Canada says no to missle defense scheme

[cbacon 0]

Because he's going to do it anyways, and it would be stupid to piss off your most important ally simply for moral reasons. The result is going to be the same anyways. I don't like the idea either, but basing policy on principles is idiotic.

 

Actually, that's probably the best reason to tell another country to get to steppin'. I wouldn't side with one Nazi if he said he could protect me from another.

 

You also could very well see economic sanctions.

 

On what legal grounds? If the US were to impliment massive economic sanctions against Canada there would be a shitstorm of protest from even within the United States itself.

 

Yes, Canada needs the United States right now more than the United States needs Canada. What happens in 50 years when the US needs raw natural resources?

 

If it's one thing the US doesn't do, it's staple corporate production and consumption. There will be no sanctions.

 

Canada needs to remember that we need the US more than they need us.

 

Canada's a natural resource gold mine, and are working to be one of the top 5 oil producers in the world. The US is Canada's number one consumer.

[Guest MikeSC]

Because he's going to do it anyways, and it would be stupid to piss off your most important ally simply for moral reasons. The result is going to be the same anyways. I don't like the idea either, but basing policy on principles is idiotic.

Actually, that's probably the best reason to tell another country to get to steppin'. I wouldn't side with one Nazi if he said he could protect me from another.

So, what of our European "allies" who coddle up to dictators and thugs? Were we now good because we told them to get to steppin' while we did the right thing?

You also could very well see economic sanctions.

On what legal grounds? If the US were to impliment massive economic sanctions against Canada there would be a shitstorm of protest from even within the United States itself.

Americans don't think about Canada. Hate to break it to you. We can't even name all of your provinces --- largely because, again, we don't care. Hoping for mass demonstrations for a country we don't care about is laughable.

Yes, Canada needs the United States right now more than the United States needs Canada. What happens in 50 years when the US needs raw natural resources?

It's not even a concern.

If it's one thing the US doesn't do, it's staple corporate production and consumption. There will be no sanctions.

One country willingly didn't buy Iraqi oil. One country has refused to buy from Cuba.

Canada needs to remember that we need the US more than they need us.

Canada's a natural resource gold mine, and are working to be one of the top 5 oil producers in the world. The US is Canada's number one consumer.

And we have obscene oil deposits in Alaska and off our coasts.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

And we have obscene oil deposits in Alaska

 

Nope. Doesn't look that way.

 

A Bush administration official told The New York Times that oil companies no longer care. "If the government gave them leases for free, they wouldn't take them," the official said. "No oil company really cares about ANWR."

 

Executives of oil heavyweights like Exxon and Chevron Texaco shrug their shoulders about ANWR too.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...ack=1&cset=true

 

And drilling off the coast of California & Florida is reeeeal feasible.

[Guest MikeSC]

And we have obscene oil deposits in Alaska

 

Nope. Doesn't look that way.

 

A Bush administration official told The New York Times that oil companies no longer care. "If the government gave them leases for free, they wouldn't take them," the official said. "No oil company really cares about ANWR."

 

Executives of oil heavyweights like Exxon and Chevron Texaco shrug their shoulders about ANWR too.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...ack=1&cset=true

 

And drilling off the coast of California & Florida is reeeeal feasible.

If we HAVE to do it, we would. Just because some hippies here don't want us to drill doesn't mean the oil isn't there.

-=Mike

[Guest Brian]

Do we have any idea if there is even a great deal of oil in ANWR?

[Guest MikeSC]

Do we have any idea if there is even a great deal of oil in ANWR?

Most everything I've ever read indicates that yes, there is a pretty good-sized supply. And ANWR is not an easy place to ruin --- considering that the ground is pretty well frozen. An oil spill would be unlikely to even impact the ecosystem.

 

Besides, in the summertime, it's a bit of a shithole. Or so I've heard.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I don't know if it was brought up in this thread yet, because I didn't bother reading past the first page, but terrorists aren't going to fire ICBMs. Therefore, the argument that the missile defense system will help protect us from terrorism is stupid at best.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Do we have any idea if there is even a great deal of oil in ANWR?

