US Missile Shield over Canada

[anticlimates]

It doesn't matter if they had a successful test or not.

It doesn't matter if they will "deploy" regardless of what Canada thinks.

It doesn't matter if Celluci spreads his bosses lying claims that we've given up "sovereignty ".

The idiot Bush screwed himself when he attempted to strong-arm Martin into this by bringing it up at a press conference.....but then, he's always screwing himself by using the press as his foreign policy communicator rather than private channels. He insults foreign leaders, and then wonders why his enemies are so motivated and old allies are so cool to him. But none of that matters either.

What matters is the BMD is a piss-poor waste of money which can only serve to start a new arms race. Is it not common sense that some nuclear countries will now scramble to either

A. Build thier own BMD shield. or...

B. Build misiles that are undetectable to BMD technology?

It's a fools errand.....and in the doing of it they're scaring up plenty of other fools with fear-mongering about incoming ICBM's.

Thank God we're keeping out of it.

Let this administration threaten us all they want.....and Lord knows they are. They're out of control and this is a good reality check.

[Newfie Canadian]

The idiot Bush screwed himself when he attempted to strong-arm Martin into this by bringing it up at a press conference

I agree with anticlimates, sort of.

Bush brought unwanted, uneeded and unnecessary attention to BMD when he brought it out into the open in Halifax.

The only chance he had in getting Martin to sign on in a minority government situation was to get in under the radar as much as possible. That went out the window in Halifax.

Bush's tactic backfired. Instead of lighting a fire under Martin to do something, it brought the issue even further into the open and more Canadians looked at it and didn't like it.

Now before someone says I blame Bush for eveything, I don't. Martin could have went ahead anyway and showed some leadership, unlike what he's doing now.

To paraphrase, 'We won't sign on or support BMD, but you better ask if you want to fire a missile over Canadian airspace to intercept another missile.'

He's got to be kidding.

[Stoker]

The idiot Bush screwed himself when he attempted to strong-arm Martin into this by bringing it up at a press conference.....but then, he's always screwing himself by using the press as his foreign policy communicator rather than private channels. He insults foreign leaders, and then wonders why his enemies are so motivated and old allies are so cool to him. But none of that matters either.

What has GWB "screwed himself" on? With PM PM saying no to BMD, will this put the entire project in jeopardy? Will it now fail because Canada is not taking part?

Bush brought unwanted, uneeded and unnecessary attention to BMD when he brought it out into the open in Halifax.

The only chance he had in getting Martin to sign on in a minority government situation was to get in under the radar as much as possible. That went out the window in Halifax.

Don't you think it to be a "breath of fresh air" for a politican like GWB to be open about his policies? Right or wrong, we know where he stands on the issue.....to be honest, I can't think of a policy in which he hasn't made his stance on the issue clear.

I see GWB's remarks in Halifax as giving PM PM a chance to be clear and honest with Canadians and Americans on the Liberal governments stance on BMD.......PM PM failed on all accounts

[Shakeyhands]

Kimmy,

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Scienc...fissionbom.html

I think that we can safely assume that any modern nuclear device would not likely use the same sort of detonator as the originals. Therefore you would be correct... hopefully

Thanks for picking my post apart, piece by piece. Very entertaining.

[caesar]

Canada is much safer not allying herself with American military programs. We are not a thrat to other nations; we dea; fairly with other nations; why would any country wish to attack Canada unless we join the USA programs that no longer show respect for international law. From Celluci's remarks they would not honour Canada's air space soverneighty. I would prefer to take our chances on our own and keep our self respect and ideals.

[anticlimates]

What has GWB "screwed himself" on? With PM PM saying no to BMD, will this put the entire project in jeopardy? Will it now fail because Canada is not taking part?

Don't you think chimp WANTED Canada on board? Of course he did. He brought it up with Martin in private, with the opposition leader in private, and then in public....so obviously it was important to him to have Canada on board.

Thus the term "screwed himself".

I really shouldn't have to explain something so simple.

Don't you think it to be a "breath of fresh air" for a politican like GWB to be open about his policies? Right or wrong, we know where he stands on the issue.....to be honest, I can't think of a policy in which he hasn't made his stance on the issue clear.

Ah, the old "He's a plain talker" compliment. Gosh darn, he's like a breath of fresh air! So..."open". So "honest".

gag.

