charles Graner,or the sniper incidence..but will say that allegedly is just another word for rumour and the west has laws that they are innocent until proven guilty....If they are proven guilty then i would say yes to your statement...

As i stated before war is "hell"and nasty things happen in Hell...those innocent civilians you talk about are living with the same guys that routinely engage US troops...they routinely are in the same space when the attack is happening ...because this is a tactic that these freedom fighters use to blend back into the background after thier attack is finished...to save thier own lives....

and when the US troops respond to such an attack yes civilians are going to get killed....it is unfortunate but it is war...but we blame the big bad US of A...because it looks bad...

Do you think that Canadian soldiers did not kill civilians during any of the wars we have been in...preping a town with out warning with arty fire before an attack is standard prctice...does that mean we are terrorists...

So you're saying that no Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of American troops? Or that it happens, but only occassionally and by accident?

No,again NO of couse it happens ...what i'm saying is almost all are by accident....those that are not those individuals are guilty of war crimes....and there are some court cases ongoing as we speak both on the US side and the British side....

Remeber this is war this is not some SWAT team down town trying to out wait the bad guys into giving up.... the US is using every wpn at thier disposal to keep their own cas down....

[Trial-and-Error]

This would give our gov't as much warning as the US gov't has....

The up-side: It has not cost the tax payers of Canada nothing todate, ...it would give Canada access to this type of tech....It would put Canadians at the controls of said defense system....It would allow if agreed to ...to have missle sites in northern Canada allowing for an interception in the artic region away from populated centers. It would go a long way into repairing our relationship with the US...in would also signal that we are starting to take our defense seriously.....

I'm sorry, army, your argument does not persuade me that Canada should sign up for BMD.

1. You say Canada is not contributing $$$ to this mad idea. Okay, but why would it? The only country I see that has it in for Canada is the wolf to the south.

2. Canada would be at the controls you say. Yo - that's a concession. We would be at the controls doing what we're ordered to do. Tank that one!

2. Interception in the arctic. Only some Natives and a few odd scientists working up in that region would be affected. All well and good--uh-huh--but you see we haven't an enemy in the world coming at us from over the pole but if we get involved in this mess, we might very well make ourselves a target. Instead of backing up the bully to the south we should be out there globally promoting Canada the Good just in case Junior starts to get rough--if you get my drift.

3. better relations with the U.S.? Whatever for? I have great relations with several individuals down there, but they along with me have no desire to curry favour with Junior's administration--not now--not ever. I owe no allegiance to Bush the Aggressor. I want Canada to have no sycophantic relationship with the beast. I for one am sick of his threats. Where's that spine of yours, army?! Principle, man, principle. Give in to bullies and you're finished. There is never any end to their demands.

My suggestion to our P.M. is to encourage Canadian businesses to drum up more markets overseas and make as many friends as we possibly can. Bush is no friend to Canada. Hell, Bush is no friend to his fellow Americans save the rich and powerful. He and his kind are users and will spare no expense of others to achieve their own ends. Wakey, wakey!! You and those who think as you do must wean yourselves from the neocon press.

[Black Dog]

Those two contries we were talking about , are light years ahead of the other middle east countries and are still making progress, then the process is working...it is an extreme slow one....if you understood people then change has to be made slowly...you don't undo 5000 years of history over night...

What "other Middle Eastern countries" are you talking about. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are among the worst of the lot, along with Syria and Iran. Yet the former pair are "good guys".

In most cases it does not make any difference....except when you mix in religion ie the mulsim faith ...or revenge as a cause...these make it a whole new ball game...enough to make them strap on plastic explosives and kill your self for the cause...

Again, I don't see how someone moivated to do violence by their faith (be it Islam, Christianity or Judaism) is any different from someone motivated by patirotism or lucre. As for revenge, well, I read a lot of quotes from soldiers in Iraq saying they were there to get payback for 9-11 (which Iraq was not inolved with).

that is the difference between a soldier and a terrorist...terrorists did not sign the convention and regularly target civilian targets to creat fear and terror within the population so that they will put presure on thier goverment s to comply with the terrorist demands...

I'm well aware of the geneva convention and its provisions. I'm also well aware that those provisions are regularily flouted by various armed forces with out any consequenses.

