Canada Says No

[Isaac Brock]

I wondered how long it would take you to make some personal remark. Because I have objected to Canada's abrogation of a tradition of agreements for the common protection of North America that go back 67 years, I have an “obvious hatred” for Canada? To apply your logic, since Dr. Rice objects to the Canadian BMD decision and canceled a trip to Ottawa, she must have an “obvious hatred” of Canada. Absurd. This is what I object to: Martin knows that regardless of his decision not to protect Canadian cities against missile attack, America will nevertheless provide that protection. Thus he freeloads on American defense systems while simultaneously pandering to his leftist political coalition. Do you imagine that if a missile is ever fired at a Canadian city that America would simply let it impact? Not pulling their weight in the defense of North America is something that Canadians have gotten away with because it is known that the US will defend North America regardless of their behavior. This is the attitude that has pertained during decades of Canadian military neglect. Canada is the 2nd largest country on the planet and it spends the pathetically small amount of $14.5 billion on defense (that is with the proposed 20 percent increase!). Why? Because Canada knows the US will defend North America regardless of what it spends. Americans shoulder 350 percent more defense spending per capita than do Canadians. Part of the reason for this disparity is that Canadians do not perform their fair share in the defense of North America. Martin’s cancellation of Canadian participation in continental BMD is cynical and disingenuous because he knows that the US will defend North America regardless of his sniveling with Canadian leftists.

I greatly wish those who cannot understand Canada's decision to opt out of BMD to cross the border, if not for a few moments. Despite your idea that BMD will cost us a cloud, experience and economics show us that nothing comes for free as I've previously explained in the relevant case before (Dew Line). (On a side note, for why you docked me reputation for that, I'll never fathom.) To those who do, I have a bottle of snake oil that also cures all disease, only shipping and handling!

BMD, is the start of a new arms race. Given Canada's support of all disarment programs including landmines, biological and nuclear weapons, the concept of a new, potentially destabilizing program does not bode well with Canadians. However, the US has all rights to make its case to Canada and show us that it is not as we perceive it. My question is why didn't Dr. Rice or another Sr. US administration official come to Canadian Caucus and Cabinet and make her case for the shield. Other presidents such as Bill Clinton and most notably Ronald Regan did that, when they asked for support in a foreign policy initiative. Understand that the only mention of the missile defense programs from the US comes from media and non-senior US adminstrators.

Additionally, the US telling Canada to sign on the BMD comes at a very low point in US-Canada relations. The speaking points strangely have very little to do with US foreign policy, but rather real domestic policy and trade. Currently, the US will not open its borders to Canadian cattle as promised on the May 7th openning date. The US has placed illegal tarrifs (as determined by the Nafta panel) on Canadian softwood lumber. The US is suing the Canadian Wheat Board for a monopoly at the WTO despite US subsidizing its own farmers. There are other issues such as PEI potatoes, steel tarrifs, salmon fishing that compound this into an almost full blown trade dispute.

The sum of all this is that Canada is being talked down to from the US administration. There isn't even dialogue. Why I certainly cant blame this squarely on the US (Canada's US ambassador bumbled our position and our PM flip-flopped), the fact is that every one's talking, but no one is listening. I think it's time for a US-Canada summit. Resolve the trade issues, compromise on foreign policy and get back to the Reagan-Clinton days of US-Canada relations.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Isaac, you're still naive enough to believe that we're not in a world made safe for you by men with guns, THOUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY.


Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Isaac, you're still naive enough to believe that we're not in a world made safe for you by men with guns, THOUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY.


Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Well at least now I got my "A Few Good Men" fill for like... ever.

 

[Said1]

My question is why didn't Dr. Rice or another Sr. US administration official come to Canadian Caucus and Cabinet and make her case for the shield.

I believe this was already done in the fall or early winter.

Additionally, the US telling Canada to sign on the BMD comes at a very low point in US-Canada relations. The speaking points strangely have very little to do with US foreign policy, but rather real domestic policy and trade. Currently, the US will not open its borders to Canadian cattle as promised on the May 7th openning date. The US has placed illegal tarrifs (as determined by the Nafta panel) on Canadian softwood lumber. The US is suing the Canadian Wheat Board for a monopoly at the WTO despite US subsidizing its own farmers. There are other issues such as PEI potatoes, steel tarrifs, salmon fishing that compound this into an almost full blown trade dispute.

Reasoning for most of the above mentioned has already been stated prior to Martin's refusal to sign. I don't think signing would have solved things anytime soon. Proloning matters yes, solving no.

Forgive me for being brief, but I'm in a hurry!

 

[onedomino]

http://www.coxandforkum.com/