I hate to break it to you, but he's just a bad statesman. I mean, it is possible to be open, honest, and fresh air-like without putting your host on the spot. Bush is a moron, and morons often appear to be open and honest.

[Stoker]

Don't you think chimp WANTED Canada on board? Of course he did. He brought it up with Martin in private, with the opposition leader in private, and then in public....so obviously it was important to him to have Canada on board.

Thus the term "screwed himself".

I really shouldn't have to explain something so simple.

I think the Bush administration would have prefered Canada to be onboard, but it was not critical........tell me, if we had of signed on to BMD, what would have been different to the overall system?

IMHO, the Clinton and Bush administrations offered Canada to take part in BMD as a courtesy in part due to the fact that we are a part of NORAD.

Ah, the old "He's a plain talker" compliment. Gosh darn, he's like a breath of fresh air! So..."open". So "honest".

gag.

I hate to break it to you, but he's just a bad statesman. I mean, it is possible to be open, honest, and fresh air-like without putting your host on the spot. Bush is a moron, and morons often appear to be open and honest.

Can I ask, what leads you to think Bush is a moron? If Bush is a moron, what does that make the people that are not, will not and have not become POTUS?

I notice though, you don't disput the fact that Bush means what he says.......good on yeah

[kimmy]

Thanks for picking my post apart, piece by piece. Very entertaining.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you are, I guess all I can say is "oh well." I went at it piece by piece because I felt each piece was shoddy enough to deserve a specific response. If you feel you've been treated unfairly, there are certainly forums where everybody has the same views and spend all their time congratulating each other for them; such a place might be more to your liking if all you're interested in is receiving applause. But really, if your views can't even stand up to scrutiny from Kimmy, what value do they have?

-kimmy

[Stoker]

Canada is much safer not allying herself with American military programs. We are not a thrat to other nations; we dea; fairly with other nations; why would any country wish to attack Canada unless we join the USA programs that no longer show respect for international law. From Celluci's remarks they would not honour Canada's air space soverneighty. I would prefer to take our chances on our own and keep our self respect and ideals.

Where does a rather large percentage of the United States get it's energy needs from? What about Fresh water? manufactored goods? Do you still discount the fact that an attack on Canada, is almost as good as an attack on the united States proper?

On the flip side, as I pointed out many times in this debate, Canada doesn't need to be directly attacked to be affected by an attack on the United States, both physically and in terms of economics.

You live in the lower mainland right? Did you know that just a hop, skip and jump past Blaine, the United States has one of the worlds largest nuclear weapons bases? To say nothing about several other navy bases, an army base, the port of Seattle, and Seattle proper?

[ft.niagara]

I think the Bush administration would have prefered Canada to be onboard, but it was not critical........tell me, if we had of signed on to BMD, what would have been different to the overall system?

Frankly, I do not see Canada as being in danger, with or without participation, except collateral. With 90% of your population within 100 miles of the boarder, well. As far as a possible battle being fought OVER Canada, well. I think the inclusion of Canadian military 'at the table' is symbolic of a united NA. So far, the idea of missle defense is probably a pie in the sky idea. Probably if it were ever developed a 'Clinton' would share the technology. I do not see defending yourself causing an arms race. I do not see the US ever attacking a Russia or a China, but I am not so sure of the opposite, especially something like a North Korea.

Unfortunately, because of the way the Earth is configured, possible missle attacks against the US would not come from Canada, but might come THROUGH Canada. Obviously, Canada is involved whether they would like it or not. As far as Canadian air space and soverignity, only a moron would think that it would be respected in time of war.

[ft.niagara]

Don't you think it to be a "breath of fresh air" for a politican like GWB to be open about his policies? Right or wrong, we know where he stands on the issue.....to be honest, I can't think of a policy in which he hasn't made his stance on the issue clear.

I see GWB's remarks in Halifax as giving PM PM a chance to be clear and honest with Canadians and Americans on the Liberal governments stance on BMD.......PM PM failed on all accounts

Canadia is very 'predictable'. Probably GWB did not expect Canadian cooperation. Probably, it was a political move to pin Paul Martin against the wall in a public way. As has been said elsewhere, Canadian participation is not essential, and IMO symbolic. Again, Canada does not step up to the plate, because they are too afraid of getting involved.

[Shakeyhands]

Kimmy, I was actually making a joke, but thanks for over reacting! That was even more entertaining.

Sometimes its fun to have a laugh. You should try it sometime.

