Canada won't be funding missle shield

[Said1]

More fuel to fire bad relations.

December 15, 2004


Prime Minister Paul Martin said Tuesday he does not believe the U.S. ballistic missile shield will succeed in shooting down incoming rockets, as he threw up new roadblocks to counter President George W. Bush's strong appeal for Canada to join his continental defence plan.

Canada will not put any money into building the missile shield and it will not allow Washington to station rockets on Canadian soil as the price of participation in the multibillion-dollar program, Martin told Global National in a year-end interview.

In another issue that could cause friction with Bush, Martin said Canada was prepared to accept U.S. citizens who do not want to serve in the war in Iraq.

"In terms of immigration, we are a country of immigrants and we will take immigrants from around the world. I'm not going to discriminate," said Martin, when reminded that former prime minister Pierre Trudeau opened Canada's doors to draft dodgers and deserters during the Vietnam War.

'AN ILLEGAL WAR'

When asked whether the prime minister was referring to ongoing attempts by Jeremy Hinzman, a 26-year-old U.S. deserter, to gain asylum in Canada after refusing to serve in what he calls "an illegal war," Martin spokesman Scott Reid said the prime minister "was not commenting on any individual case and certainly was not sending a signal to the immigration board."

Canada will not put any money into building the missile shield and it will not allow Washington to station rockets on Canadian soil as the price of participation in the multibillion-dollar program, Martin told Global National in a year-end interview.

In another issue that could cause friction with Bush, Martin said Canada was prepared to accept U.S. citizens who do not want to serve in the war in Iraq.

"In terms of immigration, we are a country of immigrants and we will take immigrants from around the world. I'm not going to discriminate," said Martin, when reminded that former prime minister Pierre Trudeau opened Canada's doors to draft dodgers and deserters during the Vietnam War.

More

 

[onedomino]

Canada will not put any money into building the missile shield and it will not allow Washington to station rockets on Canadian soil as the price of participation in the multibillion-dollar program, Martin told Global National in a year-end interview. In another issue that could cause friction with Bush, Martin said Canada was prepared to accept U.S. citizens who do not want to serve in the war in Iraq.

Thank you for the information. I was not aware that Canada had decided against missile defense. Nor did I realize Canada is again going accept criminal deserters from the US military.

Unbelievable! This is an ally? Why doesn’t Canada just get it over with and join the EU? Japan, the nation we nuked in 1945, is a far better ally than Canada. The quality of our relationship with Australia makes Canada seem like an enemy. Well...ok. No missile defense for Canada. So be it. American missile defense should only be for allies. Canadians should keep their heads in the sand. Then they might not notice when the sand turns to glass.

 

[Johnney]

In another issue that could cause friction with Bush, Martin said Canada was prepared to accept U.S. citizens who do not want to serve in the war in Iraq.

isnt this just ducky.

 

[Merlin1047]

More fuel to fire bad relations.

Whatever. If Canada does not want to participate in a missile defense program, then that is certainly their right and I don't have a problem with that. Too many Americans view Canada as a ventriloquist's puppet sitting on the lap of Uncle Sam. These people need an occasional reminder that Canada is a sovereign nation and has every right to act in its own self interest.

However, Martin's comments regarding Iraq are highly inappropriate. These comments are not addressed to draft dodgers as there is no draft. So Martin's comments must be interpreted as an invitation for US soldiers to desert to Canada. That is completely unacceptable. Martin is damned lucky I'm not President. If I were, there would be a demand for an immediate retraction and a public apology. If that were not forthcoming, I would shut down the borders, order every Canadian in this country to return home in 48 hours, embargo every bit of trade we do with Canada, terminate diplomatic relations and void every treaty we have with Canada.

Martin must be made to understand that disagreements are one thing, but encouraging our troops to desert is quite another.

 

[Said1]

Martin must be made to understand that disagreements are one thing, but encouraging our troops to desert is quite another.

How do you figure he's encouraging troops to desert? Seriously, I must be really daft, because I didn't read that way, although I could see how some might.

 

[Merlin1047]

How do you figure he's encouraging troops to desert? Seriously, I must be really daft, because I didn't read that way, although I could see how some might.

"In another issue that could cause friction with Bush, Martin said Canada was prepared to accept U.S. citizens who do not want to serve in the war in Iraq."

Think about that statement. Why would a U.S. citizen move to Canada because he or she does not want to serve in Iraq? That would solve nothing. No citizen is currently in danger of being involuntarily inducted into the armed services so for them, emigrating to Canada does nothing to solve the "serving in Iraq" problem - because that problem never existed.

