Canada says "NO" to Bush

Yep cleanest big city because you dump all your garbage in Michigan.
I don't mind that Canada has said no to missle defense. Shame we can't say no to thier garbage.

Rox

The shortest distance between two points on a sphere lies on a great circle. A great circle is a circle on the surface of a sphere that has the same center point and diameter as the sphere. It is the analog of a Euclidian straight line in spherical geometry.

~Ulrika~

There is condescension in the U.S. toward Canada. There is condescension in Canada toward the U.S. Big fucking deal. There always has been. Ignorance on both sides of the border is standard operating procedure. And yet, Americans and Canadians know more about each other than any other peoples in the world. Why?

Because more than just about any other peoples in the world, Americans and Canadians are the same peoples. The difference between Albertans and Montanans is infinitesmal. Mainers and New Brunswickers are the same people. Port Huron, Michigan and Sarnia, Ontario are the same bloody town. A great deal of American culture was invented in Canada, or by Canadians. And vice-versa, as we all know and many of us bitch about.

This isn't an argument between two nations. It's an argument between two siblings in the same family, one who often takes the other for granted, and the other who feels ignored and gets an attitude sometimes. All these attempts to emphasize differences sound pathetic, because they aren't based on any comparative facts.

And I'm not singing "We are the World", either. This is a simple, hardcore, cultural, political, economic, and military reality.

Canada needs the United States as much as the United States needs Canada. Any American or Canadian who seriously thinks about ending, eroding, or separating one of the most successful and profitable international partnerships in human history needs to be immediately deported to Mars. Without a parka. Or a supply of Molson.

please take a string and a globe and fix one end on korea and the other on seattle or los angeles.

if the cia "research" is "accurate" and it's not the usual phoney propoganda like WMD in iraq, and n korea does have a missle that can cross the pacific, this theoretical missle threat would probably barely graze the limits of canadian waters.

Okay, i'm tired of this thread. Lemme back up Jauani & expand:

1. If a missile can reach Seattle, then 99% change North Korea has nukes that can hit Vancouver.
2. A modern nuclear weapon is hundreds of times more powerful than the hiroshima fat-boy fission bomb. A hit in Seattle would almost certainly devastate the southwestern edge of Canada.
3. It's not like Kim Jong Ill-in-the-head splits any hairs between the US and Canada or Europe or Japan. We're all capitalist pigs to him and he'd love to see us all defeated.
4. Canada has had a half-century history cooperating with the defense of North America against nuclear attack. It was an integral part of the early warning / response system during the Cold War. In fact, Canada has a larger air force than the US. The fact that Canada is backing out of this cooperation is troubling. Whether it's Bush's administration's arrogance or Canada's adminsitration's ignorance, that's another debate.
5. The US has probably had anti-missile defense for a few decades. A logical conclusion as to why it's being "developed" now is simple - deception and public opinion. America and Russia was squarely against missile defense back in the 70s when missile-defense was first discussed, but now that opinions have softened, the US can finally reveal the program... only, the government isn't exactly going to admit that they've been developing this program for decades.

This is not far fetched, considering the simple fact that most new military secrets throughout history are just that - SECRETS. The Manhattan Project was so secret that people working on it didn't even know what they were working on. Skunkworks developed the SR-71 spy plane, the Stealth plane technology, and continues to make secret aircraft that we haven't seen because we haven't had the need.

Or who knows... maybe Canada is publicly rejecting the US, but agreeing in secret. If I was Canada's Prime Minister, and I felt the public was against anti-missile defense, I'd just tell them we werent' doing it and go ahead in secret.

Food for thought, eh?

who is going to attack canada? not korea? and for what? fishing rights?
america's bombs are 100x more powerful than those 50 years ago, but north korea barely has a bomb. i don't even believe them. i don't believe pakistani claims either. i think what they have low self esteem and want some props and affection.
now if korea has a bomb and it is big, if korea has a missle, if korea has a guidance system and if korea is stupid enough to launch it at seattle, canada should help fund a placebo to make the public feel better and to make money for the american arms industry? (please help us fund technology to knock out enemy satellites!)
he might be crazy but do you think everyone in the korean chain of command is crazy? that is the kind of order that could initiate a coup.
during the cold war there was a real fear in canada too. that fear is gone. we don't watch the same media as americans. we also don't have orange alert pink alert blue alert green alert right before elections and important legislative decisions. it's not arrogance or ignorance. missle defense has been a non sequiter for canadian people since the berlin wall came down. to tell you the truth it is like a big joke amongst everyone i talk to. people want shorter lines at the E.R. not anti missle missiles.
was that an episode of the x-files? that's always a possibility. but so is you being the star of your very own truman show.

As seen in the fact that Canada has troops in Afghanistan - if anyone attacked the US, Canada would continue to be our ally. If NK was gonna nuke us, they'd nuke Canada, too.


