[NYCFarmboy]

Canada Opts Out of U.S. Defense Shield

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050225/D88F6QO01.html

TORONTO (AP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin said Thursday that Canada would not join the contentious U.S. missile defense program, a decision that will further strain brittle relations between the neighbors but please Canadians who fear it could lead to an international arms race.

The Bush administration has tried to make a public show of understanding that Martin heads up a minority government that could fall over such a contentious debate. But after the announcement, U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci told reporters he was perplexed over Canada's decision, which he said effectively allows Washington to decide what to do if a missile was headed toward Canada.

"We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty - its seat at the table - to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada," said the outgoing ambassador, who had vigorously urged Canada to sign on the plan.

Martin, ending nearly two years of debate over whether Canada should participate in the development or operation of the multibillion-dollar program, insisted his decision had not relinquished Canada's sovereignty over its airspace and that Ottawa would expect to be consulted what to do about any missile passing over Canada.

"We are certainly intending to defend our sovereignty and our air space and if anything develops in our air space, we expect, as a sovereign state, to be notified and have influence on any decisions," he said. "Canada's a sovereign nation and we would expect and insist on being consulted on any intrusion into our air space."

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew, however, indicated the ultimate decision had always been in U.S. hands.

"Would it have been otherwise?" he replied when asked whether Canada's refusal to join means the country now officially relies on the United States for protection.

Martin said Ottawa would remain a close ally of Washington in the fight against global terrorism and continental security.

Martin also said he intended to talk to President Bush in the coming days and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been informed of the decision earlier this week.
A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States had been informed beforehand of the decision, adding that Washington expects that cooperation with Canada will continue on a wide variety of issues.

Talking to reporters several minutes after his foreign minister first announced the decision in the House of Commons, Martin said Canada would instead focus on strengthening its own military and defense in proposals laid out Wednesday in the federal budget.

"Canada recognizes the enormous burden that the United States shoulders, when it comes to international peace and security," Martin said. "The substantial increases made yesterday to our defense budget are a tangible indication that Canada intends to carry its full share of that responsibility."

The federal budget presented to the House of Commons calls for $10.5 billion in the next five years to increase the country's beleaguered armed forces - including an additional 5,000 soldiers and 3,000 reservists - the largest commitment to defense in two decades. It also called for another $807,950 to improve Canada's anti-terrorism efforts and security along the unarmed, 4,000-mile border with the United States.

When Bush visited Canada in December, he surprised Ottawa by making several unsolicited pitches for support of the defense shield, which is in the midst of testing interceptors capable of destroying incoming missiles targeted at North America.

Martin, who leads a tenuous minority government, has said Ottawa would not support what he called the "weaponization of space." Though he initially supported joining the program when he was a candidate for the Liberal leadership, Martin has retreated, since polls indicate that a majority of Canadians oppose it. Many believe that the umbrella, when fully implemented, could lead to an international arms race.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
"We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty - its seat at the table - to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada," said the outgoing ambassador, who had vigorously urged Canada to sign on the plan.

ummmm ... missile from where

[SimpleLife]

Go Martin! Go!

Some of the best political decisions made by Canada in a long time.

I would never get involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction, nor would I, for the defense of my country, agree we spend billions in something that is not working.

There is no point in feeding a dead horse.

[spacefreak]

We'll defend Canada as always, on our dime as always. No biggie.

A "thank you" would be nice every once in a while, though.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We'll defend Canada as always, on our dime as always. No biggie.

A "thank you" would be nice every once in a while, though.

Thank you.

But be sure we won't put a dime on IDS.

Elsewhere, we'll be happy to give a hand, as long as it makes sense.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
ummmm ... missile from where

Exactly! Who has the missiles and why would they be firing them at Canada?
How much anti-Canadian rhetoric do we hear coming out of Iran or North Korea?

And what if a missile does come in headed for Canada, are we NOT going to shoot it down--assuming we have a chance--in order to punish the Canadians for not joining in the system? I can't believe we would ever have a President that baldly spiteful.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We'll defend Canada as always, on our dime as always. No biggie.

A "thank you" would be nice every once in a while, though.

ummm ... whom is your missile shield going to defend us from?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
ummm ... whom is your missile shield going to defend us from?

Nobody... as long as the US remains the superior military power in the world.

Nations tend to build up defense, or nurture alliances, before threats arise. That way, they'll be prepared if the sh-t ever hits the fan.

