Canada Says No

[onedomino]

No Missile Defense for Canada.

Canada Says No

http://newsisyphus.blogspot.com/2005/02/canada-says-no.html

Lately, as has been obvious, Canada has been much on our minds. Which is why last night's news stories in the Great White North confirming that the Liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Martin will announce today that Canada will not participate in the U.S.' planned ballistic missile shield program stuck us so deeply. In this story, one sees the deep-rooted facts on the ground that will prevent a renewal of the old U.S.-Canada relationship for many years to come, if, indeed, such a renewal even remains possible.

Canada has been on the fence on this issue for months, officially at least. In the general public, there are huge majorities against Canadian participation, especially in Liberal Canada and the Bloc Quebecois. Against these facts, though, American policy makers had hope since the PM had both pledged to "renew" U.S.-Canada relations and had stated his support for the program.
It's clear that the GoC has been of two minds on the issue. Canada's new ambassador to the U.S., Frank McKenna, caused a firestorm on Parliament Hill by stating yesterday that Canadian participation was already decided upon. The opposition immediately leaped on what appeared to dissension in the Liberal ranks, forcing the PM to take a decision one way or another.

Word is that there were three factors that led Martin to decide against participation. First, the Liberal Party, like Canada in general, is strongly set against it. Second, the fragile Liberal government simply cannot afford to completely alienate left-leaning NDP voters in English Canada and just about all the voters in French Canada. Third, and most depressingly, the new Conservative Party, like their British cousins, decided that standing with America was less important than the ability to cause short-term difficulty for their domestic political foes.

Here you have all the elements of the reasons why Canada continues to drift away from the United States: a strong left-wing French Canadian bloc that pulls the political culture to the left just as strongly and surely as the strong right-wing South pulls that of the U.S. to the right; a winner-take-all parliamentary system that has locked the Liberals into power, seemingly indefinitely; a weak and fractured Conservative opposition that will not support a Liberal PM even if he wants to do the right thing; and the existence of a strong socialist party, the NDP, that continues to make inroads into traditionally-conservative, pro-America western Canada.

We're not tech experts, but is seems to us that Canadian participation in the missile shield program is as vital as it was during the days of NORAD. It also appears to us that we cannot protect Seattle (which, along with Hawaii is the most threatened by mad North Korea) without protecting Vancouver, B.C.

The end result will be depressingly familiar to all who follow NATO relations: we will pay, we will sacrifice, we will get the job done, while those who look down their noses at us will benefit.

Time to upset the apple cart.

 

[onedomino]

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.

Martin's Missile Fumble
Thursday, February 24, 2005 - Page A22

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050224/EMISSILE24/TPComment/Editorials

On the issue of ballistic missile defence, as on so many others, Paul Martin has shown exceptionally poor leadership.

It has been clear since he became prime minister that, if Mr. Martin had his way, Canada would sign on to the U.S. system for protecting North America from missile attack. One of his leading aims when he took the job was to shore up Canada's relationship with the United States after the rift over the war in Iraq. Joining missile defence was a heaven-sent chance to do it. Since the early days of the Cold War, Canada has worked hand in hand with the United States on the defence of our shared continent. Missile defence is clearly in that tradition. What Washington was asking of Ottawa was remarkably modest: a mainly symbolic sign-on, with no risk or cost to this country.

If Mr. Martin had been wiser, he would have taken a position right at the start of his prime ministership and said yes, of course Canada will join. Instead, he delayed and, yes, dithered, allowing himself to be overmatched by opposition critics and a vocal minority of his own party. In the process, he showed himself too weak to prevail on an issue that affects our relationship with our closest ally, friend and trading partner ("Closest ally and friend?" In terms of political ideology and support for American foreign policy, this assertion is plainly false; only the trade aspect is correct).

When U.S. President George W. Bush urged him publicly to get on board, he squirmed. When the Opposition pressed him in the House of Commons, he said the government would make up its mind just as soon as. . . well, just as soon as the government made up its mind. Now, at last, we have a decision. The government will say no to Washington on missile defence.

Opponents of the system will hail Mr. Martin for standing up to the Americans (take note that the "opponents" amount to two-thirds of Canada): http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0223/dailyUpdate.html . In fact, the decision flows from his refusal to take a stand against those very opponents. When Mr. Martin put his finger in the air over missile defence, he felt a chill. Voters were uneasy and getting more so. Quebeckers, in particular, seemed to dislike the idea of joining any scheme that reeked to them of U.S. militarism. Then there was the Liberal caucus, whose anti-American and pacifist branch was on a crusade against missile defence.