[anticlimates]

Canadia is very 'predictable'. Probably GWB did not expect Canadian cooperation.

Probably, it was a political move to pin Paul Martin against the wall in a public way. As has been said elsewhere, Canadian participation is not essential, and IMO symbolic.

Sure. We can tell by the shock and angry reaction from the repugs down South.

Yeah, he meant for that to happen. Uh-huh! Which is why he kept asking for support in public AND private. He even badgered our conservative opposition leader in private to be more vocal on it.

Again, Canada does not step up to the plate, because they are too afraid of getting involved.

Oh, another amazing piece of deduction! Try to stow the rightwing partisan anti-Canada attitude and try dealing with facts.

We stayed out because it's a bad idea.

You love to accuse others of being "afraid" or "cowardly". What a pathetic form of argument that is. When someone doesn't join you or disagrees with you, they are innevitably "afraid"?

Ever stop to wonder if maybe what you want to do isn't smart? It's possible, wouldn't you agree?

[kimmy]

Kimmy, I was actually making a joke, but thanks for over reacting! That was even more entertaining.

Sometimes its fun to have a laugh. You should try it sometime.

I have a highly developed sense of humour. Trust me, I know funny when I see it. I'm more laughs than a barrel full of monkeys. Believe it.

I was wondering, when you're cruising around whichever 3rd rate forums you visit when you're not here, and you see people spreading this fiction about BMD detonating nukes in Canadian skies, are you going to speak up and mention your new-found understanding of nuclear weapons, or are you going to keep quiet because there's no Kimmy around to keep people honest?

-kimmy

[Army Guy]

Trail and error:

Can you help me understand army? - are you suggesting that if we sign on to the BMD the USA will be sure to call us for permission? As you say yourself the Americans are going to do whatever is necessary to defend themselves no matter if we're at the table or not. Can you be specific about what the upside would be if we did sign on?

It would have a similar set up as Norad...Meaning that Norad at times is under full control of a senior Canadian military member. It also has dozens of Canadain officers and other ranks working the controls "sort of speaking"...BMD defense would have Canadian military persons assiting with the project at all levels...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.....

[Army Guy]

Anticlimates:

Is that a right reserved for yourself?

ie. you claimed to know the Americans would pay for it all.

Then you claimed it was already paid for.

Also you claimed that the defensive positions would be better if Northern Canada were available.

Lot's of assumptions there....

No matter what i or others say it will not be enough to convince you that BMD is not this big monster that you paint it to be....

I did not say the US would pay for it all..... Most of the R&D for this project is done...they are in the testing phase...so yes the US has paid for with their tax dollars the most expensive part of the program....

Has the US asked us to ponie up and pay for any of this system, todate....All that has been asked of Canada todate is for us to join and support the system....not with funding but with our support....

Will they in the future ask us to fill thier pockets...sorry my crystal ball is in the shop this week.....

Look I'm not a BMD expert...and i am basing my answer on experiance and common sense... "Having missles based in Canada would improve the reaction time and interception would be in the artic region vice over a more populated region of Canada"...

What are you afraid of...is it the act itself "of defending yourself"..and the rest of the country...or is it you might have to spend some of our tax dollars.....or is it because the US goverment is involved, so it must be bad...

[Newfie Canadian]

I see GWB's remarks in Halifax as giving PM PM a chance to be clear and honest with Canadians and Americans on the Liberal governments stance on BMD.......PM PM failed on all accounts

To me, it only goes to show ignorance on by the White House about the tenuous position of a minority government.

I know I don't have to explain this to you Stoker, but I'll do it for those of us who may not have much exposure to Canadian politics.

A party exists to be elected and re-elected. To do that they have to gauge the pulse of the electorate, which in this case according to the polls are against BMD.

To join the program, even in a limited way, which by the way it seems Martin was heading, it had to be done quietly, which Bush shot out of the sky in Halifax.

And don't give me any crap about it being Martin. If it were Harper, Duceppe, Layton or BoBo the Clown in a minority government, it would have been done the same way.

Of course, besides it's unpopularity, there are issues with the system itself, for instance it don't work, yet.

Just for clarity sake are there any Canadians here who believe that, knowing what the polls are saying now, any party that comes out with a blanket approval of BDM and publicly announce an intention to join it would form a government in an election?

As for Ft. Niagra's assertion that Canadians are cowards. That's your opinion and your entitled to it, as the US do not have a monopoly on free speech and civil rights.