[SimeyTheLimey]

This is a little sneaky of Martin. I think he is pulling the wool over the eyes of his countrymen. Canada is part of NATO. Article 5 of the NATO treaty (The North Atlantic Treaty) says that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.

NATO countries such as the US are thus treaty bound to come to the assistance of fellow NATO members to the extent they can do so. That means if Canada was attacked, the US would in practice have to shoot the missile down if it could. Not to do so would be a violation of our treaty obligations.

In effect, what Canada is doing is remaining within the shield but declining to pay for it or be honest enough to say so publicly -- presumably for domestic political reasons. That is especially the case considering that any warning of a missle would come from NORAD, which is a joint US/Canadian command. Does anyone seriously think that Canadian officers in NORAD would request the US not shoot down a missile headed toward their homeland?

It will be interesting to see if Canadians pick up on this.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is a little sneaky of Martin. I think he is pulling the wool over the eyes of his countrymen. Canada is part of NATO. Article 5 of the NATO treaty (The North Atlantic Treaty) says that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.

Are NATO members bound to support poor decisions by the other members? Decisions that may, in fact, become self-fulfilling prophecies?

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
ummmm ... missile from where

http://www.media.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.swf

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by demograph68:
http://www.media.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.swf

Right, so according to that, the only thing we have to worry about is the US starting nuclear war. The US may be less inclined to launch a first strike if they don't have an umbrella (albeit one with several holes) behind which to hide. Oh, wait, perhaps that was the purpose behind the ABM Treaty ...

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In effect, what Canada is doing is remaining within the shield but declining to pay for it or be honest enough to say so publicly -- presumably for domestic political reasons. That is especially the case considering that any warning of a missle would come from NORAD, which is a joint US/Canadian command. Does anyone seriously think that Canadian officers in NORAD would request the US not shoot down a missile headed toward their homeland?

It will be interesting to see if Canadians pick up on this.

Actually, it would be interesting if you were to read less into it and more about it.

That shield is a U.S. invention an no one in Canada asked for it. You do not have to make it that big for all I am concerned.

NORAD is a relicum from the Cold War and is pass due. These threaths mentionned so far are about countries far away, and I am pretty sure that the biggest threat to fear is one coming from bad management of diplomatic issues. Fear is the mother of prevention, and so far the Missile shield has been an extraordinary failure technically and financially, not solving anything.

To not adopt the weapon of preference of the neighbour is sometimes salvatory. If you have money to waste on this, don't blame us for not taking part of it.

It will be interesting to see if Americans will pick up on this.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We'll defend Canada as always, on our dime as always. No biggie.

A "thank you" would be nice every once in a while, though.

When have the Americans ever defended Canada?

[Nicko]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Does anyone seriously think that Canadian officers in NORAD would request the US not shoot down a missile headed toward their homeland?

It will be interesting to see if Canadians pick up on this.

Ah but this will never happen for the simple fact that all other countries LOVE Canada. So as a Canadian myself this makes me really happy.

[jbartone]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Ah but this will never happen for the simple fact that all other countries LOVE Canada. So as a Canadian myself this makes me really happy.

Not so much the fact that they "love" Canada...but that why in the hell would they attack Canada when they can attack the United States of America?

[Athens]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We'll defend Canada as always, on our dime as always. No biggie.

A "thank you" would be nice every once in a while, though.

Defend us from what!

And do we have to remind you guys it was Canada that kept the UK alive long enough for you guys to enter into WW2. If the UK had been lost, Europe would have become all Russian.

At the end of WW2 Canada had the 4th Largest Army in the world, 4th Largest Air Force and third largest Navy. Canada had the highest percentage of her population serving in the military in World War 2 of all the Allied nations.

If the time ever came to defend ourselves we would. And tell me how much money have you spend DEFENDING US, but first who did you defend us from before you caculate how much you spent. It should make it easier to caculate the cost when you figure out you havent defended us from any one.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is a little sneaky of Martin. I think he is pulling the wool over the eyes of his countrymen. Canada is part of NATO. Article 5 of the NATO treaty (The North Atlantic Treaty) says that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.

NATO countries such as the US are thus treaty bound to come to the assistance of fellow NATO members to the extent they can do so. That means if Canada was attacked, the US would in practice have to shoot the missile down if it could. Not to do so would be a violation of our treaty obligations.