A stronger prime minister would have faced down these critics. He would have said to his caucus: Look, you may not like the idea of joining a U.S. defence program, but our friendship with the Americans is crucial and they are not asking very much here. I'm signing us up, so get on board.

A stronger prime minister would have gone to the country to argue his case. He would have pointed out that Washington was not asking Canada to bear any of the cost of missile defence. He would have pointed out that no anti-missile weapons would be based on Canadian soil. He would have pointed out that under the North American Aerospace Defence Command, Canada had always worked with the Americans to defend our continent from foreign threats, including missile attack. He would have pointed out that joining the system would give us the right to influence the program's development rather than sit passively on the sidelines.

A stronger prime minister would have done all these things. This is not a strong prime minister. Canada will pay the price.

see also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4289925.stm
-

 

[Bonnie]

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!

 

[Said1]

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!

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.

 

[Said1]

Thursday, February 24, 2005


OTTAWA (CP) -- Canada will not sign on to the controversial U.S. missile defence program, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew announced Thursday, ending months of political ambiguity.

The news completed a lengthy retreat for Prime Minister Paul Martin, who expressed support for the project in his early days in office, then qualified his support, and finally fell almost silent on the issue.

Pettigrew told the House of Commons that while the U.S. is pressing ahead with the missile system, "Canada...must act in its own interests and must determine where its priorities lie.''

"After careful consideration of the issue, we have decided that Canada will not participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defence system.''

He said the decision is based on sound policy principles rather than emotion, and added that it will not diminish co-operation with the U.S.

The move was immediately hailed by the NDP, but it is sure to be a major disappointment to the Bush administration.

Any plans to join the missile plan were buried under a wave of political resistance -- from the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and many Liberals -- that Martin's minority government did not risk trying to overcome.

Polls have suggested most Canadians oppose the project and Martin might even have faced a revolt within his own reluctant Liberal caucus.

Coming on the heels of Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-led war in Iraq, Thursday's announcement marked a second major break with the United States over a military project.

Canadian officials broke the news this week to their American counterparts through political, diplomatic and military channels in Ottawa, Washington and at a NATO summit in Belgium attended by both Martin and U.S. President George W. Bush.

Martin had promised a new era of Canada-U.S. relations after bitter divisions over the war in Iraq. But American officials had warned it would be an inauspicious start to any new era if Canada refused to join the missile plan.

U.S. officials privately expressed befuddlement, frustration and even mild amusement at the surprising length of time it took for Martin to make an announcement.

Bush himself raised the issue repeatedly during a trip to Canada late last year and, against all expectations, publicly requested Martin's support with the prime minister sitting by his side.

More

 

[Bonnie]

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.

What do you think is the more important of the two options? How would Canada's money be best spent?

 

[Isaac Brock]

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.

 

[onedomino]

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.

a mainly symbolic sign-on, with no risk or cost to this country.

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

. 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.

Appeasement only works in the short term, dumbass. How noble of canada to sell out to the islamofascists. Really. What a great fucking nation.

 

[Said1]

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 demensions. 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.

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?

 

[MrMarbles]

Appeasement only works in the short term, dumbass. How noble of canada to sell out to the islamofascists. Really. What a great fucking nation.

What are you talking about, Canada is not appeasing anyone, we are doing what is best for our country by not giving into pressure from the US.

Who will strike the US with IBM's? China? Why? They are becoming more capitalistic, and democratic everyday, besides they are getting to rich to bother messing things up.

North Korea? How sure are we that they even have nukes? And the delivery system to do so? Plus, their limited threat would un-doubtedly be only addressed to the US.

Anyone else? Iran? I think it would be easier for them just to smuggle one in, it probably not that hard.

The missile sheild is only going to raise tensions, just like all arms races before it. So for not helping to progress the destructio of the world, Canada is one great country.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Appeasement only works in the short term, dumbass. How noble of canada to sell out to the islamofascists. Really. What a great fucking nation.

Spending resources wisely is a strength of a healthy nation. For a person who warms his cockles to the notion of economic growth, I thought you'd understand how this gives a negative cost-benefit to us.

