Bush-Martin Meeting

[August1991]

But Bush did confront Martin and used the sort of language that sets Canadians on edge. "He leaned across the table and said, 'I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, 'Why are we paying to defend Canada?' " said the senior Canadian official who was in the room and noted that he had been assured by Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell personally that Bush would avoid the subject.

The next day Bush gave a speech in Halifax that to the Canadians sounded as tough and uncompromising as ever. "We were all looking at each other and saying this is a speech for somebody else. It certainly wasn't for Canadians."

These quotes from The Washington Post. Paul Wells made reference to it in his blog.

Bush was right to say that to Martin. And I think this is being leaked, with the spin on Bush's Halifax speech, as a testing ground for a federal election. Having it come out of a US paper makes it even better.

The Liberals want a majority and they're going to get it by wrapping themselves in a Canadian flag and taking potshots at Bush. It's the oldest trick in the book for people with an inferiority complex. That's how Duplessis got re-elected.

-----

IMV, the early part of the article is even more interesting and has this quote:

The inspiration for Bush's thinking lately has been Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet political prisoner turned conservative Israeli politician. Bush read Sharansky's book "The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror" and invited him to the White House in November to talk about its ideas. Since then, Bush has been recommending the book to nearly everyone he sees, from friends to journalists to foreign leaders, telling CNN last week that "this is a book that . . . summarizes how I feel."

In the book, Sharansky outlines what he calls the "town square test," meaning that a country is not free if its citizens cannot go to a public place and express dissent from the ruling power without fear of reprisal -- a test Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice embraced during Senate testimony last week.

Sharansky's test is interesting. (You can read reviews of his book here.) I wonder whether this forum would pass it.

[Guest eureka]

Do you think that Bush actually read the book? Is it not more likely that he read the publisher's blurbs?

[caesar]

Do you think that Bush actually read the book? Is it not more likely that he read the publisher's blurbs?

Cheney read it and told him what to say. You know the question " How does Bush speak when Cheney"s drinking water?"

[Trial-and-Error]

Would someone out there please answer the question, other than the USA itself from what countries do we need defending?

IMV it's a bloody waste of money to beef up the ranks of our fighting military. There are only two interests the U.S. have in Canada--the protection of our natural resources and the protection of the U.S. from terrorists who might use Canada as a point of entry across the 49th.

Yes, the Yanks want us to protect our treasure chest of natrual resources so no one will lay claim to it but them? Yeah, right! It's got nothing to do with protecting our sorry asses--not in the least.

If we don't want to be the subject of terrorism attacks, we are best to stay out of American-initiated wars. Let's not make the mistake of getting sucked in against our own interests. While I do not condone terrorism in any form, the American administration--especially the present one--has indeed brought all this upon itself through its determination to gain control over resources that are not theirs. Thus, if they want to prevent terrorists from using our country to get into the U.S.A. then the onus for paying for this operation rests solely with the Americans who obviously support their greedy, truth-challenged leader. Let them be the ones who finance the protection of their borders. In the meantime, if we want to engage in protection, let's begin by keeping out the American rifraft who come in with guns.

This democracy theme that Junior is flogging is a joke for the consumption of the ignorant.

How many times must the USA demonstrate that it will take by force if necessary anything it damn well pleases. Their love of humanity never factors into the wars (AGAINST humanity) in which they engage--NEVER! And that includes WWII.

This is the plain truth--about the U.S.--and all other empires who have waged war before them.

The thing that drives me crazy is that so many of his own people actually BELIEVE that he has altruistic motives. Puhleese. Get a brain. Give me a bastard who acknowledges he's one over someone who repeatedly demonstrates his penchant for evil but claims he's waging it for the good of the people--his own and those of the country he's invading.

Now if we're talking about building up our defences to stave off the Americans from pillaging this nation, I'll readily change my tune--albeit such a goal is but a pipedream--unless of course one of you can tell me how we could ever pull it off.

In the meantime, let's do what the American government will never do for its own people--never ever--and continue to spend our tax monies on universal health care, feeding our poor, and generally putting all our political will and resources into making Canada a nation where people--all its people--come first. Now THAT would be an accomplishment. To paraphrase Rick Mercer--Canadians love a challenge--we're up to it.

[August1991]

Would someone out there please answer the question, other than the USA itself from what countries do we need defending?

Canada's military is already integrated into the uS military through NORAD and a host of other agreements.

How many times must the USA demonstrate that it will take by force if necessary anything it damn well pleases.

Have Americans ever taken anything from Canadians by force? No, because they can just buy whatever they want - paying us market prices for it.

You seem to confuse past, dicator-lead Empires with the United States, a democratic, federal state.

----

This long quote is from Sharansky's book and seems appropriate to your post, T&E.