We have an ALL VOLUNTEER armed force. Not a single soul has been drafted. There is no conscription. So the only people who would be able to avoid serving in Iraq by fleeing to Canada are those who are currently members of the armed forces.

 

[Johnney]

yes its in poor taste. they should be assisting the US with booting the yellow bastards back over the border.

 

[Said1]

"In another issue that could cause friction with Bush, Martin said Canada was prepared to accept U.S. citizens who do not want to serve in the war in Iraq."

Think about that statement. Why would a U.S. citizen move to Canada because he or she does not want to serve in Iraq? That would solve nothing. No citizen is currently in danger of being involuntarily inducted into the armed services so for them, emigrating to Canada does nothing to solve the "serving in Iraq" problem - because that problem never existed.

We have an ALL VOLUNTEER armed force. Not a single soul has been drafted. There is no conscription. So the only people who would be able to avoid serving in Iraq by fleeing to Canada are those who are currently members of the armed forces.

Come on Merlyn, I would think you of all people could spot media fluff when you see it.

 

[Merlin1047]

Come on Merlyn, I would think you of all people could spot media fluff when you see it.

I was simply relying on that portion of the article which provided a quote attributed to Martin. That cannot be fluffed. If that's not what he said, then a correction needs to be printed.

Either he made the statement or he did not. If he did, I stand by my sentiments. If he did not speak those words, then all these keystrokes have been pointless.

 

[Said1]

I was simply relying on that portion of the article which provided a quote attributed to Martin. That cannot be fluffed. If that's not what he said, then a correction needs to be printed.

Either he made the statement or he did not. If he did, I stand by my sentiments. If he did not speak those words, then all these keystrokes have been pointless.

Your keystrokes have not been wasted Daddio, I understand what you are saying. However, I simply feel the statement is somewhat misleading and I do not think deserters would be welcomed. I could be wrong, I would hope not, but it happened once long, long ago.

 

[MrMarbles]

I can't remember where I read it, but i'm looking for the source...

I read that most interceptions of IBMs would occur over Canada. And that the missle sheild is not intended to destroy the warheads, just knock them out of the sky. So why would Canada pay for a defence system that will just end up droping nuclear warheads on ourselves? Sounds a little silly to me. It's like paying for the privilage to stand in front of a speeding bullet.

 

[Comrade]

I can't remember where I read it, but i'm looking for the source...

I read that most interceptions of IBMs would occur over Canada. And that the missle sheild is not intended to destroy the warheads, just knock them out of the sky. So why would Canada pay for a defence system that will just end up droping nuclear warheads on ourselves? Sounds a little silly to me. It's like paying for the privilage to stand in front of a speeding bullet.

Those warheads would not have a chance in hell of detonating, right?

I'm sure the US would help with the cleanup job. But you realize those few pounds of fissable material spread out over hundreds of sqaure miles aren't really a problem for the carribou or any other creature living under the daily solar radiation of the Earth, especially at that latitude.

But if the warhead actually came down intact, that's all the better. All the pieces are readily there to detect and pick up.

 

[NATO AIR]

i'm sorry but i have no faith in the "continental missile defense system" the US gov't is trying (and failing) to build. when it works, i'll be glad to say "hey i was wrong", but for now, it seems to me like a massive waste of money that could go to more fighter jets, more troops, more ships, more satellittes and god knows what else our military needs.

canada can't even fund its military properly, and its falling apart.

if i was bush, i wouldn't blame them for this, i'd let them know politely american advice and assistance would be forthcoming if they asked for it to help slim and trim their military.

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

Can I ask a possibly stupid question? Whose missiles will this protect us from? If the big baddies are terrorists, I would imagine that any attack on the US will not come from an ICBM but from a nuclear bomb in a shipping crate. Or maybe the US is really that worried about N. Korea?

I don't think a missile defense system is a bad thing in general, only that it doesn't really seem to defend the US against the type of attack that it is currently most vulnerable to, and the one most likely to be used by its enemies.

 

[onedomino]

i'm sorry but i have no faith in the "continental missile defense system" the US gov't is trying (and failing) to build. when it works, i'll be glad to say "hey i was wrong", but for now, it seems to me like a massive waste of money that could go to more fighter jets, more troops, more ships, more satellittes and god knows what else our military needs.

canada can't even fund its military properly, and its falling apart.

if i was bush, i wouldn't blame them for this, i'd let them know politely american advice and assistance would be forthcoming if they asked for it to help slim and trim their military.