Pakistan, for once, had an above-ground nuclear test that was verified by independant sources.

NK has a paper trail that leads to China. These aren't "small" nukes. These are full fledged multi-megaton weapons.

EDIT: and even if they were "small" - that's still enough to level cities, including Canada's.


Placebo? Well, while the missile-type anti-missile system is still buggy, Northrup Grumman already has planes that can track and destroy up to 8 warheads at a time using a laser that heats up a missile's warhead until it breaks. Also, "railgun" tech - electromagnetic accelerators using Lorentz force on compressed conductive gas - has been around for decades, and is used it low-power form on many roller-coasters.


I don't know enough about the way they work. I have heard the propaganda they spew, including what they teach their schoolkids (like mistranslating the Anne Frank story to have America as the nazi force). Their leader is crazy. Megalomaniacs like Saddam, Hitler, Mussolini have held power with tight control despite doing extreme actions. (like genocide, brainwashing a public, etc)


You're absolutely right. America's fear-driven society is ridiculous.

However, while Saddam's direct threat to the US was exagerrated (although his threat to the UN in corruption apparently was missed), NK is officially still at war with the US since the 60s. Nuclear proliferation SHOULD scare you, Jauani, and all Canadians. You know, the nuclear proliferation that isn't fabricated intelligence.

Canada has troops in alot of places, as peacekeepers.

It's nice to see you understand the US is a fear driven society.

Korea has no intent to attack anyone. That's just more driven fear, created by Americans.

Of course, because Korea is not a country, it's two divided by a 50 year old civil war that still does not have a formal peace agreement.

But in a sense, you're right. I think Kim's bluffing. I do also, however, think that we should not be playing poker and guessing bluffs with someone who has nukes.

They could target Vancouver just as easy as Seattle. But we've got a missile shield, Canada is at the mercy of a crazyd leader. Canada, better get on your knees, cause you could be a target. Its a shame, I sure will miss the comedy club YukYuks...

Weedy:

Who did N.Korea attack in 1951 without provocation? Fear is what keeps you alive. Complacency kills. Look what happen to Kuwait, France, S. Korea, The US in Pearl Harbor, The Etruscans. History is littered with the stories of nations who felt they had nothing to fear and end up without a nation.

Fear ensures the United States will always remain a Superpower. We fear nukes and build missile defense systems. We fear a better enemy and build Stealth Bombers, and when the smoke clears, maybe we had nothing to fear, but we end up with the most powerful military in the world with weapon systems that make us invincible.

Poor France. If only they feared the Germans in WWI and WWII, maybe they wouldn't have needed to be rescued by the Americans and British.

I agree.. If we gotta play poker with Kim, I rather have a Missile Defense System in my back pocket. And if I was Canada, I'd like to be under that umbrella when the nukes fly. Because if that can't hit the US, Canada is the next best thing. In Kim's mind, hitting Canada might spread radiation clouds into the US.

haha! As I can Canadian, I can tell you that our military is a joke.We wouldn't be able defend ourselves at all in any kind of serious attack and I think this is absolutely shameful on the part of our governement for letting things get this bad.

I for one am glad to be next door to the US. Who else is going to save our sorry asses if the missiles are ever pointed our way?

If the situation were reversed, it might have gone a little like this...

CANADA: Hey, US, we have this great new project where we fire missles and blow up nukes over your country to protect ours. Want to join in and help pay for it?

US: Uh... wait a sec. Fire missiles over our--? No way! Even if it worked, it would destabilize everything. It's a dumb project.

CANADA: OK, then we'll just go ahead and fire missiles over your country without your help then. Dumbasses.

US: Hey. You can't do that. It's our airspace.

CANADA: You didn't join our project, so you gave up your sovereignty. Expect the first missiles next year.

US: Hey, what the--

I don't disagree with you on these points. History is what it is.

What I disagree with, is missile bases in Canada. Just because we said no, does not mean we are not allies. The cold war is over. Korea attacking the US from its home bases would be suicide. I am quite certain that the US has adequate ability to defend itself in an attack. Awac aircraft, subs, ships patrol the North Pacific with regularity. Missile sites in Alaska contain more fire power than any of us will ever know.

Canada is in the role of peacekeeping, not escalation. Bush is not our Prime Minister. Paul Martin is. He has the final say, and he has spoken. No means no.

And thats the problem with this mindset sweeping Canada and Europe. A mindset that having a strong military or adopting foreign policies which lead to the security of your country is somehow a bad thing and that talking peace will resolve all the woes of the world.

Europe is really surprising, because they've seen what happens to nations if you ignore fascist countries/leaders and believe peace talks and/or sancations will somehow change the mindset of these countries. Remember when Chamberlain went to German and signed a peace treaty with Hitler? Muahahahaha... If not for the brilliant thinking of Churchill ramping up the military for War, England would have been conquered in 1939. And the Battle of Britian would be known in history books today as The 3rd Reich Goes Marching On.