"Appeasement is a powerful side effect of democracy. The West's appeasement policy toward the Soviet Union began almost the moment its appeasement policy toward Nazi Germany ended. It didn't end until Ronald Reagan. Democratic leaders need peace to survive. Because democracies have to reflect the will of their people, democratic leaders choose appeasement because anything is preferable to war. Free peoples go to war only when they have no other choice. By the way, this is democracy's great strength as well as its great weakness. Democracies are both so free, so stable, and so prosperous because their people don't want war. Therefore, Western leaders were only continuing in this tradition by believing that the Soviet Union needed to be transformed from a deadly rival into a partner for cooperation. Even President Carter, who understood human rights better than any president before him, always chose to appease the Soviet Union rather than to force it to compete with the West."

[Trial-and-Error]

Good God, I'm sorry August but your beliefs about the US of A are nothing short of daft and the one thing you don't seem to demonstrate is just plain common sense. Of course they haven't TAKEN anything from us by force but I guarantee the day we decide that our water resource for instance can be had at a price THEY think is unacceptable and we become truculent and insist they pay us what WE think is fair is the day you're looking at trouble--real trouble.

As for democracy, there is no such animal--democracy is a figment of your imagination. Under all forms of government, the average bloke is but a pawn. You might not be able to do anything about it, but learn to recognize it. You are precisely the type of person Junior and his gang of thugs adore--the type who can make a case for their own hanging. That Bush bunch get off on watching the ignorant gaily put a noose around their own necks. Believe you me, your type are the butt of their jokes behind closed doors. Gullible is in in the USA and you're a natural.

By the way, you haven't answered any of my questions; you're just like the idiot you so worship. You don't actually have to answer the question, all you need do is say you've answered the question and then provide me with jibberish. Incidentally, don't you recognize rhetorical questions when you see them?

[August1991]

As for democracy, there is no such animal--democracy is a figment of your imagination.

Tyranny is not a figment of my imagination. You have clearly never lived under such a regime. I have.

You and I would both be in prison for what we have written here. But then, we never would have written anything because we would be too afraid. Such regimes still exist in the world and I suggest you travel to them, spend some time there and maybe if you're lucky, someone might have an honest, furtive conversation with you.

Now, if you mean that one person's vote means nothing in democratic government decisions, then I agree with you. The problem is not democracy but rather government.

You are precisely the type of person Junior and his gang of thugs adore

You have clearly never met real thugs if you consider Bush to be one.

Of course they haven't TAKEN anything from us by force but I guarantee the day we decide that our water resource for instance can be had at a price THEY think is unacceptable and we become truculent and insist they pay us what WE think is fair is the day you're looking at trouble--real trouble.

If I go by the historical record (for example, softwood lumber), the problem seems to be that Americans are not allowed to buy from us because our prices are too low. This seems to make some Canadians very upset.

Your Questions?

How many times must the USA demonstrate that it will take by force if necessary anything it damn well pleases.

Americans are rich and can buy what they want.

There are only two interests the U.S. have in Canada--the protection of our natural resources and the protection of the U.S. from terrorists who might use Canada as a point of entry across the 49th.

IOW, our people and our land. We want to protect those things too and that's why we are part of NORAD and many other bilateral agreements.

Would someone out there please answer the question, other than the USA itself from what countries do we need defending?

There are people who don't like our liberal way of life. They consider it pollution. I don't think it's a big threat but we must defend ourselves.

Yes, the Yanks want us to protect our treasure chest of natrual resources so no one will lay claim to it but them?

You can sell whatever you own to the highest bidder. (BTW, do you personally own any of these natural resources you believe Americans covet? If not, what's your worry?)

While I do not condone terrorism in any form, the American administration--especially the present one--has indeed brought all this upon itself through its determination to gain control over resources that are not theirs.

Of course, Bush ordered those idiots to fly those planes into those buildings. Sorry, no, he didn't order them. The American government "provoked" those impoverished, oppressed Saudi men to do it.

Right, and if the Poles had not "provoked" Hitler, there would have been no WW2.

I strongly suggest you read the Sharansky quote.

[I miss Reagan]

Trial-Error,

You might be taken more seriously if you dropped the venom and argued your point rather than attack August 1991.

[August1991]

Sources confirmed yesterday that Martin was caught unaware when Bush broached the highly sensitive missile shield question and that the U.S. president struck an unexpectedly firm note in the private chat.

Caught unaware? Where has PM PM been for the past few months? Is he clueless?

Toronto Star

I realize that, according to the PMO leaker, Rice and Powell had said Bush Jnr wouldn't raise the issue, but really now, PM PM was not prepared?

Bush "waved his hands and remarked: `I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defence of Canada, it wouldn't be accepted?'" the Post quoted the Canadian official as saying.

This quote is going the rounds and somehow implies that Bush Jnr doesn't understand Canada or foreigners or something.

On the contrary, the query cuts to the chase. Are Canadians willing to stand up and defend themselves?

[Stoker]

Here's a well thought out article by Lewis MacKenzie on BMD and the negative spin put on it:

BMD doesn't deserve such a bumpy ride

I enjoy this part:

Him: “ I don’t care what you say, the polls are showing the majority of Canadians are against us getting involved and this is a democracy”.