In effect, what Canada is doing is remaining within the shield but declining to pay for it or be honest enough to say so publicly -- presumably for domestic political reasons. That is especially the case considering that any warning of a missle would come from NORAD, which is a joint US/Canadian command. Does anyone seriously think that Canadian officers in NORAD would request the US not shoot down a missile headed toward their homeland?

It will be interesting to see if Canadians pick up on this.

As our new Foreign affairs minister said last week we already are part of the missile defense system through Norad. Second Martin is being careful because he is the leader of a minority government. He isn’t given any reasons for the conservatives to topple the government and force another election. I personally think the US is wasting TONS of money on this missile defense.

[Athens]

Originally posted by jbartone:
Not so much the fact that they "love" Canada...but that why in the hell would they attack Canada when they can attack the United States of America?

Canada is rich in natural resources, and is a strategic location to mount a successful invasion of the US, and we have enormous amount of space with a much smaller and spread out population and one of the largest coast lines in the world.

If another country ever attacked us we would have world support because we aren’t hated around the world.

[jbartone]

Originally posted by Athens:
If another country ever attacked us we would have world support because we aren’t hated around the world.

And the United States would be the first to come to your defence.

[nath]

Originally posted by Athens:
And do we have to remind you guys it was Canada that kept the UK alive long enough for you guys to enter into WW2. If the UK had been lost, Europe would have become all Russian.

Thanks for looking after the crown jewels, BTW.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is a little sneaky of Martin. I think he is pulling the wool over the eyes of his countrymen. Canada is part of NATO. Article 5 of the NATO treaty (The North Atlantic Treaty) says that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.

So what you are saying is that the US is legally obliged to use its missile defence system to protect any other NATO member, regardless of whether they agree to participate in the scheme or (in the case of my own rather spineless government) agree to host tracking facilities?

You say sneaky, I say sensible. Why would he want to lumber his people with a lot of expense and an unpopular policy, when Canada is already legally entitled to the defence benefits for free? Sounds rather like your government forgot to come to the table with something to offer.

Guess you'd better let the administration know it's time to get out that trusty old treaty-shredder...

[Taliesin]

There is nearly no reason for Canada to protect itself from incoming missiles, because Canada is not an empire that meddles in other country's affairs. Ok, Canada was part of the international troops against Afghanistan, and Al-Qaida can therefore decide to attack Canada, but Al-Qaida doesn't have missiles that could reach over the big sea, besides it's not the tactic Al-Qaida would use.

Al-Qaida would much more likely just smuggle in a bomb and detonate it with a suicide-bomber, and I haven't heard of an anti-suicide-bomber-missile-system that works reliably.

Besides Al-Qaida, not one country in the world has anything against Canada except the US itself that hates the canadians because they are so french and because there are so many indians and off course because of the oil there.

Taliesin

[Athens]

Originally posted by jbartone:
And the United States would be the first to come to your defence.

Of course, and not because we are friends, because its to your best interest for proecting yourself. US policies are only to the interest of the US and nothing else.

[Athens]

Another thing to point out, The US wasn’t asking for money or permission or anything. They wanted Canada to be part of the decision making process on what to get shot down. Canada’s refusal is based on moral principles because money was never involved.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
So what you are saying is that the US is legally obliged to use its missile defence system to protect any other NATO member, regardless of whether they agree to participate in the scheme or (in the case of my own rather spineless government) agree to host tracking facilities?

Close. The Administration has always said that the missile defense system is going to be there to protect out allies as well as the US. But obviously, it is a limited system without the capability to shoot down any missile anywhere in the world. I would assume, however, that any system that could shoot down a missile headed for Anchorage could also intercept one headed to Vancouver, and one headed for Detroit could also intercept one headed for Toronto. Given existing treaty obligations, the US would have to try if it could prevent such an attack. I'm quite sure the Canadian government is aware of that fact. They know what their treaties say. I think, though, they are counting on the fact that perhaps the public isn't fully aware of this fact.

So basically, if anyone thinks that Canada is standing on principle that Canada shouldn't be under the US shield, they are mistaken, and quite likely being deliberately mislead for party political reasons. Canada will be under the shield both practically (because of geographic proximity) and legally (because of a longstanding treaty pact).

If Canada doesn't want to be defended by the US it should repudiate the NATO treaty, which of course, it is free to do. Staying within NATO while telling its people that its defense is separate from the US is hypocritical when in fact its security is underwritten by the US security guarantee.