As i stated before war is "hell"and nasty things happen in Hell...those innocent civilians you talk about are living with the same guys that routinely engage US troops...they routinely are in the same space when the attack is happening ...because this is a tactic that these freedom fighters use to blend back into the background after thier attack is finished...to save thier own lives....

and when the US troops respond to such an attack yes civilians are going to get killed....it is unfortunate but it is war...but we blame the big bad US of A...because it looks bad...

Ah yes...ooops, we did it again. So sorry. To me there's no difference between "accidental" civilian deaths and intentionally targetting civilians. U.S. troops, by virtue of simply being there are putting civilian lives at risk and are therefore culpable. In any case, wht defines an accident? For instance there's plenty of evidence that troops have adopted a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach as a result of the insurgencies tatics. But is killing a civilian that you thought was an insurgent to be considered an accident?

No,again NO of couse it happens ...what i'm saying is almost all are by accident....those that are not those individuals are guilty of war crimes....and there are some court cases ongoing as we speak both on the US side and the British side....

I'm not aware of any war crime scases. There's probably the odd disciplinary action (such as in the case of the U.S. soldier who killed an Iraqi guardsmen after the two had sex), but war crimes? Haven't heard a peep. Anyway, we should propbably take this discussion to another thread, as this one's about BMD...

[kimmy]

In lastnight's keynote address at the Liberal convention, Michael Ignatieff expressed themes I've been developing in this thread:

Yahoo News Article: Ignatieff's keynote address

Many Liberals oppose the shield because they fear it would lead to a new arms race and weapons in space. Martin has only said it's not in Canada's interest to join.

Ignatieff, the son of a distinguished diplomat who served under Lester Pearson, made it clear in his speech that's not good enough.

"We need to balance a principled opposition to the weaponization of space - in the future - with an equally principled commitment to participate in North American defence - right now," he told the suddenly silent room.

And he warned the decision could split NORAD.

"We do not want a principled decision to result in us having less control over our national sovereignty," said Ignatieff.

"We must not walk away from the table. We must be there at the table, defending what only we can defend."

-kimmy

[Trial-and-Error]

"We do not want a principled decision to result in us having less control over our national sovereignty," said Ignatieff.

"We must not walk away from the table. We must be there at the table, defending what only we can defend."

Okay, this guy has university degrees, is a Liberal, the son of a DISTINGUISHED diplomat no less, is an author and serves on some board or other at Harvard. I'm impressed. So he doesn't want any principled decision which could result in Canada "having less control over our national sovereignty" than What? Is he saying we don't have any control now? If so, he's right. If anyone thinks for a minute that if we engage in talks with the U.S. and climb aboard that we will have more control than we do now--perhaps--but it will be cosmetic control and no more.

The U.S. will never concede to anything that would jeopardize its own well being. It's the U.S. first, second and last. But if you're satisfied with the few crumbs he'll throw our way, then step up to the table and partake of this heathenistic endeavour. As I've noted in other posts, the man is mad and quite, quite unsavory.

As if Bush's fear mongering isn't enough we have it going on this side of the border too. I wouldn't vote for this yahoo. Trudeauesque? I don't think so.

[Black Dog]

Lloyd Axworthy fires missile salvo

Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game

[Army Guy]

Trail and error:

1. You say Canada is not contributing $$$ to this mad idea. Okay, but why would it? The only country I see that has it in for Canada is the wolf to the south.

Canada is as much as a target as the US virtully by being next to it...A thermal nuclear wpn exploding even in calgary or edmonton would effect most of the northern half of the states with radition...a blast in toronto could effect the top two thirds of the US...not only from radition but blast effects as well...Any nuclear dentonation in North America would be bad....I personal do not think Canada could function in any mode after such an attack...

2. Canada would be at the controls you say. Yo - that's a concession. We would be at the controls doing what we're ordered to do. Tank that one!

Canada has full control of Norad when it's senior officer is on duty ...meaning they have certain control over the US nuclear arsenal....do you not think or trust a Canadain military member to do what was right...