Me: “ Sure the polls show a close race and that result emerged from a question like, ‘ Are you in favour of joining the U.S. in its expensive and unproven ballistic missile defence program?’ Result: 50/50. Think if the question was, ‘The U.S., NATO, Japan, Britain, Australia, Russia, France, Israel, and Denmark are all cooperating with the implementation of a ballistic missile system that you won’t see, won’t pay for and won’t be based on Canadian soil, but will make you and your family safer. Are you in favour of joining?’ I would anticipate a dramatically different result.

On the contrary, the query cuts to the chase. Are Canadians willing to stand up and defend themselves?

As noted by the above quote, I guess it depends on how you ask them......

[Newfie Canadian]

That's a pretty good link there Stoker.

I love Lew MacKenzie.

He makes some valid points.

I also agree with August.

If Martin was shocked that it came up during the visit, he needs new advisors and better briefing people.

I wonder if it isn't so much that he was shocked that it came up, but more that it came up so much and so publicly, ie the Halifax speech.

[caesar]

I also agree with August.

If Martin was shocked that it came up during the visit, he needs new advisors and better briefing people.

Not at all. It was agreed with America that this issue would NOT be brought up. MARTIN was bushwhacked by Bush. Bush is a jerk. Never trust Bush to keep his word. eh We don't need an over priced unreliable defense system; we need something that we can depend on not some pie in the sky failing system. We need our own Canadian defense not something "made in America"

[Newfie Canadian]

We need our own Canadian defense not something "made in America"

I agree that is preferred.

Despite assurances from Rice and Powell, Martin and his advisors should have anticipated at least some mention of BMD. They weren't going to get away with mentioning Canadian issues like softwood lumber and Mad Cow to Bush without Bush mentioning American isssues like Iraq and BMD to Martin.

That's political naiveté.

I wasn't surprised when Bush brought it up. Why was Martin?

[Black Dog]

Canada's military is already integrated into the uS military through NORAD and a host of other agreements.

So all this talk of us riding the U.S.'s coattails is a bunch of hogwash. The U.S. has only been too happy to shoulder that burden. Which is unfortunate.

I do find ita little weird that the very same individuals bemoaning the sad state of our military and lack of independence from the U.S. on military matters are the same people arguing for further integration through BMD and such.

This long quote is from Sharansky's book and seems appropriate to your post, T&E...

It's becoming increasingly apparent that this Sharansky characte is a bit of an idiot (the use of the word "appeasement" is a dead give away).

The Cold War wa swon not by Regan's bluster or by America's massive military budget (which did more fo padding the stock portfolios of people like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the Carlyle Group than for national defense), but rather by the inherent instability of the Soviet system. Western intelligence knew this fact as far back as the '60s and were proven right.

"Even President Carter, who understood human rights better than any president before him, always chose to appease the Soviet Union rather than to force it to compete with the West."

Detente worked. It's known now (from records unearthed after the fall of the Soviet Union) that the Soviets were so rattled by Reagan's militarism that they contemplated launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the U.S. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, but it shows that strength will always be met with strength, threats with threats.

Are Canadians willing to stand up and defend themselves?

Yeah, history has shown Canada and Canadians have been more than willing to step up when they or their allies are threatened. Fortunately, we live in an age where such threats are minimal, and where the primary threats to global security are criminals waging assymetrical warfare. The only other threat to global stability is the increasing belligerant superpower to the south which is doing it darndest to make as many enemies as it can.

(Another point on military funding: the U.S.A. spends as much on the military as half of the rest of the world combined, yet was still unable to prevent 9-11. canada spends a fraction of the U.S.'s military budget on defense, yet has never been a victim of a terrorist attack. I think this says a lot about the relative virtues of our respective approaches to the world and that if one throws one's weight around, one can expect to make soem determined enemies.)

Here's a well thought out article by Lewis MacKenzie on BMD and the negative spin put on it:

Blah blah blah. MacKenzie's talking out of his hat. Bascically, BMD is useful...

IF Iran and North Korea develop ICBM capability (yet remain incapable of developing soem kind of countermeasures for BMD, such as decoy warheads)...

IF they decide to commit wholesale suicide by attacking first (Mackenzie then uses various unrelated terrorist events to illustrate his little theory, which basically hinges upon the assumption that the "Others" are just plumb crazy.)...

IF it doesn't cost us anything (for now)...

and IF they actually get it to work.

That's a lot of IFs.

In any case, the biggest error he and others who argue for BMD make is the assumption that such a system is to be used purely for defense. The U.S has been quite explicit in it's inetentions to wage preemptive war on any state it sees fit tom attack. BMD is part and parcel of a strategy designed to support U.S. offensive operations abroad by neutralizing any retaliatory measures a nation attacked by the U.S. might undertake.

[Stoker]

QUOTE 

Canada's military is already integrated into the uS military through NORAD and a host of other agreements.

So all this talk of us riding the U.S.'s coattails is a bunch of hogwash. The U.S. has only been too happy to shoulder that burden. Which is unfortunate.

Could you connect the dots for me please? Who's saying that it's "hogwash"? Who said the United States is happy to shoulder the burden?

