Jump to content

Missile Counter-Attack


Recommended Posts

Missile Counter-Attack

Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Thu Mar 3 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY

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.

read the rest here

He's our former foreign minister. He used to be much more....diplomatic! I guess he's trying to more of a Fox news "in your face" tactic so the Bush admin might hear it.

This part is great, really nails it:

Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such as missile defence can be made openly.

You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.

Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.

Cellucci has been a joke...just a mouthpiece for Bush, nothing more. When Bush came that was another joke....he was too scared to address Parliament. Thought he might get heckled for petesake.

I hope Condi takes the advice and stays away from rightwing think tanks while up here (we're infested with them) and actually seeks out contrary opinion. The BMD decision was based upon sound logic. Martin isn't throwing that logic publicly in Bushs face because he doesn't want to embarrass him (like Bush did to him on his visit here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LLoyd has always been out to breakfast lunch and dinner so what else is new. He isn't aliberal either he is an NDPer who joined the Liberals so he could get elected. I lived in Winnipeg when that happened.

Ooop s There is a missle coming over the Eastern Arctic coming towards the USA. President Bush orders the commanders to shoot it down, then calls whomever in Ottawa and says you just might hear a big bang very shortly and if you don't like it then take your dumb complaint to the UN who can't do a damn thing about it nor can anyone else. We are protecting ourselves, too bad you aren't interested in doing the same for the Citizens of Canada. Martin pauses and cries out:

Damn we just lost millions of taxpayers who were killed by that missle explosion, now what are we going to do?

Better have an emergency meeting with my Cabinet Ministers and see how much we can increase the taxes to make up for those losses. Damn it all !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iknowbest (likely!) The stupidness here is that the chances of someoning lobbing a nuke into the good ole US of A is pretty frickin slim. Why would we invest any time, money or energy into a stupid plan? Why would we not be more interested in protecting the US and Canada against a far more likely scenario, that of a suitcase nuke or a dirty bomb, this makes way more sense to me. you?

oh and by way of an edit, your scenario is ridiculous, it shows us a lot though in the way you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iknowbest (likely!) The stupidness here is that the chances of someoning lobbing a nuke into the good ole US of A is pretty frickin slim. Why would we invest any time, money or energy into a stupid plan? Why would we not be more interested in protecting the US and Canada against a far more likely scenario, that of a suitcase nuke or a dirty bomb, this makes way more sense to me. you?

oh and by way of an edit, your scenario is ridiculous, it shows us a lot though in the way you think.

Shakey Hands you had better think again. Iran, North Korea and a couple of other ex USSR states can be a real serious threat to North America. Two the cost to Canada is absolutely zero I repeat zero. No money, no manpower, ZIP! In fact Canada will lose out on a lot of technical manufacturing contracts of products that will support the system.

To say that there is no threat try again. I suppose when the light goes green at an intersection there is no threat of a car running a red light and killing someone. I suppose that when in Washington DC at night walking the streets there is no threat to ones personal safety. When in Moscow walking in certain districts at night there is no threat. Hell try Baghdad, safe as heck right?

9/11 did not happen. The Gander aircraft crash did not happen. The Winnipeg flood is not a threat to the city of Winnipeg. Drought is not a threat to the prairie farmers.

Get it right; There is in fact threats from man made and natural disasters and using missiles from rogue ships or foreign occupied territory is very real to North America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that there is no threat try again. I suppose when the light goes green at an intersection there is no threat of a car running a red light and killing someone. I suppose that when in Washington DC at night walking the streets there is no threat to ones personal safety. When in Moscow walking in certain districts at night there is no threat. Hell try Baghdad, safe as heck right?

9/11 did not happen. The Gander aircraft crash did not happen. The Winnipeg flood is not a threat to the city of Winnipeg. Drought is not a threat to the prairie farmers.

This bizarre and quite divorced from reality.

How are the threats from walking the street at night in this or that city relevant to the threat of a ballistic missile?

