Son Of Star Wars/Missile Defence

[Kayriss]

Is anyone else here particularly interested in missile defence? I won't lie to you, MG got me interested in it, but since then it's become quite a hot button issue, one that could theoretically topple Paul Martin's government if it goes wrong.

 

My problem is, the site that Matt was supporting, ceasefire.ca, appears to be only sparsely updated. It's frustrating. Does anyone else know of any really good sites that update this material regularly, because its (i think) really an important issue.

Edited January 13, 2005 by Kayriss

[Biggie]

What happened to the old thread?

[Ruettiger]

I don't support it because this 'missile defence system' is completely useless.

[Kayriss]

One of the things that I find interesting/infuriating about this topic is that most of the Canadians I know who actually think this is a good idea, seem to think that even though the majority of Canadians don't want any part of it (statistically speaking), we should really do it anyway. As if the majority's opinion in this democratic country should just be overlooked completely because the Americans reeeally reeealy reeeEEEeeealy want us to.

 

Grrr. Paul Cellucci is a snake.

[Dan #2]

Cellulite who?

 

But seriously, Missile Defence is not cool. It will ruin our economy, and when that sinking ship called USA capsizes, we'll need all the money we can get...

[Biggie]

America is sinking? Shit.

[HoboFactory]

I'm against it, because I wanna make it easier for Russia to launch its assault on the northern hemisphere when the time comes. ;)

Edited January 14, 2005 by HoboFactory

[Kayriss]

Paul Cellucci is the american ambassador to Canada, and he's part of the reason the entire missile defence scheme feels like a hampster wheel with a gun up our ass for Canadian politicians...he just keeeeeps putting pressure on us. Squeezing and talking to the media and bashing Canada, then pretending he's the best thing that's ever happened to us. It's agravating.

I'd make comments about how I wish something bad would happen to him, but for fear that it would be grounds for the FBI to arrest me and hold me without charges or seeing a lawyer. Even though I'm in Canada.

[Sparq]

I'm against it, because I wanna make it easier for Russia to launch its assault on the northern hemisphere when the time comes. ;)

If I'm going to get conquered by anyone, it might as well be the Russians :angry:

[MakesYouAWeapon]

I wouldn't worry too much about Missle Defense. They wanted us to nuke Cuba too, and look at how that turned out.

 

When the US shows up with a new stupid idea related to missles, our politicans are usually skeptical. I just wish they'd act the same when the US shows up with a new stupid idea related to trade...

[Crusader]

It's not a defence system. It's just another dooms day machine.

[Ruettiger]

It wouldn't even work. I can bet you that much.

[Crusader]

Didn't they already have counter-counter missile defenses?

[MakesYouAWeapon]

I believe that the US Missle Defense tests failed.

 

That's NOT involving counter measures to disrupt their tracking. So I don't think anyone really needs to worry about anyone shooting home run balls out of the air if they can't hit a scud they know is being fired.

[Ravenous Yam]

I don't support it because this 'missile defence system' is completely useless.

I don't support it for this same reason.

[mg_forlife]

Today there was an article in the Toronto Star saying that Paul Martin has already told Bush that Canada is on board with missile defence. I don't think they're 100% certain on that, but IMO it is most likely true. Martin is a pansy.

[Sparq]

Against, but not to the point of doing anything about it.

[ecnarf]

One of the things that I find interesting/infuriating about this topic is that most of the Canadians I know who actually think this is a good idea, seem to think that even though the majority of Canadians don't want any part of it (statistically speaking), we should really do it anyway. As if the majority's opinion in this democratic country should just be overlooked completely because the Americans reeeally reeealy reeeEEEeeealy want us to.

Ha, I read that and thought "Toronto Sun." Seriously, that paper pisses me off, if they could have their heads up George Bush's ass anymore, they'd be brushing their teeth together.

[cavalier_eternal]

haha. so true. the toronto sun is so tabloid... sensationalism packaged as something resembling a paper, only not.

[Mick]

The concept of BMD I will admit is a foolish one that results in simpily "bad policy". The US is living in fear of terrorism yet although they claim that the "war on terror" is to protect freedom, they fail to see that they in fact are taking away their own liberty.