I do find ita little weird that the very same individuals bemoaning the sad state of our military and lack of independence from the U.S. on military matters are the same people arguing for further integration through BMD and such.

Which people are those?

Yeah, history has shown Canada and Canadians have been more than willing to step up when they or their allies are threatened. Fortunately, we live in an age where such threats are minimal, and where the primary threats to global security are criminals waging assymetrical warfare. The only other threat to global stability is the increasing belligerant superpower to the south which is doing it darndest to make as many enemies as it can.

History has also shown that thousands of poorly equipped and trained young Canadian boys died because they were "rushed to war" due to our insufficient, pre-war, professional military.

(Another point on military funding: the U.S.A. spends as much on the military as half of the rest of the world combined, yet was still unable to prevent 9-11. canada spends a fraction of the U.S.'s military budget on defense, yet has never been a victim of a terrorist attack. I think this says a lot about the relative virtues of our respective approaches to the world and that if one throws one's weight around, one can expect to make soem determined enemies.)

Your first point is moot........was Canada targeted on 9/11?

As for your second, smug responce, you seem to forget that Canada has also been mentioned by OBL as being on his "hit list".........

IF Iran and North Korea develop ICBM capability (yet remain incapable of developing soem kind of countermeasures for BMD, such as decoy warheads)...

This point suggest that BMD technology will become static......I doubt it won't be "ever growing" so as to encompass new technologies.

IF they decide to commit wholesale suicide by attacking first (Mackenzie then uses various unrelated terrorist events to illustrate his little theory, which basically hinges upon the assumption that the "Others" are just plumb crazy.)...

All Mackenzie is doing here is to suggest a precedent, in that wholesale suicide is not outside the realm of possablitiy.......namely when one can expect twenty virgins and a ticket to paradise for doing so.

IF it doesn't cost us anything (for now)...

I've yet to see anything to suggest that the Americans expect us to provide any funds towards BMD......have you?

and IF they actually get it to work.

Whats the rate of succes for BMD in it's infancy? 5-15%? something like that IIRC............What was the rate of

success in destroying a ICBM without BMD?

In any case, the biggest error he and others who argue for BMD make is the assumption that such a system is to be used purely for defense. The U.S has been quite explicit in it's inetentions to wage preemptive war on any state it sees fit tom attack. BMD is part and parcel of a strategy designed to support U.S. offensive operations abroad by neutralizing any retaliatory measures a nation attacked by the U.S. might undertake.

What does that have to do with our involvment in the program? We joined NORAD and NATO, did this force us to join in the Vietnam, Falklands or recent Iraq war?

I don't follow your logic.........

[Black Dog]

Could you connect the dots for me please? Who's saying that it's "hogwash"? Who said the United States is happy to shoulder the burden?

I'm saying its hogwash because the U.S. has been calling the shots for 50 years (DEW line, anyone?)

If they have a problem with our committment to their defense, they can leave us alone to defend ourselves from our non existent enemies on our own.

Which people are those?

You, for one.

History has also shown that thousands of poorly equipped and trained young Canadian boys died because they were "rushed to war" due to our insufficient, pre-war, professional military.

Examples?

Your first point is moot........was Canada targeted on 9/11?

No. Why not? Surely we wold be a more tempting target?

As for your second, smug responce, you seem to forget that Canada has also been mentioned by OBL as being on his "hit list".........

So?

This point suggest that BMD technology will become static......I doubt it won't be "ever growing" so as to encompass new technologies.

Getting it to work would be a great first step.

All Mackenzie is doing here is to suggest a precedent, in that wholesale suicide is not outside the realm of possablitiy.......namely when one can expect twenty virgins and a ticket to paradise for doing so.

But he errs in using the actions of individuals and small groups to suggest natonal behaviours.

I've yet to see anything to suggest that the Americans expect us to provide any funds towards BMD......have you?

Not yet.

Whats the rate of succes for BMD in it's infancy? 5-15%? something like that IIRC............What was the rate of  success in destroying a ICBM without BMD?

Before BMD, there was a 100 per cent success rate against the ICBMs that weren't launched. Why do ya suppose 60-some years of nuclear standoff happened without a single nuclear exchange?

What does that have to do with our involvment in the program? We joined NORAD and NATO, did this force us to join in the Vietnam, Falklands or recent Iraq war?

I don't follow your logic.........

Just an observation.

[Stoker]

If they have a problem with our committment to their defense, they can leave us alone to defend ourselves from our non existent enemies on our own

.........forget the "non existent enemies" Canada faces for the moment, and let's reflect on the need of American aircraft and logsitcal support to our government to deal with the Manitoba floods and the Quebec Ice Storm......

QUOTE 

Which people are those?

You, for one.

When have I moaned for our lack of military independence? I moan becasue of our American dependence........

Still, I fail to see the problem you see with this stance....

QUOTE 

History has also shown that thousands of poorly equipped and trained young Canadian boys died because they were "rushed to war" due to our insufficient, pre-war, professional military.

Examples?

First and Second world wars.

QUOTE 

Your first point is moot........was Canada targeted on 9/11?

