I just read an article and I am still trying to understand.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the US Ambassador to Canada saying we will ignore Candian sovereignty of their airspace????

US ambassador can't actually be saying what I think he is saying.

The article is located here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050224.w3miss0223/BNStory/National/

Here is the pertinant section:

The formal announcement Thursday that Canada will refuse any further participation in the controversial U.S. missile-defence shield was met with an immediate warning that Canada had given up its sovereignty.

Although Prime Minister Paul Martin said Canada would “insist” on maintaining control of its airspace, U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci warned that Washington would not be constrained.

“We will deploy. We will defend North America,” he said.

“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.”

That's exactly what he's saying. He's saying that now the US, and the US alone, will do what it thinks is nessesary without consulting the Canadian government. He can say that he'll ignore Canadian airspace because there's not a damn thing the Canadian government will do about or can do about it.

Mind you, the situation looks rather odd if you ask me.

It’s rhetoric, cocky bullshit rhetoric, but that’s what it amounts to. The reality is, one, who the hell is going to attack Canada? The “enemy” (terrorists) doesn’t deal in traditional strategic terms i.e., invading Belgium and the Netherlands so you can attack France.

That brings me to another point, what do you think the likelihood of terrorists getting a hold of an intercontinental ballistic missile is?

And don’t give me any crap about North Korea, South Korea is a much better target.

Last thing, even if we had joined in the shield, do you think the Americans would have called us to ask our permission after the missile had already been launched?

This doesn’t change anything. The only difference is that now we aren’t going to have any American silos in Canadian territory as part of the shield. Hmmm…come to think of it, that also means we aren’t going to have any potential targets on Canadian soil. See, everybody wins.

I recall Canada had the same problem in the late 1970's and early 1980's with the US Navy not wanting to respect Canadian sovereignty in concern to access to the North west Passage route . The US Navy was sending its Atomic Submarines through that route the Canadian fear was that this activity would invite Soviet Subs to penetrate that sea lane with the great chance of a collision or accident radiating that area . Needless to say America payed no attention..............

This is still happening. At least last I heard anyway. I know that isn't any proof, but I'm too lazy to find anything to verify this. If pressed, however, I will look.

As to the original incident, it was my understanding that both the Americans and the Russians were doing this. A few years ago Canada purchased subs so they could patrol the arctic and prevent this from happening.

I guess I am just stating the obvious, but neocons have no respect for law or anything else but power.

Unfortunately, apparantly over 50 percent of the American populace support this admin. So should we start watching for brownshirts to start showing up in the streets?

There's got to be some sort of solution to this problem. Though i don't think that the Canadian government is always are respectful of the American government as they should be (calling Bush a moron might have been funny, but also a very bad idea for a senior diplomat), this type of thing really pisses me off. Do you know where one of the worst areas for Agent Orange contamination is? Windsor, Ontario. The stuff was just dumped into the great lakes. When the Americans were confronted about it, they effectivly replied that Canadian's had never complained about the waste from the Manhatten project that was dumped into the lakes.
I like many of our southern neighbors, but we've really got to figure out a way to stop this.

it's a continuation of a clever yet dishonourable policy of consecutive Canadian governments:
get defense, without paying a cent for it, and keeping the electorate happy for "saying 'no' to America"

So who wants to attack Canada?

I guess if they were overthrowing countries around the world, supporting dictatorships here and there and periodicially launching unprovoked attacks on other countries, somebody might want to attack them.

But since they don't do that and they have large oceans around them, they don't have to worry too much about someone attacking them.

if Canada's frontiers are not protected, the US becomes susceptible to attack.
if Canada doesn't join in, US will have to then do these things:
1) expand more resources to protect North America with out Canada's help. this means more money, more man-hours, more complexity, more bullshit

2) will increase safeguards on the US-Canadian border, which is a pretty big and significant border. there is no border on earth where there is more trade happening. increased security checks and procedures will hamper both economies, although more so for Canada since our economy is so dependent on exporting to the US.