2. Interception in the arctic. Only some Natives and a few odd scientists working up in that region would be affected. All well and good--uh-huh--

Effected in what way... the missle would be destroyed, all that would be left is the nuclear fuel, and some rocket parts...easily gathered up and disposed of...

Instead of backing up the bully to the south we should be out there globally promoting Canada the Good just in case Junior starts to get rough--if you get my drift.

No i don't know what you mean....are you saying we are good because we have not done anything on the world stage...except to slam the US every chance we get...By not taking our world responsibilites seriously...by not taking our own defense seriously...by debating in the UN for months while thousands die...to agree that the war in Iraq was wrong, and allowing him to continue to kill thousands at his will regardless of reasons....if you get my drift...

I want Canada to have no sycophantic relationship with the beast. I for one am sick of his threats.

What threats has he made...about violating our air space to save millions of lives ....But we as Canadians want to stand around the smoking hole and say...god did we do that...

Where's that spine of yours, army?! Principle, man, principle. Give in to bullies and you're finished. There is never any end to their demands.

This is not about bullies it is about protecting ourselfs...who cares if it does not get used,who cares if it has to use our airspace to work, it is an insurance policy just in case....do some research on the security of Russias current WMD arsenal and you'll see why i'm concerned...it is only a matter of time before someone gets ahold of one....

A 100 mega ton detonation would send a blast raduis well over 300 kms....and a radition cloud over most the country....is this what we want because we are quibling over airspace...Canada has a nation would cease....the casualities would be in the millions no western country has the medical or emergancy plan to cope with an accident of this nature... Just burying the dead would over whelm us...let alone the clean-up...

You and those who think as you do must wean yourselves from the neocon press.

Because i don't hate bush i have a problem...because i'm for a defensive weapon that could save millions of lifes...i've got a problem....or is it because i'm not a follower of your ideas that i've got a problem....you told me at the start i have not convinced you of having the BMD...you Sir have not convince me of anything other than disputing some of my reasons for BMD...convince me...

[Guest eureka]

Ignatieff has also written in defense and support of Quebec's linguistic and ethnic regimes.

He needs to get out of Harvard and into the real world of ideas. There he may discover that principles are important: that justice is a divine right. He may discover that cowardice and expedience go hand in hand and are not to the benefit of any social or international order.

Trudeau he is not.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Army Guy,

Canada is as much as a target as the US virtully by being next to it...A thermal nuclear wpn exploding even in calgary or edmonton would effect most of the northern half of the states with radition

Canada as a target is highly unlikely, I should say it is even foolish to think so.

No i don't know what you mean....are you saying we are good because we have not done anything on the world stage...except to slam the US every chance we get...By not taking our world responsibilites seriously...by not taking our own defense seriously...

Canada, unlike the US, has not pissed off most of the world with it's arrogance and greed. We don't have our collective heads up our asses, and can look at threat assessment in a realistic fashion.

[Iknowbest]

Canada is a target from terrorists. I used to be in the business in the Federal Government doing threat analysis and making predictions. Sadly far too many of those predictions came true and after many years the world ended up with one powerful police force, the USA! There is no other nation on this planet can do that difficult job as well as the USA can. The UK and Australia are supporting nations thank goodness, so who is left? No one and certainly not Canada because we don't have a military any more.

The United Nations is totally incompetent and has far too many members that aren't interested in peace but pretend they do, NATO, well forget it.

Terrorism has grown considerably since the demise of the USSR and will continue to do so. They have access to millions and millions of dollars to purchase whatever tools and materials they need to carry out their open and/or closed threats.

Anyone who doesn't believe that lives in la la land. Keep smoking that funny tobacco and when the missle blows up you won't feel a thing.

[anticlimates]

Canada is a target from terrorists. ....[snip]

Terrorism has grown considerably since the demise of the USSR and will continue to do so. They have access to millions and millions of dollars to purchase whatever tools and materials they need to carry out their open and/or closed threats.

BMD is protection from terra? WTF???

Anyone who doesn't believe that lives in la la land. Keep smoking that funny tobacco and when the missle blows up you won't feel a thing.

I submit that anyone who thinks "terrorists" are liable to lob a BM at the USA is in la la land and has been drinking the Bush Terra-flavored koolaid FAR to long!