No. Why not? Surely we wold be a more tempting target?

Why would we be a more tempting target? Again, your point is moot, we were not targeted or attacked on 9/11.

QUOTE 

As for your second, smug responce, you seem to forget that Canada has also been mentioned by OBL as being on his "hit list".........

So?

So it nullifies your remarks that Canada won't be attacked because of our "relative virtues" and "respective approaches to the world".

QUOTE 

All Mackenzie is doing here is to suggest a precedent, in that wholesale suicide is not outside the realm of possablitiy.......namely when one can expect twenty virgins and a ticket to paradise for doing so. 

But he errs in using the actions of individuals and small groups to suggest natonal behaviours.

Ahh, but thats the rub........these nations don't always reflect the views and behaviours of the people......seeing as how they tend to be governed by a dictator and all.

QUOTE 

Whats the rate of succes for BMD in it's infancy? 5-15%? something like that IIRC............What was the rate of  success in destroying a ICBM without BMD?

Before BMD, there was a 100 per cent success rate against the ICBMs that weren't launched. Why do ya suppose 60-some years of nuclear standoff happened without a single nuclear exchange?

Those that had the "bomb" also had much to lose in using it.........how does the quote go?

"Fear the man with nothing to lose"? (and a trip to a paradise full of virgins to gain)

[Black Dog]

First and Second world wars.

I meant of losses that could specifically be linked to Candians being 'rushed to war" due to our insufficient, pre-war, professional military.'

Why would we be a more tempting target? Again, your point is moot, we were not targeted or attacked on 9/11.

If we are as weak as people say, if we are as much of a target as the U.S. and if military strength is a gurantor of safety, why was teh U.S. hit on 9-11 and not us?

So it nullifies your remarks that Canada won't be attacked because of our "relative virtues" and "respective approaches to the world".

But Canada has not been attacked. Unless such a thing occurs, OBLs words are just empty posturing.

hh, but thats the rub........these nations don't always reflect the views and behaviours of the people......seeing as how they tend to be governed by a dictator and all.

And dictators don't stay dictators by being suicidal.

Those that had the "bomb" also had much to lose in using it.........how does the quote go?

"Fear the man with nothing to lose"? (and a trip to a paradise full of virgins to gain)

Since we can assume that "rougue states" have pl;enty to lose, then you must be referring to terrorist use of ICBMs. But what are the odds of such an event occurring? Where would tehy get them. That's not to say such a threat is not within the realm of possibility, but I sincerly doubt it's enough of a legitimate threat as to justify BMD.

[Stoker]

I meant of losses that could specifically be linked to Candians being 'rushed to war" due to our insufficient, pre-war, professional military.'

......and I stated the first and second world war........the same logic can be appliyed to all countries not just us.......

Ask yourself, and think about it.......who would be better prepaired for war.......a kid from stubblejump Saskatchewan that was in school and worked on the family farm, than was sent off to fight with just a few weeks training and some cast-off equipment we got from the Brits or the Americans

-OR-

A professional soldier that spent years training the body and the mind for the horrors of war and is equiped with the best weapons that money and technolgy can allow.

QUOTE 

Why would we be a more tempting target? Again, your point is moot, we were not targeted or attacked on 9/11.

If we are as weak as people say, if we are as much of a target as the U.S. and if military strength is a gurantor of safety, why was teh U.S. hit on 9-11 and not us?

They were targeted, not us.

Would have hitting Toronto had the same affect as hitting New York?

Perhaps ego was another reason.......

QUOTE 

So it nullifies your remarks that Canada won't be attacked because of our "relative virtues" and "respective approaches to the world". 

But Canada has not been attacked. Unless such a thing occurs, OBLs words are just empty posturing.

So by using that logic........since I've never been arrested and/or in a crash due to drunk driving, I should have carte blanche to drive snapped?

QUOTE 

hh, but thats the rub........these nations don't always reflect the views and behaviours of the people......seeing as how they tend to be governed by a dictator and all.

And dictators don't stay dictators by being suicidal.

Has a dictator ever had the option to directly threaten the American homeland?

Since we can assume that "rougue states" have pl;enty to lose, then you must be referring to terrorist use of ICBMs. But what are the odds of such an event occurring? Where would tehy get them. That's not to say such a threat is not within the realm of possibility, but I sincerly doubt it's enough of a legitimate threat as to justify BMD.

What does a Kim Jong Ill have to lose? What about an Iranain Ayatollah? i wouldn't be quick to right off people of this ilk.......

WRT terrorists getting ahold of ICBMs, IMHO, a likely place could very well be a Pakistain or a nuclear Iran......Even Chenyan rebels taking over a Russian ICBM site could pose a threat......I'm sure there are many of senarios that we are not privy to.

[Black Dog]

......and I stated the first and second world war........the same logic can be appliyed to all countries not just us.......

Ask yourself, and think about it.......who would be better prepaired for war.......a kid from stubblejump Saskatchewan that was in school and worked on the family farm, than was sent off to fight with just a few weeks training and some cast-off equipment we got from the Brits or the Americans

-OR-

A professional soldier that spent years training the body and the mind for the horrors of war and is equiped with the best weapons that money and technolgy can allow.