Most everything I've ever read indicates that yes, there is a pretty good-sized supply. And ANWR is not an easy place to ruin --- considering that the ground is pretty well frozen. An oil spill would be unlikely to even impact the ecosystem.

 

Thanks, professor.

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't know if it was brought up in this thread yet, because I didn't bother reading past the first page, but terrorists aren't going to fire ICBMs. Therefore, the argument that the missile defense system will help protect us from terrorism is stupid at best.

It's not just terrorism. A lot of countries are developing nukes now. Being safe is never a bad idea.

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

So, what of our European "allies" who coddle up to dictators and thugs? Were we now good because we told them to get to steppin' while we did the right thing?

 

Countries that supported Saddam are no better than American for putting the dictator in power in the first place, no, you're right.

 

Americans don't think about Canada. Hate to break it to you. We can't even name all of your provinces --- largely because, again, we don't care. Hoping for mass demonstrations for a country we don't care about is laughable

 

You missed the point. America's natural resource economy, hydro power, and even major trading sectors are dependant on Canadian trade. The only other major trade partner is the United Kingdom, and only Tony Blair alone likes the current US leaders over there. There will be no sanctions, whether or not you have a hard time naming 10 provinces and a hand full of territories.

 

The corporate powers that be know better, and don't hold any in particular national allegiance.

 

It's not even a concern.  One country willingly didn't buy Iraqi oil. One country has refused to buy from Cuba.

 

Actually, oil was a major Iraqi/American trade commodity when Saddam was still strictly under American support. And now that he's not, America's just taking the oil.

 

And we have obscene oil deposits in Alaska and off our coasts

 

That would explain the rising North American oil prices due to foreign dependency conflicts and local drought.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, what of our European "allies" who coddle up to dictators and thugs? Were we now good because we told them to get to steppin' while we did the right thing?

Countries that supported Saddam are no better than American for putting the dictator in power in the first place, no, you're right.

Americans didn't put him in power. We only supported him at all so he and the Ayatollah would end up annihilating one another.

Americans don't think about Canada. Hate to break it to you. We can't even name all of your provinces --- largely because, again, we don't care. Hoping for mass demonstrations for a country we don't care about is laughable

You missed the point. America's natural resource economy, hydro power, and even major trading sectors are dependant on Canadian trade.

We could survive without Canada far easier and far longer than Canada could survive without us.

The only other major trade partner is the United Kingdom, and only Tony Blair alone likes the current US leaders over there. There will be no sanctions, whether or not you have a hard time naming 10 provinces and a hand full of territories. rolleyes.gif

Tony Blair is the only major W. European leader who actually has a soul. If we chose to boycott Canada, there isn't much anybody could do about it.

It's not even a concern.  One country willingly didn't buy Iraqi oil. One country has refused to buy from Cuba.

Actually, oil was a major Iraqi/American trade commodity when Saddam was still strictly under American support. And now that he's not, America's just taking the oil.

Yet when Saddam was gassing Kurds and all --- it wasn't America buying his oil.

 

Also odder that American weaponry isn't being found in Iraq --- but French and Russian hardware is.

And we have obscene oil deposits in Alaska and off our coasts

That would explain the rising North American oil prices due to foreign dependency conflicts and local drought.

Just because some hypocritical hippies hate the idea of drilling for oil doesn't mean the oil doesn't exist.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

On what legal grounds? If the US were to impliment massive economic sanctions against Canada there would be a shitstorm of protest from even within the United States itself.

 

Yes, Canada needs the United States right now more than the United States needs Canada. What happens in 50 years when the US needs raw natural resources?

 

If it's one thing the US doesn't do, it's staple corporate production and consumption. There will be no sanctions.

 

Tell that to the beef industry.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

The beef industry wasn't a political decision, it was a business decision. Corporations do what is best for their business.

