Canada Says No

Discussion in 'Canada' started by onedomino, Feb 24, 2005.

  1. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    No Missile Defense for Canada.

     
  2. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    Unlike the Globe and Mail editorial writer posted below, only about one-third of the Canadian population thinks that it should protect its cities with Missile Defense. Meanwhile, Martin said that there should be stronger measures used against Iran if it does not give up its pursuit of nukes. Right on, Martin! Surely you are frightening the Iranians out of their wits. Let's pass a very strongly worded UN resolution.

    see also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4289925.stm
    -
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    Great stuff! It's laughable and sadening how many give into fear and capitulation over taking action. I will never understand that state of mind nor do I want to!
     
  4. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937
    Martin said no months ago, unofficially I suppose. There really is only two options available right now 1. military spending or 2.missle sheild. Canada can't afford both. There is also some inter political appeasment going on too, Martin chose his job, and military spending.

    I understand the the strategic imporatance ect, but Canada isn't that rich.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937
    More
     
  6. Bonnie
    Offline

    Bonnie Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9,476
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Wherever
    Ratings:
    +669
    What do you think is the more important of the two options? How would Canada's money be best spent?
     
  7. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    It's probably a very wise decision from both a political and economic point of view. Simply put, the missle shield in its current form does not effective work and would cost Canada money that could be (and as of yesterday, has been) diverted to increasing our conventional forces. In addition, the creation of the US-centric missle shield makes us a tactical target for US-hostile nations, whereas there is minimal threat currently to Canada.

    The US, as an ally of Canada, needs to decide whether it wants Canada to supplement their forces on NATO missions, which are current and active or to respond to an, as of yet, unknown threat from missles. There isn't the funds in our country to do both. I can fathom why the US would want to have a shield, but Canada? What Canada needs militarily is to be able to project a small self-sufficient force internationally so that it can completely undertake its own peacekeeping missions and greater fulfill international and alliance obligations. Additionally, the money could be spent to improve our already excellent tactical ops/commando units that have been successful backing up NATO in Afghanistan. To me, this would seem like an option that the US should prefer, given that we can increase our load of NATO missions.

    It's a waste of money and certainly a wrong priority for our country.
     
  8. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    Said1, the US was not asking Canada for Missile Defense money or investment. It was simply asking Canada to participate in the program. For Canada this would have (but will not now) include(d) Missile Defense component contracts. The rejection of Canadian Missile Defense was not a financial question. Missile Defense has political and military dimensions. Regarding the political aspect of MD, unlike Australia and Japan, Canada did not want to align itself with the US. On the military question, two-thirds of Canadians do not want to protect their cities with MD (see link reference above). Some will say that MD is not perfected. They are correct. But it will eventually function. The DIA claims that North Korea has up to 15 nukes. Soon, if not already, North Korea will have a missile capable of reaching the west coast of North America. With MD, Seattle will be protected and Vancouver will be defenseless. In rejecting MD, Martin was not doing what was best for Canada (there was no need to spend money to get under the shield), he was simply pandering to his leftist political coalition.
     
  9. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Appeasement only works in the short term, dumbass. How noble of canada to sell out to the islamofascists. Really. What a great fucking nation.
     
  10. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937
    I'm reading conflicting stories all over the place about cost, so no comment on that for now. As for MD contracts, we'll see.

    I've already indicated an understanding of the strategic importance, so there is no debate there, and I've already stated I felt it was both political pressure (appeasment) and cash (although may be wrong about cash). I read the articles, I'm aware of current events around the world and the feelings of other Canadians towards this issue, so what's with the 'tud and the rant?
     

Share This Page