Fair point. There's also the issue of incompetent leadership which cost many thousands of lives during both conflicts.

But the point was: Canada has ever been willing to defend itself from threats to its security. It just so happens that, these days, such threats are few and far between and best dealt with by means other than a large military.

So by using that logic........since I've never been arrested and/or in a crash due to drunk driving, I should have carte blanche to drive snapped?

No. Only that bin Laden can blsuter an threaten whoever he wants from his cave: that does not necessarily constitute a legitimate threat.

Has a dictator ever had the option to directly threaten the American homeland?

Cold War, anyone?

What does a Kim Jong Ill have to lose? What about an Iranain Ayatollah? i wouldn't be quick to right off people of this ilk.......

Power. Control. The one trait dictators tend to share is meglomania. And it's awful hard to force a pile of irradiated corspes to put up your photo in a place of honour.

WRT terrorists getting ahold of ICBMs, IMHO, a likely place could very well be a Pakistain or a nuclear Iran......Even Chenyan rebels taking over a Russian ICBM site could pose a threat......I'm sure there are many of senarios that we are not privy to.

Sure. Possible? Yes. probable? I dunno. I do know there are easier ways to strike (as 9-11 showed), yet the attention and funding BMD has recieved has outstripped spending on homeland security. If my number crunching is correct (based on BMD program estimates through 2009 and Homeland Securities 2004 budget request) BMD gets about $7.8 billion a year to Homeland Security's $800 million.

[Stoker]

But the point was: Canada has ever been willing to defend itself from threats to its security. It just so happens that, these days, such threats are few and far between and best dealt with by means other than a large military.

And my point is hinged on yours. Yes, Canada is willing to defend it security, but only does such once the threat is apparent........and we have been lucky and blessed with geograghpy, the same can't be said for most of Europe pre WW II.

Why not ready ourselves for the worst possable conflict, so when the next nasty war comes to us our Men and Women will have a greater chance of survival and in turn, success?

No. Only that bin Laden can blsuter an threaten whoever he wants from his cave: that does not necessarily constitute a legitimate threat.

Ahh, but on the list that mentioned Canada, many of the other countries on that list (Spain, Australia) have suffered an attack directed at them on their soil or near it, in the case of the Bali bombings.

QUOTE 

Has a dictator ever had the option to directly threaten the American homeland? 

Cold War, anyone?

I should have qualified my question more:

What third world dictator has had the ablitiy to directly threaten the United States proper before......

QUOTE 

What does a Kim Jong Ill have to lose? What about an Iranain Ayatollah? i wouldn't be quick to right off people of this ilk.......

Power. Control. The one trait dictators tend to share is meglomania. And it's awful hard to force a pile of irradiated corspes to put up your photo in a place of honour.

So why than, do they commit actions that will quite obviously draw a negative responce from the United States and the western world?

Sure. Possible? Yes. probable? I dunno. I do know there are easier ways to strike (as 9-11 showed), yet the attention and funding BMD has recieved has outstripped spending on homeland security. If my number crunching is correct (based on BMD program estimates through 2009 and Homeland Securities 2004 budget request) BMD gets about $7.8 billion a year to Homeland Security's $800 million.

I asked this question to somebody else in another thread, and I'll repeat for you:

Of the nuclear powers of today (and aspiring nuclear powers), which countries are no longer developing ICBM?

[Anti-Rightwing]

What third world dictator has had the ablitiy to directly threaten the United States proper before......

Cuba, Fidel Castro was in posesion of ICBMs, while technically these did belong to the Soviet Union, they were also on the island of Cuba. From that location they could launch missiles that could hit as far north as Hudson's Bay.

Yes, Canada is willing to defend it security, but only does such once the threat is apparent

So do you expect us to declare war on a nation that has made what might be a threat. Of course we wait till there is a real threat. The last time a nation didnt, Iraq happened.

I have a theory you know, if the whole world kepts its knose out of other countries we wouldnt have all these threats and terrorism.

[Stoker]

Cuba, Fidel Castro was in posesion of ICBMs, while technically these did belong to the Soviet Union, they were also on the island of Cuba. From that location they could launch missiles that could hit as far north as Hudson's Bay.

As you said in your quote........they were Soviet missiles and Fidel had no say on how they were to be used..........Just as West Germans, South Koreans, British and Turks had no say on how Americans nukes on their soil were to be used........

So do you expect us to declare war on a nation that has made what might be a threat. Of course we wait till there is a real threat. The last time a nation didnt, Iraq happened.

Though I'm not opposed to the ideals of preemption, I never brought that up as an option for the defence of Canada (in this thread), in the sense of a "first strike" capablitiy.

What i do hope to accomplish, is to have the abilty to counter another preemption onto us or our intrests by another, and if need be, doing it on our own.

But answer this honestly, if you are out at the bar and some drunk guy comes up and starts telling you how he's going to give you free dental work, are you going to wait for him to punch you in the nose first?