[Guest MikeSC]

PM Martin expects to be consulted about what to do if missiles are approaching Canada (link).

 

Or, in simple terms, he wants no part of the missile defense program --- until the missiles are approaching. Then he wants the benefits.

-=Mike

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Duh.

 

If the roles were reversed right now we'd graciously allow you Yanks to mooch off of us. Why can't you do the same?

[Guest MikeSC]

Duh.

 

If the roles were reversed right now we'd graciously allow you Yanks to mooch off of us. Why can't you do the same?

Hell, it's not like working with us on the missile defense shield would cost you a dime to begin with.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

PM Martin expects to be consulted about what to do if missiles are approaching Canada (link).

 

Or, in simple terms, he wants no part of the missile defense program --- until the missiles are approaching. Then he wants the benefits.

-=Mike

 

Wait, wait, wait.

He wants to be asked on whether or not missiles should be stopped from hitting his country?

[Guest MikeSC]

PM Martin expects to be consulted about what to do if missiles are approaching Canada (link).

 

Or, in simple terms, he wants no part of the missile defense program --- until the missiles are approaching. Then he wants the benefits.

          -=Mike

 

Wait, wait, wait.

He wants to be asked on whether or not missiles should be stopped from hitting his country?

He wants to be "consulted" as to what to do if missiles approach (or, if one chooses to attach reality to this, he wants us to shoot the missiles down for him should they approach).

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

PM Martin expects to be consulted about what to do if missiles are approaching Canada (link).

 

Or, in simple terms, he wants no part of the missile defense program --- until the missiles are approaching. Then he wants the benefits.

          -=Mike

 

Wait, wait, wait.

He wants to be asked on whether or not missiles should be stopped from hitting his country?

He wants to be "consulted" as to what to do if missiles approach (or, if one chooses to attach reality to this, he wants us to shoot the missiles down for him should they approach).

-=Mike

 

What if the US doesn't bother calling him?

Or he's having a bad day and decides it's a good die for everyone in his country to die?

 

The shield may be stupid, but this sounds absolutely moronic.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Tony Blair is the only major W. European leader who actually has a soul. If we chose to boycott Canada, there isn't much anybody could do about it.

And yet he can barely speak on behalf of his own people without them wanting to throw shit at him. Wonder why that is?

 

Just because some hypocritical hippies hate the idea of drilling for oil doesn't mean the oil doesn't exist.

I don't know how much oil we use will come out of ANWR, but let's just use a nice number and say 10%. If we looked at all the things we use oil for and managed to come up with alternatives so that we're using 10% less oil, we wouldn't need to drill in ANWR at all.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Improve gas mileage by 1 mpg on average and we could cut oil imports by 1/2.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

sOuRcE pLz...

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

sOuRcE pLz...

Eh, it's just something I heard somewhere, maybe in an ecology class. Could be wrong. Here's some more stats:

 

-If we raise fuel efficiency standards in American cars by one mile per gallon, in one year, we would save twice the amount of oil that could be obtained from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

-Raising it by 2.7 mpg would save enough to eliminate all the oil imports from Iraq and Kuwait combined

-Raising it by 7.6 mpg would save enough to eliminate 100% of our gulf oil imports into this country

 

source

 

We could also improve mileage a lot by simple things like making sure our tires have good pressure in them and stuff like that.

[EricMM 0]

^ this is all reasonably true.

 

The numbers might not be exact, but there are ways to lower demand of oil rather than increasing supply. Just saying.

[cbacon 0]

An excellent article on the subject from the Toronto Star:

 

Published on Sunday, February 27, 2005 by the Toronto Star

Standing Up to U.S. Will Gain Us Respect Abroad

by Linda McQuaig

 

 

It's now clear how the Bush administration sees things: Canadian sovereignty exists only at its pleasure. If we do what Washington wants, we retain our sovereignty. If we don't, all bets are off.