But what the heck. If Canadians are comfortable being lied to by thier government, that's their decision.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Close. The Administration has always said that the missile defense system is going to be there to protect out allies as well as the US. But obviously, it is a limited system without the capability to shoot down any missile anywhere in the world. I would assume, however, that any system that could shoot down a missile headed for Anchorage could also intercept one headed to Vancouver, and one headed for Detroit could also intercept one headed for Toronto. Given existing treaty obligations, the US would have to try if it could prevent such an attack. I'm quite sure the Canadian government is aware of that fact. They know what their treaties say. I think, though, they are counting on the fact that perhaps the public isn't fully aware of this fact.

So basically, if anyone thinks that Canada is standing on principle that Canada shouldn't be under the US shield, they are mistaken, and quite likely being deliberately mislead for party political reasons. Canada will be under the shield both practically (because of geographic proximity) and legally (because of a longstanding treaty pact).

If Canada doesn't want to be defended by the US it should repudiate the NATO treaty, which of course, it is free to do. Staying within NATO while telling its people that its defense is separate from the US is hypocritical when in fact its security is underwritten by the US security guarantee.

But what the heck. If Canadians are comfortable being lied to by thier government, that's their decision.

Simey it is a moral reason because Washington wasn’t asking for money. They just wanted Canada part of the decision process so they could say Canada also agreed to fire X missile into X target. Personally I think we should have joined it so we could also help control it.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by undotwa:
When have the Americans ever defended Canada?

The Cold War era fits in that rationale, and the psychological climate justified it, although the strategical ones may not have been as serious as it was thought of then.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Ah but this will never happen for the simple fact that all other countries LOVE Canada. So as a Canadian myself this makes me really happy.

Countries are not built and maintained from love. It is about economics and imperialistic attitude. Countries that do very well have dark closets with archives of colonization that would put a lot of us to shame it these were happening today.

Canada may be a nice country, but that does not make all Canadians angels. That rule is applicable to all countries and their countrymen.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Close. The Administration has always said that the missile defense system is going to be there to protect out allies as well as the US. But obviously, it is a limited system without the capability to shoot down any missile anywhere in the world. I would assume, however, that any system that could shoot down a missile headed for Anchorage could also intercept one headed to Vancouver, and one headed for Detroit could also intercept one headed for Toronto. Given existing treaty obligations, the US would have to try if it could prevent such an attack. I'm quite sure the Canadian government is aware of that fact. They know what their treaties say. I think, though, they are counting on the fact that perhaps the public isn't fully aware of this fact.

So basically, if anyone thinks that Canada is standing on principle that Canada shouldn't be under the US shield, they are mistaken, and quite likely being deliberately mislead for party political reasons. Canada will be under the shield both practically (because of geographic proximity) and legally (because of a longstanding treaty pact).

If Canada doesn't want to be defended by the US it should repudiate the NATO treaty, which of course, it is free to do. Staying within NATO while telling its people that its defense is separate from the US is hypocritical when in fact its security is underwritten by the US security guarantee.

But what the heck. If Canadians are comfortable being lied to by thier government, that's their decision.

I think you are assuming a lot and interpret a lot. Bring on the legal references, and the details related to the inception of that shield and the so-called obligations of Canada in relation to that shield.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
Simey it is a moral reason because Washington wasn’t asking for money. They just wanted Canada part of the decision process so they could say Canada also agreed to fire X missile into X target. Personally I think we should have joined it so we could also help control it.

No, it's a pseudo moral decision. You haven't opted out of anything. Read the AP article, Martin still demanded to be part of any decision:

. . . we expect, as a sovereign state, to be notified and have influence on any decisions . . . Canada's a sovereign nation and we would insist on being consulted on any intrustion into out air space."

And given both the NATO treaty, and the NORAD joint command, of course it would be. These statements are entirely for public consumption. You are going to be defended by the system, and your government knows it. If you want to make a moral stance, then do so in a way that would be real -- withdraw from NATO.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, it's a pseudo moral decision. You haven't opted out of anything. Read the AP article, Martin still demanded to be part of any decision:



And given both the NATO treaty, and the NORAD joint command, of course it would be. These statements are entirely for public consumption. You are going to be defended by the system, and your government knows it. If you want to make a moral stance, then do so in a way that would be real -- withdraw from NATO.

And it would not cost a cent to accepts Washingtons offer to be apart of it either. Washington just wanted Canada apart of it to legitimize it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
I think you are assuming a lot and interpret a lot. Bring on the legal references, and the details related to the inception of that shield and the so-called obligations of Canada in relation to that shield.