Canada made the right military spending choice choosing people over expensive toys.

 

[Annie]

Spending resources wisely is a strength of a healthy nation. For a person who warms his cockles to the notion of economic growth, I thought you'd understand how this gives a negative cost-benefit to us.

Canada made the right military spending choice choosing people over expensive toys.

C'mon Issac, the truth of the matter is that Canada should not expend it's resources on defense, after all the US does that already. And certainly not on a 'shield' of which it will be covered, whether they spend the $ or not.

In other words, your country is able to claim alignment with the Euros on the cheap, without fear of reprisals.

 

[Isaac Brock]

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 demensions. 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.

That is simply a very optimistic view how little it will cost Canada. When the US asked Canada to join the JSF program it cost us $150 million just to sit at the table. End result, Canada wasn't included in the JSF program over spiralling costs.

The timing of the request could not be more ironic. Currently, there is ressurected bitterness towards the 21 American DEW lines sites (part of the NORAD Cold-war era surveillance shield), which Canada now has to clean up at our own expense (which at last estimates has risen to 180 million). It's hard not to feel a little shafted in terms of NORAD these days.

However, a new land based ballistic missile program would assuredly require new American bases in the Arctic. Will we see the same thing happen again? Can we say for sure that it won't cost us anything? As a casual critic I see nothing but promises and nothing concrete? Does it work currently? No. Is there a cost timetable. No. Where is the incentive?

Smells more like we're getting burnt.

 

[Isaac Brock]

C'mon Issac, the truth of the matter is that Canada should not expend it's resources on defense, after all the US does that already. And certainly not on a 'shield' of which it will be covered, whether they spend the $ or not.

In other words, your country is able to claim alignment with the Euros on the cheap, without fear of reprisals.

Well let's put in black and white then. Your ambassador Cellucci asked for two things from Canada. Beef up your military and join missile defence. Rejecting the absurd notion that the missile defence won't cost us money, we have limited resources for two competing proposals.

As of the new budget, Canada increased its military spending $12.8 billion over 5 years, which compared to our annual budget of about $12 billion, means at about 20% increase in spending. We're spending money on new troops and craft to be able deploy fast transporting self-sufficient divisions for peacekeeping and NATO commitments. Does that not satisfy one of the requests? Of course, it is of very little surprise that the US media doesn't report that.

Perspective is everything, and the US outlets are not giving it. Sure sounds a lot more demonizing and much better news bite when Canada rejects their friend again and again.

 

[Annie]

Well let's put in black and white then. Your ambassador Cellucci asked for two things from Canada. Beef up your military and join missile defence. Rejecting the absurd notion that the missile defence won't cost us money, we have limited resources for two competing proposals.

As of the new budget, Canada increased its military spending $12.8 billion over 5 years, which compared to our annual budget of about $12 billion, means at about 20% increase in spending. We're spending money on new troops and craft to be able deploy fast transporting self-sufficient divisions for peacekeeping and NATO commitments. Does that not satisfy one of the requests? Of course, it is of very little surprise that the US media doesn't report that.

Perspective is everything, and the US outlets are not giving it. Sure sounds a lot more demonizing and much better news bite when Canada rejects their friend again and again.

See, we agree. The US can :demand: bia the likes of Cellucci for Canada to step up and you all can say 'pound sand.' You have spoken.

 

[onedomino]

As of the new budget, Canada increased its military spending $12.8 billion over 5 years, which compared to our annual budget of about $12 billion, means at about 20% increase in spending.

$2.5 billion per year for five years equals 20 percent growth in military spending? Your military budget is all the way up to $14.5 billion per year! Speak loud and carry a little stick; good policy. Including military operations in Iraq, America spends close to $500 billion per year. $420 billion is next year's budget without Iraq. The US has 9 times the population of Canada, yet it is spending 35 times more money on defense. $14.5 billion is the Canadian commitment to defense? Awesome. You do not want Missile Defense. You fit right in. Neither does two-thirds of the Canadian population. So be it. No Missile Defense for Canada.