 

This is what U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci clarified last week in his angered response to Paul Martin's announcement that Canada won't join the U.S. missile defence scheme. Cellucci noted that Washington would simply deploy its anti-missile system over Canadian airspace anyway, and expressed puzzlement over Canada's decision to "in effect, give up its sovereignty."

 

No doubt the Soviets felt similar puzzlement as they rolled into Czechoslovakia in 1968. What's with these crazy Czechs? Don't they get it? All they have to do is co-operate with Moscow and they can retain their "sovereignty."

 

Canadian advocates of missile defence have long argued that joining the scheme is the best way to protect our sovereignty — the logic apparently being that Washington is going to intrude into our airspace anyway, so it's better if we look like that's what we wanted all along. It's only rape if you resist.

 

Fortunately the Martin government, under enormous pressure from the public, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, ignored this convoluted logic. After months of dithering on the issue, Ottawa showed surprising spunk last week in standing up to the American empire — a spunkiness that will only improve our standing in a world increasingly alarmed by U.S. unilateralism.

 

Accommodating Washington would have made sense if Washington were addressing real security needs.But this isn't about defending America; intercontinental missiles are the least likely means of attack that a "rogue" nation would resort to.

 

This is about Washington reviving and gaining the upper hand in the arms race, presumably to position itself well for what it sees as its eventual superpower showdown with China.

 

Washington sees gaining control of space as key to maintaining global military dominance, and missile defence is part of the strategy.

 

The U.S. plans to eventually have missile defence systems based in space (as well as on land, air and sea). This is part of America achieving "space superiority," a goal unabashedly described in the 2004 U.S. Air Force document Counterspace Operations, which argues the U.S. must have "space control" and be able to "deny an adversary freedom of action in space."

 

The prospect of the arms race moving into space may thrill Washington strategic planners, but it's long been dreaded by most of the world. In 1967, ninety-seven nations signed the Outer Space Treaty banning weapons from space.

 

Since then, there's been pressure for a tougher ban. In fact, Canada has played a key role pushing for that tougher line at disarmament talks in Geneva. Virtually all nations now support a proposed new ban.

 

But the U.S. does not. Instead it wants to take control of space to achieve lasting military dominance. And it wanted Canada — and our good name as a strong arms control proponent — to be linked to the missile defence scheme, softening its aggressive image.

 

So Canada's gutsy refusal to go along was the right move — and one that, incidentally, will win us higher standing in the world.

 

linky

[Jingus 0]

I still don't understand why anyone could be mad at America for GIVING Canada a FREE missile defense system, just in case something bad happens.

[cbacon 0]

The cost of missle defense would be about $8-12 billion US. America simply wouldn't be 'giving' it to us for free. Our money should be going towards more important things.

 

And it's not just money, the technology has dangerous implications. A new global arms race is likely, and existing nuclear powers will seek to maintain a credible deterence by strengthening missles and warheads. Ceasefire is a step in the right direction towards peace.

[Jingus 0]

Talk China into dismantling all of its WMDs, and then maybe we'll talk about not needing a defense system. I'm sorry, but I just don't trust a government that enforces the "one child per family" rule with partial-birth abortions.

[cbacon 0]

Talk China into dismantling all of its WMDs, and then maybe we'll talk about not needing a defense system

 

You could use that same argument against the United States in relation to dozens of countries.

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't trust a government that enforces the "one child per family" rule with partial-birth abortions.

 

Because that makes them likely to attack you?

[Jingus 0]

I'm trying not to bang my head against the keyboard.

 

What is bad about a missle defense system? This thing won't kill anyone. It won't be used to invade other countries. It isn't threatening in any way. It's a purely defensive measure, just in case one of the several countries with ICBM capabilities gets a wild hair up its ass and decides to lob one at the North American continent.

 

Yeah, disarmament would be nice. So would be a time machine to go back & kill every single scientist who worked on The Bomb. The two are about the same in terms of probability as far as I can see.