You're the same person who claimed in another thread that the BM threat was part of the terrorist threat:

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.

You seem to have a lot of confusion regarding what's a threat and what isn't, and the appropriate response.

Yes, terrorism IS a threat. No, this does not mean a ballistic missile is a threat.

Bush has been really good at scaring people...scaring them out of their wits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

The cost to Canada is far greater than the expense of a few dollars. The cost comes in the abandonment of all initiatives for world peace.

The cost will be in becoming an accessory to the abrogatiion of the ABM treaties. The cost will be in the encouragement of a new Arms Race and the proliferation of Nuclear Proliferation. The cost will be in the complicity in the first steps toward the weaponization of Space.

The cost will be in the bringing of the threat of nuclear war one step closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost to Canada is far greater than the expense of a few dollars. The cost comes in the abandonment of all initiatives for world peace.

The cost will be in becoming an accessory to the abrogatiion of the ABM treaties. The cost will be in the encouragement of a new Arms Race and the proliferation of Nuclear Proliferation. The cost will be in the complicity in the first steps toward the weaponization of Space.

The cost will be in the bringing of the threat of nuclear war one step closer.

Well said.

It's easy for all the Ann Coulter types to chaulk up the BMD decision to "anti-Americanism".

Always easier for people to attack others.

It's harder to actually consider the valid reasons behind a decision. That's the challange for all the ditto-heads who are sharing in the Bush outrage over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost to Canada is far greater than the expense of a few dollars. The cost comes in the abandonment of all initiatives for world peace.

The cost will be in becoming an accessory to the abrogatiion of the ABM treaties. The cost will be in the encouragement of a new Arms Race and the proliferation of Nuclear Proliferation. The cost will be in the complicity in the first steps toward the weaponization of Space.

Thats a complete and utter strawman (as Black Dog would say)

As I pointed out to Black Dog, all of the nuclear nations have been developing new nuclear weapons and new long range missile programs even after the end of the cold war........this "new arms race" is not new, it is still the original one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost to Canada is far greater than the expense of a few dollars. The cost comes in the abandonment of all initiatives for world peace.

The cost will be in becoming an accessory to the abrogatiion of the ABM treaties. The cost will be in the encouragement of a new Arms Race and the proliferation of Nuclear Proliferation. The cost will be in the complicity in the first steps toward the weaponization of Space.

Thats a complete and utter strawman (as Black Dog would say)

As I pointed out to Black Dog, all of the nuclear nations have been developing new nuclear weapons and new long range missile programs even after the end of the cold war........this "new arms race" is not new, it is still the original one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a complete and utter strawman (as Black Dog would say)

As I pointed out to Black Dog, all of the nuclear nations have been developing new nuclear weapons and new long range missile programs even after the end of the cold war........this "new arms race" is not new, it is still the original one.

Post it again. :huh:

Of course nations have been developing things. The question is not do nations continue development....the question is at what pace does it occur.

Is it a slow...unhurried thing that holds promise for agreements and treaties, or is it a "race".

The USA is creating a new race....and already we see Russia responding to the starting gun.

It's outrageous to claim that the cold war arms race "continued".

Thank God Canada stayed out of Bushs new race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IKNOWBEST: You seem to think that an incoming nuke would be detonated by an interceptor missile.

Wrong.

Nukes are very different from conventional explosives.

An interceptor missile would simply knock the nuke out of the sky. It may even blow up the nuke, but in the same way a conventional missile might blow up an airplane. It would not cause the warhead to go fissile, so there would be no nuclear blast.

So, worst case scenario of a nuke being shot down over our soil is some scrap metal landing in the middle of a city. Casualties??? Probably, but not in the thousands, or even the hundreds.

Best case scenario, and likeliest, given the huge percentage of unoccupied land of which our country is comprised, is that a pile of hot, scrap metal lands in the forest somewhere.

On the other hand, if we are known to have missle silos containing BMD rockets, they may become first-strike targets, then we WOULD have nuclear blasts on our hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...