Canada has been leeching off the US for a century, but especially so ever since NAFTA was signed. we get free access to export to the US, and on top of that we have the best army in the world protecting us with no cost to us what so ever.

we eat the cake and we fucking have it too. Canadian interests are fully reached, once again, at the expense of US taxpayers.

i guess that means our politicians are doing their jobs... but why do i have such a bitter taste in my mouth then?

I figure that if we took some damn respondsibility for ourselves, you wouldn't have a bitter taste in your mouth, our borders would be safe, and we could save a 'no' for teh US government for when it's really needed.

i just think that without cooperation, the protection will be less effective than what it would've been with cooperation

plus, for reason #2 from my previous post, the economy would not be slowed down, and Canadian businesses would not need to pay extra "security taxes" for goods crossing the border, which i think will have to happen.
one way or another, the US will do something punitive. not necessarily out of spite, revenge, or punishment, but simply out of necessity.

we could save a 'no' for teh US government for when it's really needed
NO to Iraq invasion
NO to training Iraqi army & police inside Iraq
but
YES to free defense, and
YES to access to the biggest market in the world :rolleyes:

The “enemy” (terrorists) doesn’t deal in traditional strategic terms i.e., invading Belgium and the Netherlands so you can attack France.

What are you talking about? They have superior tactics. The only thing they lack is a real army and that's the only "non-traditional" part about them. Guerilla/stealth warfare is the best tactic there is! For what little they have, they're doing quite well.

And what's this about your last part? Do you honestly think they're coming in through our front gates? They're doing just what you said, coming through Canada/Mexico to get to us just as the Germans bypassed the French fortifications. And how did they take down the WTC? They didn't march in with tanks, they stragetically used our weapons against us.

While I don't blame you for disliking them, don't be stupid and hold an ignorant bias by calling them stupid. They're far from it and that's exactly the mistake our adminstration keeps making. Oh, they're just some uneducated towelheads. We have nothing to worry about em. Uh huh, that's why our highly technological selves keep getting bitchslapped by these poor people using "primitive" means.

- N

It’s rhetoric, cocky bullshit rhetoric, but that’s what it amounts to. The reality is, one, who the hell is going to attack Canada? The “enemy” (terrorists) doesn’t deal in traditional strategic terms i.e., invading Belgium and the Netherlands so you can attack France.

Well way back in 1998-ish I remember watching CTV news here and supposedly NK threatened to attack Canada before it would attack the US as a bribe tactic, or something like that. Now that is unsupported on my part because I can’t find support for it but I remember something to that account being said, or maybe its my eccentric mind making things up again.

otheadp

1) expand more resources to protect North America with out Canada's help. this means more money, more man-hours, more complexity, more bullshit

Then don’t start the pointless program in the first place, it’s not my responsibility as a tax payer, and citizen of Canada to promote a program that will further destabilize the world, a system that has never worked before and probably never will. Canada is doing the right thing; saying listen the way to get rid of these ICBM threats is negotiations, carrots and sticks, not some pseudo-defence system that is a complete waste of resources. Canada has better things to do with its money then burn it.

2) will increase safeguards on the US-Canadian border

To the best of my knowledge ICBM’s aren’t transported on 18 wheelers, so I don’t see how it would lead to restrictions on the borders.

Canada has been leeching off the US for a century, but especially so ever since NAFTA was signed. we get free access to export to the US, and on top of that we have the best army in the world protecting us with no cost to us what so ever.

Where does this lack of historical perspective come from? Who invested billions in Canada to make it into a viable nation; it was the British, who wanted to invade Canada militarily and commercially? The Americans. Don’t forget the US gets a lot from us as well, badly needed oil, cheap wood, resources, and the best ally they got. Who was fighting in both world wars when the American’s were sucking their thumbs? Don’t make such outrageous comments please.

Canada has been leeching off the US for a century, but especially so ever since NAFTA was signed. we get free access to export to the US, and on top of that we have the best army in the world protecting us with no cost to us what so ever.

Leeching off another country is a despicable act. So if you perceive Canada as leaching off the US, I can kind of understand you being upset with Canada.