I think your wrong. Canadians aren't cowards any more than all Americans are gun toting hillbillies. (I hate stereotypes.) That's my opinion.

Not joining the debacle that is Iraq wasn't a sign of cowardice, it was a sign that the adminstration didn't prove Iraq was an immediate threat becasue of it's WMD.

Canadians don't want to join BMD not because of cowardice, but because it don't work, it may never work, it may lead to a new arms race (you build a shield, I'll build more or better missiles), etc.

I will give you one thing so far Ft. Niagra, Martin is living in dream world if he thinks the US will respect Canadian airspace.

[Army Guy]

Caesar:

Canada is much safer not allying herself with American military programs. We are not a thrat to other nations; we dea; fairly with other nations; why would any country wish to attack Canada unless we join the USA programs that no longer show respect for international law. From Celluci's remarks they would not honour Canada's air space soverneighty. I would prefer to take our chances on our own and keep our self respect and ideals.

Do you honestly think that Canada is safer today because we have not joined in on BMD....because Canada has allied herself in hundreds of US miiltary projects...

We as a nation remain safe today because the US is the worlds most powerful nation in the world and we fall under her umbrella of protection.... Not because we respect international law...(that is directly responsable for the deaths of thousands),something to be proud of........or we are not threats to other nations..(And how would we do that)

I can't believe you are willing to risk the lives of millions because of your pride, so that you can have your self respect and live by your ideals...turn the other cheek in todays world only means it to will get slapped ....It's time that Canadains grow-up and take responsabilty for thier own defense....

I on the other hand will swallow my pride if it will mean that my family will have every protection that was available or afforded it....so that they will have a secure future.

[August1991]

To join the program, even in a limited way, which by the way it seems Martin was heading, it had to be done quietly, which Bush shot out of the sky in Halifax.

Newf, here is where I think you're wrong.

For a variety of reasons, I think obfuscation is less and less of an option for politicians. Bush Jnr, Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney and even Trudeau said clearly what they think and then they defended it. They convinced people to support them.

PM PM's fudges are what's getting him the Mr. Dithers label.

As Australian John Howard said, "This is no time to be an 80% ally."

[Newfie Canadian]

You make a valid point August.

But, did they all have majority governments because they did it that way or did they do it that way because they had majorities?

I see what you're saying and you may be right.

The more I think about it, PM circa 1995 (the confident Finance minister) may have been able to do it the way you suggest.

[Shakeyhands]

I was wondering, when you're cruising around whichever 3rd rate forums you visit when you're not here, and you see people spreading this fiction about BMD detonating nukes in Canadian skies, are you going to speak up and mention your new-found understanding of nuclear weapons, or are you going to keep quiet because there's no Kimmy around to keep people honest?

Yes I have been going around and straightening everyone out on this. Thanks for the edumacation on dem bombs. You are my hero.

[B. Max]

Martin is fool to think that the americans would consult canada after he has said they won't participate. Can anyone really see the americans calling mr. dithers and asking him wheather they should shoot down an incoming misslie before it hits. He and the liberals have relegated canada to the category of irrelevant.

[August1991]

You make a valid point August.

But, did they all have majority governments because they did it that way or did they do it that way because they had majorities?

I see what you're saying and you may be right.

The more I think about it, PM circa 1995 (the confident Finance minister) may have been able to do it the way you suggest.

I don't want to go off on a tangent here but Kerry was less than successful for the same reason.

The flip side of course is that by taking a position, a politician is open to attack if things don't work out. So, the politician has to take the right position.

I have generally thought that successful politicians have a few clear cut goals which they pursue doggedly.

Your point about minority government is well taken though. Politics is the art of compromise.

As to missile defence, I think PM PM could have sold this.

[Newfie Canadian]

As to missile defence, I think PM PM could have sold this.

I agree that the old PM could have, especially if he had gotten some guarantees from Bush about space weaponization (on which a lot of people seem to be transfixed) and increased input through NORAD.

[caesar]

Martin is fool to think that the americans would consult canada after he has said they won't participate. Can anyone really see the americans calling mr. dithers and asking him wheather they should shoot down an incoming misslie before it hits. He and the liberals have relegated canada to the category of irrelevant.

Only if they (the USA government) respected international laws which we all know they do not. Stop the insulting nick names; that is being childish and we were told not to play these types of insulting childish games.