 

The reality however is that Canada will have to sign with BMD. Even-though the policy is a bad one, Canada really does not have an option. In any event of a war that does not involve Canada and does involve the US, Canada will still be affected. In the event that any missile is shot down in defence of the US (if from North Korea), it will fall over Canada.

 

Further if Canada does not sign with the US on BMD, it would result in bad relations. It has already been witnessed a hostile attitude to Canada for not joining with the war on Iraq, and further the continued ban on Alberta beef.

 

Weapons of destruction are not those that will be in the form of an ICBM, but rather in your UPS trucks or in some cases briefcases. BMD will not solve anything.

 

But regardless as stated, it is not like Canada has a choice in this matter as our proximity to the US geographically dictates that we would be foolish not to sign with the US altough it is a foolish policy in the first place. It is not as simple as saying that BMD can be avoided in Canada because the reality exists that we will ultmately be affected as the US will put this policy through anyways.

 

I suggest Americans lobby their government to prevent it. Canada's decision will be dependant on the American adamency of going through with this policy.

[ToadMan]

I don't agree. I believe that Canada can chose to act autonomously in this situation. We are talking about investing Canadian money, so why would we be automatically committed into something this ridiculous?

 

As it stands, there are lobbyists in the US against reopening the border. In fact there is a hugh rift forming between the US an Canada. The rift is manly fueled by the left wing tendencies of Canadians (decriminalization of marijuana, gay marriage). In the end, Canada has to take these things in stride. It may be necessary for Canada to redefine our relationship with America. As a Canadian I stand opposed to BMD, and I plan to do whatever I can to oppose the program.

 

Peace

[Sparq]

Admittedly, we do have a history of ridiculous expenditures, so this should be par for the course.

[Kayriss]

Canada does not "have" to sign anything. We're a soverign entity, and that alone should imply that Canadian interests SHOULD take presidence. Now, back in the real world, there are a lot of forces that push us one way or another. De Facto vs. De jure soverignty and all that.

 

But, the americans have said openly that a 'no' on our part wouldn't result in strained relations. Now, considering that we can trust the word of the american administration as far as we can throw it (not far), we should learn the lessons of history. There have been numerous instances where Canadian uninvolvement in an american cowboy excursion was sold as being the worst decision Canada could ever make, that It would end favorable diplomatic relations forever. It doesn't. Think Vietnam.

 

On the other hand, there have been instances where Canada put its ass on the line for the US, and were no better off for it. Think Iran hostage crisis. Think Korea. Countries are complicated things, and one good/bad deed isn't always enough to sour relations.

 

My point? Canada can and should say no to missile defence, and the thought of incurring america's wrath shouldn't factor into it. Canadians should get their say over what happens over their own skies. If we do, Star Wars will stay south of the 49th, where it belongs. We'll be better off for it.

Edited January 19, 2005 by Kayriss

[Biggie]

Canada does not "have" to sign anything. We're a soverign entity, and that alone should imply that Canadian interests SHOULD take presidence. Now, back in the real world, there are a lot of forces that push us one way or another. De Facto vs. De jure soverignty and all that.

 

But, the americans have said openly that a 'no' on our part wouldn't result in strained relations. Now, considering that we can trust the word of the american administration as far as we can throw it (not far), we should learn the lessons of history. There have been numerous instances where Canadian uninvolvement in an american cowboy excursion was sold as being the worst decision Canada could ever make, that It would end favorable diplomatic relations forever. It doesn't. Think Vietnam.

 

On the other hand, there have been instances where Canada put its ass on the line for the US, and were no better off for it. Think Iran hostage crisis. Think Korea. Countries are complicated things, and one good/bad deed isn't always enough to sour relations.

 

My point? Canada can and should say no to missile defence, and the thought of incurring america's wrath shouldn't factor into it. Canadians should get their say over what happens over their own skies. If we do, Star Wars will stay south of the 49th, where it belongs. We'll be better off for it.

Alaska is north of the 49th.

[Kayriss]

Thank you for your pointed addition to the discussion. Much of Eastern Canada is below the 49th, as is part of Vancouver island. The Northwest angle is above the 49th parallel as well. It's just a figure of speech.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/49th_parallel