I have a theory you know, if the whole world kepts its knose out of other countries we wouldnt have all these threats and terrorism.

Oh yes And we could make the streets out of gum drops and the skies would rain sweet milk chocolate upon us in the big green fields in which people with disagrements held pillow and tickle matches..........

[Black Dog]

Why not ready ourselves for the worst possable conflict, so when the next nasty war comes to us our Men and Women will have a greater chance of survival and in turn, success?

I'm not arguing that Canada's military needs an overhaul. I've said repeatedly taht we need to have the ability to protect ourselves from threats to our soverignty. But thats not the issue. I see now that I've been lured into the trap of equating BMD with Canada's committment to self-defense; it's a trap I will now extricate myself from.

Ahh, but on the list that mentioned Canada, many of the other countries on that list (Spain, Australia) have suffered an attack directed at them on their soil or near it, in the case of the Bali bombings.

And what was teh common denominator?

Another question: when did that "list" come out?

What third world dictator has had the ablitiy to directly threaten the United States proper before......

None. Which remains the case. Indeed, this would be the case even if Iran or North Korea developed the means to hit the U.S., as the threat of nuclear annihalation remains too strong a detrrent.

So why than, do they commit actions that will quite obviously draw a negative responce from the United States and the western world?

You'll have to be more specific than "actions".

Of the nuclear powers of today (and aspiring nuclear powers), which countries are no longer developing ICBM?

Only 35 countries today have ballistic missiles. Only two possess ICBMs and ony two (Iran and North Korea) are suspected of developing them. The remainder (te majority of which are U.S. allies) possess short and medium range ballistic missiles.

The declining threat

The number of intercontinental ballistic missiles (with ranges over 5,500 km) has decreased dramatically since the height of the Cold War. During the 1980s, the Soviet Union deployed over 9,540 nuclear warheads on 2,318 long-range missiles aimed at the United States Currently, Russia has fewer than 5,000 missile warheads deployed on approximately 1,022 missiles. This represents a 56-percent decrease in the number of missiles capable of striking the territory of the United States and a 48-percent decrease in the number of nuclear warheads on these missiles.

These decreases will certainly continue over the next ten years. With or without the implementation of the START II and III strategic arms reduction treaties, Russia is expected to field fewer than 2,000 nuclear warheads on missiles and bombers by 2010. If U.S.-Russian arms control and cooperative threat reduction programs continue, Russia's strategic arsenal of nuclear warheads may drop to as few as 1,086 by 2010. Two thousand warheads would represent nearly an 80-percent decrease from the mid-1980s; 1,086 warheads would be an 89-percent decrease.

During this period, China has maintained a force of some 20 DF-5 intercontinental ballistic missiles. Under China's current policy of modernizing its nuclear arsenal, January 2001 OSD estimates predict that "by 2015, China likely will have tens of missiles capable of reaching the United States."

The lengthy development program for the DF-31 missile illustrates the formidable engineering and manufacturing challenges China faces and is typical of the consistently slow progress of China's missile programs. However, U.S. defense estimates recognize that military and political developments could result in significant increases. In particular, China "may change the pace of its modernization efforts for its nuclear missile force…if the United States deploys NMD."

The more accurate way to summarize existing global ballistic missile capabilities is that there is a wide-spread capability to launch short-range missiles (mostly Scuds). There is a slowly growing, but still limited, capability to launch medium-range missiles. Most importantly, there is a decreasing number of long-range missiles that can threaten the United States.

For a more "official" estimate check this.

the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015

Most Intelligence Community agencies project that before 2015 the United States most likely will face ICBM threats from North Korea and Iran, and possibly from Iraq—barring significant changes in their political orientations—in addition to the longstanding missile forces of Russia and China.  One agency assesses that the United States is unlikely to face an ICBM threat from Iran before 2015.

Short- and medium-range ballistic missiles already pose a significant threat overseas to US interests, military forces, and allies. 

Emerging ballistic missile states continue to increase the range, reliability, and accuracy of the missile systems in their inventories—posing ever greater risks to US forces, interests, and allies throughout the world.

Proliferation of ballistic missile-related technologies, materials, and expertise—especially by Russian, Chinese, and North Korean entities—has enabled emerging missile states to accelerate missile development, acquire new capabilities, and potentially develop even more capable and longer range future systems. 

Unless Moscow significantly increases funding for its strategic forces, the Russian arsenal will decline to less than 2,000 warheads by 2015—with or without arms control. 

Although Russia still maintains the most comprehensive ballistic missile force capable of reaching the United States, force structure decisions resulting from resource problems, program development failures, weapon system aging, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and arms control treaties have resulted in a steep decline in Russian strategic nuclear forces over the last 10 years.   

The Intelligence Community projects that Chinese ballistic missile forces will increase several-fold by 2015, but Beijing's future ICBM force deployed primarily against the United States—which will number around 75 to 100 warheads—will remain considerably smaller and less capable than the strategic missile forces of Russia and the United States. 