 

[onedomino]

Former NORAD Deputy Chief, Canadian Lt. Gen. MacDonald, on Canada’s rejection of Ballistic Missile Defense:

February 24, 2005
NORAD Role Could Be Altered
By Stephen Thorne

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/24/941448-cp.html

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal government's decision to opt out of the contentious U.S. missile defense program will freeze Canada out of critical decision-making in its own defense, says NORAD's former deputy chief. But retired lieutenant-general George MacDonald says while Canada's role in the North American Air Defense Command might ultimately change, it won't end.
"Canadians will not have any participation in the actual decision-making or the rules of engagement or anything to do with ballistic missile defense," the former vice-chief of defense staff and now a consultant says.
"We will simply be feeding the system. And the question that ultimately may be asked is whether this is still an important mission for NORAD to do."
At some point, MacDonald says, the U.S. might want to lop off NORAD’s role in the warning element of missile defense, thereby completely excluding Canada from the process.
An August 2004 amendment expanded NORAD’s mission, allowing Canadians at NORAD headquarters to interpret and transfer U.S. satellite and radar data about incoming missiles to officials at the missile defense system, the United States Northern Command.
The two commands, located side-by-side at Cheyenne Mountain, Col., issued a two-sentence, joint statement Thursday saying Canada's NORAD role has not been "diminished."
"U.S. Northern Command will have operational control of the GMD system once the president and the U.S. secretary of defense declare a limited operational capability," said the statement.
The current system employs no ground-based stations on Canadian soil, nor would it necessarily if Canada had signed on, said MacDonald. (Get that, Brock?)
"I think over time the NORAD mission in this area will atrophy, that it will become less important to the Americans and the Canadians will be gradually eased out of it," he said in an interview.
"If Canadians can only do part of that mission, does it make sense for them to do any of it? I think that will be the ultimate question."
Canada would have played a similar role in nuclear retaliatory decisions of U.S. presidents since the two countries first signed the NORAD agreement in 1958, by furnishing information but not decisions, he noted.
What is important for Canada at this stage, he said, is to remain engaged in other elements of defensive co-operation and collaboration - namely anti-terrorism and traditional sea and air surveillance and defense.
"One would hope that the bilateral defense relationship will become even stronger, although the lack of our participation in ballistic missile defense does create some uncertainty."
Informal talks have started on possibly expanding the NORAD agreement to include land and sea defenses.
Ottawa also made a five-year, $12.8-billion commitment to defense in Wednesday's budget - it's largest military outlay in a generation.
Canada was clear from the beginning that it wouldn't contribute money to missile defense, nor did it expect to glean financial benefits if it did participate.
Retired general Gordon O'Connor, now the Conservative defense critic, said opting out of the plan is a militarily embarrassing decision because the government has never outlined what it is saying no to.
Thursday in the Commons, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper urged Prime Minister Paul Martin to detail the plan: "If he is saying no to something, do us the honor of telling us exactly what it is that he said no to."
Neither Martin nor Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew responded, but both said Canada will continue to honor the NORAD amendment.

Canada Has Given Up Control of its Airspace: US Ambassador

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=eb7a0b0e-c2cc-43a3-b966-9e74f05dacc1