I already told you, the legal obligations are under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Look it up. It covers the entire defense of Canada and its relations with other NATO powers (most especially the US). It also covers new developments like the shield (that is, it is so sweeping it doesn't exclude anything).

See what I mean? Your government knows this, they know what their treaty obligations are. But the public probably mostly doesn't. You are being mislead. I'm guessing willingly.

Oh well, that's your lookout.

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I already told you, the legal obligations are under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Look it up. It covers the entire defense of Canada and its relations with other NATO powers (most especially the US). It also covers new developments like the shield (that is, it is so sweeping it doesn't exclude anything).

See what I mean? Your government knows this, they know what their treaty obligations are. But the public probably mostly doesn't. You are being mislead. I'm guessing willingly.

Oh well, that's your lookout.

Then shouldnt Washington already know this too, why ask if its already covered. Why is Washington making such a big deal of getting Canada to publically say we are apart of this if we already are? They want Ottawa to publically legitimize it for the rest of the world.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So basically, if anyone thinks that Canada is standing on principle that Canada shouldn't be under the US shield, they are mistaken, and quite likely being deliberately mislead for party political reasons.

I don't see where they are being misled, or any indication that this is a stand on principle. More one of convenience, given the precarious coalition - they seem quite pragmaticl about it:

"Would it have been otherwise?" he replied when asked whether Canada's refusal to join means the country now officially relies on the United States for protection.

Like I said, the US is coming to the table with an offer of protection that they are already legally obliged to provide. Seems like a pretty dumb move, whatever your orientation.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But what the heck. If Canadians are comfortable being lied to by thier government, that's their decision.

[nath]

Originally posted by Athens:
They want Ottawa to publically legitimize it for the rest of the world.

We have a winnar!

I guess the Blair seal of approval carries a little less weight than it used to....

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Exactly! Who has the missiles and why would they be firing them at Canada?
How much anti-Canadian rhetoric do we hear coming out of Iran or North Korea?

The same backward idiots that attack America , would attack Canada if America was gone.

Sad but true.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
Then shouldnt Washington already know this too, why ask if its already covered. Why is Washington making such a big deal of getting Canada to publically say we are apart of this if we already are? They want Ottawa to publically legitimize it for the rest of the world.

You could be right about that. And you could be right that it was a dumb diplomatic move by Washington. They probably relied on the fact that Martin originally said Canada would join in the development. But now he has a tight election and strong anti-American feeling, and so he is playing to it with a purely symbolic statement.

But it doesn't alter the reality that Canada will be defended by the combination of the system and preexisting treaties. I'm just interested in the fact you don't seem interested in that very wieghty substance, but think that a meaningless political symbol is some great victory. It's an interesting commentary on contemporary Canadian politics.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is a little sneaky of Martin. I think he is pulling the wool over the eyes of his countrymen. Canada is part of NATO. Article 5 of the NATO treaty (The North Atlantic Treaty) says that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all.

NATO countries such as the US are thus treaty bound to come to the assistance of fellow NATO members to the extent they can do so. That means if Canada was attacked, the US would in practice have to shoot the missile down if it could. Not to do so would be a violation of our treaty obligations.

In effect, what Canada is doing is remaining within the shield but declining to pay for it or be honest enough to say so publicly -- presumably for domestic political reasons. That is especially the case considering that any warning of a missle would come from NORAD, which is a joint US/Canadian command. Does anyone seriously think that Canadian officers in NORAD would request the US not shoot down a missile headed toward their homeland?

It will be interesting to see if Canadians pick up on this.

Yeah like the guy at the party that doesn't smoke pot, therefore thinks he should not have to give to the pot fund. But when it shows up, and he is offered a hit, he doesn't turn it down but bogarts it.

We called them Weed Weasels back in the day.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The same backward idiots that attack America , would attack Canada if America was gone.

Sad but true.

I doubt it, I think they would eye the UK first. The only reason the US is a target is because of Washingtons policies around the world, and the screwing around with other countries politics. Washington makes the US a target. If Ottawa did the same crap then ya we would be too.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The same backward idiots that attack America , would attack Canada if America was gone.

Sad but true.

Or a crude missile could simply fall short. A missile headed for Chicago from North Korea would pass over Canada. It it was a little inaccurate it could land in Canada. It doesn't have to have been deliberately aimed at Canada.