NATO, fighter jets, troops, ships, and satellites are not going to destroy incoming missiles from North Korea, Iran, China, or elsewhere. For example, Iran recently allocated $1 billion to resume development of a long-range missile designed to strike Europe or the United States. http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/pdf/oberng04.pdf We cannot sit under the muzzle of a gun held by Mullahs. We must develop the capability to protect ourselves in the event of an attack.

Does the US Missile Defense Agency have a functional system? No, it is still in development. All weapons systems take a lot of time to be developed and deployed. Prior to WW2, in the development stage of the aircraft carrier, if the US had stopped on testing and improving aircraft carrier design, in what shape would America have been after the Japanese destroyed our Pacific battleship fleet at Pearl Harbor? Is it currently safe to have confidence in missile defense? No. It is not developed, tested, or deployed. The discussion with the Canadians was about whether they wanted to be part of the program. Unlike the Japanese and the Australians, the Canadians have apparently decided to pretend that no threat exists. So be it. No missile defense for Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver, Canadian defense installations, etc. Maybe Martin can get the UN to pass a resolution that no one should shoot at Canada.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/mdalink.html
http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/relatives.html

----------

I am not sure to what you were referring in the last sentence of your post. If the Canadians slimmed or trimmed their military any further, one would need a microscope to detect it.

----------

 

[NATO AIR]

Maybe Martin can get the UN to pass a resolution that no one should shoot at Canada.

:cof: good one.... i want preemptive strikes on these nations that are building these missiles, i know it may be destabilizing but the best defense is a good offense, and i refuse to short change the military while building up a "last-ditch" defense that has been a failure of massive proportions since its inception.

I am not sure to what you were referring in the last sentence of your post. If the Canadians slimmed or trimmed their military any further, one would need a microscope to detect it.

The Canadian military needs to be rebuilt and reformed. In its current state, it is falling apart and is a disgrace to Canada and the worthy missions it tries to undertake, but increasingly cannot.

America could help them greatly with this, with just plain good advice and support. Canada doesn't need an offensive air force, nor an offensive navy. We can handle that for them, regardless of this missile defence business (that they don't have the money to help fund). Canada does need a deployable, fast forming army to rescue people from genocide, ethnic cleansing and humanitarian disaster. This goes in line with what the nation as a whole wants to do in the world, which is help people, not fight wars. America is the warrior primarily, Canada the humanitarian aid worker primarily.

 

[Merlin1047]

Can I ask a possibly stupid question? Whose missiles will this protect us from? If the big baddies are terrorists, I would imagine that any attack on the US will not come from an ICBM but from a nuclear bomb in a shipping crate. Or maybe the US is really that worried about N. Korea?

Well there's still Russia. Although the threat is vastly diminished, I still wouldn't turn my back on the Soviets. Then there's China, India, Iran, N. Korea - oh yes - and France.

 

[Comrade]

Can I ask a possibly stupid question? Whose missiles will this protect us from? If the big baddies are terrorists, I would imagine that any attack on the US will not come from an ICBM but from a nuclear bomb in a shipping crate. Or maybe the US is really that worried about N. Korea?

I don't think a missile defense system is a bad thing in general, only that it doesn't really seem to defend the US against the type of attack that it is currently most vulnerable to, and the one most likely to be used by its enemies.

China.

This project is simply the first stage of a full network of next generation interceptors designed to deter not just an attack from a 'rouge nation', but from nations with a sizable inventory of ICBM's.

And this is not simply a device to 'win' a nuclear exchange, but a MASSIVE bargaining chip in any future brinkmanship between the US and another major power.

Remember, it was the mere thought of such an umbrella which played a major role (according to Gorbachevs' government) which bankrupted the USSR and won the cold war.

This is a very powerfull message to other would-be nuclear players in the world.

 

[Said1]

I can't remember where I read it, but i'm looking for the source...

I read that most interceptions of IBMs would occur over Canada. And that the missle sheild is not intended to destroy the warheads, just knock them out of the sky. So why would Canada pay for a defence system that will just end up droping nuclear warheads on ourselves? Sounds a little silly to me. It's like paying for the privilage to stand in front of a speeding bullet.

Martin seems to be unimpressed with the present system. Not that he's in a postion to be picky!

Prime Minister Paul Martin said Tuesday he does not believe the U.S. ballistic missile shield will succeed in shooting down incoming rockets