OTTAWA (CP) -- Canada's announcement that it won't join the U.S. missile shield provoked an immediate warning that it has relinquished sovereignty over its airspace.
From now on, the U.S. government will control any decision to fire at incoming missiles over Canadian territory, declared the top U.S. envoy to Canada.
"We will deploy. We will defend North America," said Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to 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."
The response came just moments after Prime Minister Paul Martin ended months of ambiguity Thursday by announcing that he would not sign on to the controversial missile-defence program.
The warning was no slip of the tongue: Cellucci repeated several times that Canada's decision had in effect handed over some of its sovereignty to the United States.
"I personally don't think it's in Canada's sovereign interest to be outside of the room when a decision is made about a missile that might be incoming towards Canada."
Cellucci said he understood the political "challenge" that made it difficult for Martin's minority government to accept missile defence -- and agreed it was Canada's right to make a decision.
The formal announcement completed a lengthy retreat for Martin, who expressed support for the project last year in his early days in office, then qualified his support, and finally fell almost silent on the issue.
Still, even the final announcement was not without confusion.
Martin said he would expect to be consulted on what to do about any missile passing over Canada.
Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew, however, seemed to indicate the ultimate decision lies in U.S. hands -- whether or not Canada ever joins the missile shield.
"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.
"Canada . . . must act in its own interests and must determine where its priorities lie," Pettigrew said as he made the formal announcement in the House of Commons. "After careful consideration of the issue, we have decided that Canada will not participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defence system."
He said the decision is based on sound policy principles rather than emotion.
Martin insisted the move won't hurt relations with the U.S.
"Canada and the United States remain one another's staunchest allies and closest friends . . . and we will continue to ensure that our overall relationship grows stronger and that our people enjoy increased security and prosperity."
He said though Canada remains deeply committed to security, "ballistic missile defence is not where we will concentrate our efforts."
Instead, Canada will work on border security, reinforcing coastal and Arctic sovereignty and expanding the military.
"As part of this, Canada remains steadfast in its support of Norad," he said.
Martin noted that the $13 billion in new military funding announced in Wednesday's federal budget is "a tangible indication that Canada intends to carry its full share of that responsibility."
Pettigrew said he told his U.S. counterpart of the decision Tuesday at the NATO summit in Belgium attended by both Martin and U.S. President George W. Bush.
"Of course the U.S. is disappointed, but they recognize our decision," Pettigrew said.
Neither Martin nor Pettigrew explained precisely why they oppose missile defence, but opponents, including the NDP, argue it may trigger a new arms race.
The NDP immediately hailed the decision.
Critics also question why the elaborate plan is necessary in a post-Cold War climate where the U.S. government is fighting low-budget terrorist operations, not state-run communism.
Supporters of the scheme contend Canada will sit on the sidelines without any say over how the system is used, without any access to billions in related research contracts, and without any political credit from Washington.
Any plans to join the project were buried under a wave of political resistance -- from the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and many Liberals -- that Martin's minority government did not risk trying to overcome.
Polls have suggested most Canadians oppose the project and Martin might even have faced a revolt within his own Liberal caucus.
Coming on the heels of Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-led war in Iraq, Thursday's announcement marked a second major break with the United States over a military project.
Martin had promised a new era of Canada-U.S. relations after bitter divisions over the war in Iraq. But U.S. officials had warned it would be an inauspicious start to any new era if Canada refused to join the missile plan.
They privately expressed befuddlement, frustration and even mild amusement at how long it took for Martin to make an announcement.
Bush raised the issue repeatedly during a trip to Canada late last year and, against all expectations, publicly requested Martin's support with the prime minister sitting by his side.
Martin's waiting game became increasingly untenable in recent days.
The Conservatives had not budged from their silence on the issue in an attempt to isolate the Liberals, who also faced a bruising battle over missile defence at its March convention.
The final straw came this week when Frank McKenna, Ottawa's ambassador-designate to Washington, triggered a flood of attacks on the government by saying Canada was already effectively part of missile defence.
Canadian soldiers are part of the Colorado-based Norad program that monitors the skies for incoming missiles.
But the Canadian government has repeatedly insisted their agreement last August to amend the longstanding Norad pact so that Canada will pass information along to U.S. officials didn't mean Canada had joined the project.
Missile defence supporters said the program wouldn't have cost Canada a dime, nor would it have placed missiles on Canadian soil.
U.S. officials have indicated they didn't really need Canada's help, but would have appreciated political support from their neighbour as they attempted to sell the plan abroad.

 

[Isaac Brock]

$2.5 billion per year for five years equals 20 percent growth in military spending? Your military budget is all the way up to $14.5 billion per year! Speak loud and carry a little stick; good policy. Including military operations in Iraq, America spends close to $500 billion per year. $420 billion is next year's budget without Iraq. The US has 9 times the population of Canada, yet it is spending 35 times more money on defense. $14.5 billion is the Canadian commitment to defense? Awesome. You do not want Missile Defense. You fit right in. Neither does two-thirds of the Canadian population. So be it. No Missile Defense for Canada.

Might I also remind you that the US spends about ten times more of their budget than any other country, with the notable exception of China and Japan. Let's not pretend that the US military spending is the normal throughout the world. If you're going to compare apples, don't get an orange.

Even if we did spend the extra money on our military, which in many ways i do agree with you, that we should spend more, there are projects where the money would be better spent. I'd like see Canada have a small air craft carrier, with a modern fleet that could also house marine operations so that Canada could project its military independently as to be of better use to our allies and more responsive in the needs of peacekeeping.

The best missile shield you can build would be to take down Iran and North Korea, but it looks like we're two years too late.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

... so that Canada could project its military independently as to be of better use to our allies and more responsive in the needs of peacekeeping.

Who are your allies again? The REAL ones.