There is old saying that seems to be forgotten. Its goes like this:


In Times of Peace, Prepare for War

"Eternal Vigilance Is The Price Of Liberty"
Thomas Jefferson



Pacifists feel very self righteous when they protest against war. Yet if the war is a just one protesting against it just increases the time for the enemy to grow stronger and increases the chances that he will win when he chooses to strike.

Before World War II the democracies of Europe ignored the German military buildup and the disastrous consequence of that policy is well known. During peace time it is tempting for many politicians to ignore the threat of war, and to divert money from military expenditures to social programs. During peacetime the threat of war seems far off. In the short term not spending money on the military improves the economy and spending money on social programs makes the constituents of those social programs happy. A good economy and happy constituents are what every politician knows will insure another term in office. Yet the long term consequences of a peaceful country having a weak military will be military actions by a militant country with a strong army. If we want the world to stay peaceful we must prepare for war. In fact in some cases we must strike first to prevent them from acquiring nuclear capability as Israel did against the Osirak reactor in Iraq.

Canada won't be doing much first strike attacking anytime soon. Unquestionably, Canada takes the US military for granted. There is a good reason for that. In the event of war, the US will look north for engineers, pilots, troops and resourses such as steel, wood, oil, gas and manufacturing. That's like money in the bank, which the US tends to take for granted as well.

No... lots of Canadians feel the same way I do. But the media tends not to focus on that.

What do you expect from Liberals?

Ingrid, thats good to know... Glad there are some "real" people in Canada. '

The Quebec government would prefer to spend my tax dollars on implementing more language laws so that I can't put up a sign in my own town in my own language. And apparently the Canadian government thinks sending Adrian Clarkson on another 3 million dollar trip some place is more important than our national defense.

I need to stop now. Or I'm going to get my knickers in a knot.

Canada could be a World Superpower if it tried a little harder. It has deep water ports to support a strong Navy. It has intelligent people and business/industry to build high tech weapon systems, or the funds to buy such stuff from other countries. It has a population large enough to support a strong military and keep bread on the table. Unlike a country like Israel which has to call up all its citizens in the event of war conflict.

Canada has resources to also provide logistical support to its war machine if needed. Food, Oil, Steel, etc... The Canadian GDP is about $1/trillion dollars per year, which Ranks Canada 12th in the Richest Nations list. I just don't understand why it doesn't invest more in protecting its assets. Canada spends 1.1% of its GDP on the Military. Brazil which is a few dollars richer, but in the same $1/trillion club spends 2.1% of its GDP on the Military. I didn't include Russia, because as a former superpower, their military budget would be skewed. The United States surprisingly spends 3.3% of GDP on the military. Although we are a $10/trillion dollar economy, so thats about $330/billion compared to Canada's $10/billion.

Rank of Richest Nations GDP
============================================
1 World $ 51,480,000,000,000 2003 est. (This is a Combined Total)
2 European Union $ 11,050,000,000,000 2004 est.
3 United States $ 10,990,000,000,000 2003 est.
4 China $ 6,449,000,000,000 2003 est.
5 Japan $ 3,582,000,000,000 2003 est.
6 India $ 3,033,000,000,000 2003 est.
7 Germany $ 2,271,000,000,000 2003 est.
8 United Kingdom $ 1,666,000,000,000 2003 est.
9 France $ 1,661,000,000,000 2003 est.
10 Italy $ 1,550,000,000,000 2003 est.
11 Brazil $ 1,375,000,000,000 2003 est.
12 Russia $ 1,282,000,000,000 2003 est.
13 Canada $ 958,700,000,000 2003 est.
14 Mexico $ 941,200,000,000 2003 est.
15 Spain $ 885,500,000,000 2003 est.
16 Korea, South $ 857,800,000,000 2003 est.
17 Indonesia $ 758,800,000,000 2003 est.
18 Australia $ 571,400,000,000 2003 est.
19 Taiwan $ 528,600,000,000 2003 est.
20 Iran $ 478,200,000,000 2003 est.

Get back in your trailer, Alby. The terrorists are coming.

This kind of leads me back to my original point. With so much in common, why aren't we more supportive of eachother? We are two highly interdependent nations with many common values. I would personally love it if our two countries would forge stronger bonds, and learn to value each country's unique attributes and contributions. Any time the "we're better than you" mantra crops up, you're going to hear me whine about it. Not only because I find it personally offensive, but because it is short-sighted and jingoistic, to use Chip's nomenclature.

I, too, am glad to have Canada as a neighbor. What a different nation the US would be if we were parked next to N. Korea or Iran. On a number of lesser socio-political issues, we're probably going to have to just agree to disagree. That doesn't mean we need to make the other country "right" or "wrong" for choosing a different path. When it comes to those big-ticket issues, though, I believe that increasing the dialog and cooperation levels will cover a myriad of sins.