But you must be absolutely furious with Israel.

haven't read everything yet, but this thing jumped out at me:
saying listen the way to get rid of these ICBM threats is negotiations, carrots and sticks, not some pseudo-defence system that is a complete waste of resources

so you're saying the best defense is to not have one! (?)

so you're saying the best defense is to not have one! (?)

It all depends on what you consider defence. If it means trying a tried and tested system of neogiations which have shown themselves to work in the past, notebly these WMD disaramaments:

Argentina
Brazil
South Africa
Libya
Ukraine
Kazakhstan

And diplomatic pressure preventing:

Taiwan
South Korea

Meanwhile NMD has not shot down one missile in a real world scenairo, and it will not work. You tell me?

What are you talking about? They have superior tactics. The only thing they lack is a real army and that's the only "non-traditional" part about them. Guerilla/stealth warfare is the best tactic there is! For what little they have, they're doing quite well.

I never said there was anything wrong with their tactics, I just said they don't use traditional strategy. No deficiency is implied.

And btw, I agree with you, Guerilla warfare is superior, it worked for Castro, it works for Al Qaeda and it's working for the Iraqi's.

My whole argument was referring to missile defense, a system that logically would only used in traditional warfare. So again, unless the terrorists get a hold of intercontinental ballistic missiles the shield is going to be pretty useless against them. To clarify, do you think that the shield could of stopped september 11? Could it stop car bombs, suicide bombers, theatre hijackings?


And what's this about your last part? Do you honestly think they're coming in through our front gates? They're doing just what you said, coming through Canada/Mexico to get to us just as the Germans bypassed the French fortifications. And how did they take down the WTC? They didn't march in with tanks, they strategically used our weapons against us.

Again, I was referring to the uselessness of a missile shield against terrorists, not smuggling terrorists across the border.



While I don't blame you for disliking them, don't be stupid and hold an ignorant bias by calling them stupid. They're far from it and that's exactly the mistake our adminstration keeps making. Oh, they're just some uneducated towelheads. We have nothing to worry about em. Uh huh, that's why our highly technological selves keep getting bitchslapped by these poor people using "primitive" means.


As to this last bit, you must addressing someone else, cause I have no idea what the hell are talking about.

You know what would make both parties happy? If the Canadian government invested some money and thought (emphesis on the second one) on our armed forces. If terrrorism is America's principle concern at this time, Canada ought to make the Coast Guard part of the armed forces (it's wildlife and fisheries right now), create a two-ocean navy, and enlarge the military. Then perhaps they could undertake duties like patroling ports, airports, and other sensitive areas. I'm sure that if we did this the, we'd not only be helping ourselves out security wise, but we'd make our American neighbors a bit happier.

screw the americans, we should increase protecion on the american border, then cut all other miltary funding, if we try to stop fighters getting into america then we will be branded a target also.
its much like NZ troops leaving aceh, they say they fear terrorists, when the only ones that are going to be attacked are the aussies that we are standing right next to, if they suppor5 bush/are targets, then fuck them

Joey Profit

Ah okay, sorry, I misread. I didn't know you were referring to the missle defense system in regards to them. I guess the “rhetoric” part didn’t sink in for me. Yeah, a missle defense system will only work against someone using traditonal means of warware. A missle defense system will only work against incoming ICBM's, not someone with a suitcase nuke, etc, which means this is intended for something else.

But yeah, I agree. The missle defense system isn’t to protect ourselves against a terrorist nation because as you said, they use different tactics. Our defense system is in defense against a future country once we’re no longer #1 such as China, even if our administration continues to say it’s for defense against “rogue nations”. They’re just using our current crisis as an excuse to think ahead defensively against other countries which the populace wouldn’t normally agree with. All ya gotta do is say our war is to promote democracy and freedom and the people will be for it. Say something is for the defense against terrorists, and they’ll be all for it too. God, I hate how gullible most people are.

- N

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/nation/10997668.htm

Maybe Paul Martin should just throw more gasoline on the fire.