Again, the Candian government knows this, even if the public they are playing to is too dumb to know it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, it's a pseudo moral decision. You haven't opted out of anything. Read the AP article, Martin still demanded to be part of any decision:

Indeed, it's all lip service.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Athens:
I doubt it, I think they would eye the UK first. The only reason the US is a target is because of Washingtons policies around the world, and the screwing around with other countries politics. Washington makes the US a target. If Ottawa did the same crap then ya we would be too.

Then you need to pull out of NATO and declare neutrality.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Athens:
The only reason the US is a target is because of Washingtons policies around the world, and the screwing around with other countries politics.

Keep telling yourself that.

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Indeed, it's all mouth service.

Yeah, outrageous that Canada would want to be kept in the loop regarding US military deployment in their airspace. Ingrates.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The same backward idiots that attack America , would attack Canada if America was gone.

Sad but true.

Really? So the embodiment of all things evil and Westernized is the United States but Canada is a close runner-up in that category, capable of surpassing the US if it is diminished? That is laughable.

Yes, those that hate the US now do so because they hate what the West represents, but what they really hate is our particular manifestation of those Western ideals to which they are opposed. If those groups that hated the West did so indiscriminately then they would be attacking Western countries without preference. But like I said, where is the anti-Canadian rhetoric? where is the anit-German rhetoric? where is the anti-French rhetoric? Where is the anti-Irish rhetoric?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Really? So the embodiment of all things evil and Westernized is the United States but Canada is a close runner-up in that category, capable of surpassing the US if it is diminished? That is laughable.

Yes, those that hate the US now do so because they hate what the West represents, but what they really hate is our particular manifestation of those Western ideals to which they are opposed. If those groups that hated the West did so indiscriminately then they would be attacking Western countries without preference. But like I said, where is the anti-Canadian rhetoric? where is the anit-German rhetoric? where is the anti-French rhetoric? Where is the anti-Irish rhetoric?

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

[Athens]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You could be right about that. And you could be right that it was a dumb diplomatic move by Washington. They probably relied on the fact that Martin originally said Canada would join in the development. But now he has a tight election and strong anti-American feeling, and so he is playing to it with a purely symbolic statement.

But it doesn't alter the reality that Canada will be defended by the combination of the system and preexisting treaties. I'm just interested in the fact you don't seem interested in that very wieghty substance, but think that a meaningless political symbol is some great victory. It's an interesting commentary on contemporary Canadian politics.

Hehe if you like Canadian politics you should look into British Columbia politics. Ive been told its tought in California Universities because its so crazy.

Personally missile defence scares me. Because there is only one place to shoot them down safe and thats over the ocean. If its already over say BC heading towards Seattle then if its shot down I could end up with a sun roof with a very explosive table display assuming the table survives. Missle Defence will be used in international air space and not over Canada and the US. It will be missiles blowing up missiles over international waters which is why the US needs Ottawas public approval. With Canada as a strong public supporter to it, other countries are less likly to blow steam over it. That is the only reason that I can think of for Washington to publicly make this a issue and for Ottawa to publicly dismiss it. As you said we are already apart of it, like it or not. Ottawa and Washington knows this.

[Athens]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Really? So the embodiment of all things evil and Westernized is the United States but Canada is a close runner-up in that category, capable of surpassing the US if it is diminished? That is laughable.

Yes, those that hate the US now do so because they hate what the West represents, but what they really hate is our particular manifestation of those Western ideals to which they are opposed. If those groups that hated the West did so indiscriminately then they would be attacking Western countries without preference. But like I said, where is the anti-Canadian rhetoric? where is the anit-German rhetoric? where is the anti-French rhetoric? Where is the anti-Irish rhetoric?

Your one of the smartest Americans I have meet

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

Tell me what YOU think about my posting Zimphire, not what others think.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Really? So the embodiment of all things evil and Westernized is the United States but Canada is a close runner-up in that category, capable of surpassing the US if it is diminished? That is laughable.

Yes, those that hate the US now do so because they hate what the West represents, but what they really hate is our particular manifestation of those Western ideals to which they are opposed. If those groups that hated the West did so indiscriminately then they would be attacking Western countries without preference. But like I said, where is the anti-Canadian rhetoric? where is the anit-German rhetoric? where is the anti-French rhetoric? Where is the anti-Irish rhetoric?

Originally posted by Athens:
Your one of the smartest Americans I have meet

Thanks. But you and I both know you are only complimenting me because our ideas on this issue are in alignment.
Simey is FAR smarter than I will ever be on these issues, but he approaches them from a different angle than you
and I do, so we disagree with him.