China has three new, mobile strategic missiles in development—the road-mobile DF-31 ICBM; the longer range road-mobile DF-31 follow-on; and the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM).

These programs date from the mid-1980s and are the basis of Beijing’s efforts to field a modern, more survivable strategic deterrent to the United States and Russia. 

North Korea’s multiple-stage Taepo Dong-2, which is capable of reaching parts of the United States with a nuclear weapon-sized (several hundred kg) payload, may be ready for flight-testing.   

North Korea in May 2001, however, extended its voluntary moratorium on long-range missile flight-testing until 2003, provided that negotiations with the United States proceed. 

A Taepo Dong-2 test probably would be conducted in a space launch configuration, like the Taepo Dong-1 test in 1998.

The North continues to develop missiles. 

Iran is pursuing short- and long-range missile capabilities. 

Tehran has 1,300-km-range Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) that could be launched in a conflict. 

Iran is pursuing an ICBM/space launch vehicle (SLV) system.  All agencies agree that Iran could attempt a launch in mid-decade, but Tehran is likely to take until the last half of the decade to flight test an ICBM/SLV; one agency further believes that Iran is unlikely to conduct a successful test until after 2015.

Iraq, constrained by international sanctions and prohibitions, wants a long-range missile and probably retains a small, covert force of Scud-variant missiles. 

If UN prohibitions were eliminated or significantly reduced, Iraq would be likely to spend several years reestablishing its short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) force, developing and deploying solid-propellant systems, and pursuing MRBMs.

All agencies agree that Iraq could test different ICBM concepts before 2015 if UN prohibitions were eliminated in the next few years.  Most agencies, however, believe that it is unlikely to do so, even if the prohibitions were eliminated.  Some believe that if prohibitions were eliminated Iraq would be likely to test an ICBM masked as an SLV before 2015, possibly before 2010 if it received foreign technology. 

Several countries could develop a mechanism to launch SRBMs, MRBMs, or land-attack cruise missiles from forward-based ships or other platforms; a few are likely to do so—more likely for cruise missiles—before 2015. 

Nonmissile means for delivering weapons of mass destruction do not provide the same prestige, deterrence, and coercive diplomacy as ICBMs; but they are less expensive, more reliable and accurate, more effective for disseminating biological warfare agents, can be used without attribution, and would avoid missile defenses. 

So, it's far to say that the threat to the U.S. Homeland has been overstated by proponents of BMD. If anything, as China's example shows, BMD will increase the threat of ICBMs. The threat of terrorists seizing ICBMs is negligible compared to the theat of nuclear, chemical or biological attack through other means.

[Stoker]

I'm not arguing that Canada's military needs an overhaul. I've said repeatedly taht we need to have the ability to protect ourselves from threats to our soverignty. But thats not the issue. I see now that I've been lured into the trap of equating BMD with Canada's committment to self-defense; it's a trap I will now extricate myself from.

What trap Really though, if the Americans are offering to build this "wonderful device" known as BMD and all they want in return is some political capital in the form of us being another nation that supports BMD, whats the problem?

And what was teh common denominator?

IIRC, countries that all supported America after 9/11 and took part in the war in Afghanistain.

Another question: when did that "list" come out?

Again, IIRC, shortly after the fall of the Talaban.......it may have been one of Bin Laden's first tapes......I'll see if I can dig it up.

None. Which remains the case. Indeed, this would be the case even if Iran or North Korea developed the means to hit the U.S., as the threat of nuclear annihalation remains too strong a detrrent.

Ahh, but do we know that for sure? 100%?

QUOTE 

So why than, do they commit actions that will quite obviously draw a negative responce from the United States and the western world?

You'll have to be more specific than "actions".

ie. Invasion of Kuwait, supporting international terror, threating the destruction of Israel etc.

QUOTE 

Of the nuclear powers of today (and aspiring nuclear powers), which countries are no longer developing ICBM?

Only 35 countries today have ballistic missiles. Only two possess ICBMs and ony two (Iran and North Korea) are suspected of developing them. The remainder (te majority of which are U.S. allies) possess short and medium range ballistic missiles.

The declining threat

Ahh, but you're wrong

America is developing a next generation ICBM

Russia is developing a next generation ICBMand possably SLBM

China is developing new ICBMs and SLBM

France is developing new SLBM

The United Kingdom is looking at options to replace their SLBM

India is developing new ICBMs

Isreal is developing SLBM

Pakistan is developing ICBMs

North Korea and Iran both have active missile programs

NUclear powers developing ICBMs

So in a sense, the answer to my question, all nations with nuclear weapons are developing new ways to deploy them.

Here's another intresting list, which has non-nuclear states with missile programs:

Missile Proliferation Summary

So, it's far to say that the threat to the U.S. Homeland has been overstated by proponents of BMD. If anything, as China's example shows, BMD will increase the threat of ICBMs. The threat of terrorists seizing ICBMs is negligible compared to the theat of nuclear, chemical or biological attack through other means.

Where's the overstatement? Of all those above countries that are developing ICBM technology, how many would you consider friends with, neutral with or eneimies with the United States?