Support NeoGAF

[Mike Works]

Bush tried to bully Canadian officials on missile defence during his visit last month by linking Canada's participation to future protection from the U.S., the Washington Post reported Sunday. The newspaper quoted a Canadian official who was in the room as saying Bush waved off their attempts to explain how contentious the issue is for Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government. "(Bush) leaned across the table and said: 'I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, Why are we paying to defend Canada?' " the official was quoted as saying. Ooo, slick Mr Bush, slick.

The President must have been having a difficult time understanding that other nations' politics are sometimes deeper than his own, thus difficult and complex to work with. Bush "waved his hands and remarked: 'I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defence of Canada, it wouldn't be accepted?' " Uh, not so slick...

Source

 

[darscot]

If Canada has anything to with this missle defense nonsense I might even get off my no hockey frustrated ass and vote the PM right the hell out.

 

[Socreges]

Canada, Fuck Yeah!

It's not easy standing up to the States like this, considering how easily they can punish us. But at the same time there's some value in acting as a sovereign, far be it from Mr Bush to recognize that.

If Canada has anything to with this missle defense nonsense I might even get off my no hockey frustrated ass and vote the PM right the hell out.

Just let us know when you call the election so we can participate.

 

[darscot]

It`ll probable be right around the time the NHL starts up again.

 

[SickBoy]

Clearly, having an 800-pound gorilla as your neighbour offers a lot of protection (rattle its cage and what will it do?), but aside from its proximity to us, I'm not clear on what protection the U.S. is "paying" for.

Perhaps its protection like dropping a 500-pound bomb on Canadian troops doing a training mission or something...

 

[Fresh Prince]

And people said that Anne Coulter had a minority view in the American public ehh.

 

[Socreges]

Clearly, having an 800-pound gorilla as your neighbour offers a lot of protection (rattle its cage and what will it do?), but aside from its proximity to us, I'm not clear on what protection the U.S. is "paying" for.

That's a good question.

There's NORAD, which allows the US military to fly in, and protect, Canada's air-space.

...but that's more of a partnership than something that is granted to either country.

 

[videogamer]

It's not easy standing up to the States like this, considering how easily they can punish us. But at the same time there's some value in acting as a sovereign, far be it from Mr Bush to recognize that.

If the article is true, then it's awesome that it's being published. Then our northern neighbours may better understand what they are dealing with. May you succeed where we failed.

And people said that Anne Coulter had a minority view in the American public ehh.

ehh. She has the view that apparently plays the role in decision making. However, if Canada were to be invaded by someone and the US does still does nothing, then the world has changed a LOT.

 

[Saturnman]

That's a good question.

There's NORAD, which allows the US military to fly in, and protect, Canada's air-space.

...but that's more of a partnership than something that is granted to either country.

The US is paying for its own protection, the benefit the Canadians get out of it is merely a side-effect. The US doesn't want an enemy to gain a foothold right next door from itself or have a bunch of nuclear missiles explode near its border.

Ultimately, what they want is a stable neighbour, largely dependepent on the US. Latin America was less fortunate with a series of American invasions and American-engineered coups.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

That sounds like crudely worded protectionism something you would hear from a barbary coast pirate or something.

I'm sure that someone somewhere has explained to Bush that any country physically connected to the US is going to benefit by default from our military strength weather we want to "pay" for their protection or not.

Not to put them in the mix but, wouldn't it be silly to "pay" for Isreal's protection and not "pay" for Canada's?

 

[Socreges]

The US is paying for its own protection, the benefit the Canadians get out of it is merely a side-effect. The US doesn't want an enemy to gain a foothold right next door from itself or have a bunch of nuclear missiles explode near its border.

Ultimately, what they want is a stable neighbour, largely dependepent on the US. Latin America was less fortunate with a series of American invasions and American-engineered coups.

Are you just adding to what I said, or actually replying to me? Because I knew all that.

 

[8bit]

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I'm from crazytown.

 

[Socreges]

I'm just adding. It's just bizzare that he would say something like that.

Yeah, people are bizarre sometimes... *cough*

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Whoops. Why did I think you were quoting me. Looks like someone needs some sleep.

 

[Azih]

This is the craziest part of the article.

'I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defence of Canada, it wouldn't be accepted?' "

How many people in the States just accept what the President says? Really really odd concept to me.

 

[fallout]

'I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defence of Canada, it wouldn't be accepted?'

To which he added, "Geezus Horton, what kind of dictatorship are you running here?"

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

You know Canada if you all were brown you wouldn't have to worry about this. You don't see Bush bothering Mexico with any Missle Defence.

 

[Mainline]

Perhaps its protection like dropping a 500-pound bomb on Canadian troops doing a training mission or something...

Zinggggggggggggggggggggggg!

 

[Hamfam]

So is the US running a protection racket now then?

 

[Culex]

I can't remember the name of the jet fighter Canada was building a decade back, but it was so much more advanced than the then current F-16, it was ridiculous. We (the US) basically went over and destroyed all the plans and prototype jets.

 

[firex]

I can't remember the name of the jet fighter Canada was building a decade back, but it was so much more advanced than the then current F-16, it was ridiculous. We (the US) basically went over and destroyed all the plans and prototype jets.

no, no, you're thinking of what Steinbrenner did covertly to the Toronto Blue Jays.

 

[Crandle]

I can't remember the name of the jet fighter Canada was building a decade back, but it was so much more advanced than the then current F-16, it was ridiculous. We (the US) basically went over and destroyed all the plans and prototype jets.

What are you talking about? The Liberals were in power a decade ago and they certainly wouldn't have pursued something like that. And before that our government had excellent relations with the U.S.

You might mean the Avro Arrow, which was very advanced for the time, but that was a) in the 1950s (my grandfather helped design it, actually) and b) not directly shut down because of the U.S.

 

[maharg]

The Arrow was shut down because it was hopelessly over budget and the per jet cost was massive compared to contemporary jets. It's a shame our defense aerospace industry basically died with it, though. It could have been a rough start but instead it was a death knell.

 

[DarienA]

I can't remember the name of the jet fighter Canada was building a decade back, but it was so much more advanced than the then current F-16, it was ridiculous. We (the US) basically went over and destroyed all the plans and prototype jets.

The above is a completely and utter falsehood... shame on you.

 

[Culex]

I probably remember reading that from some conspiracy book :lol

 

[Boogie]

I can't remember the name of the jet fighter Canada was building a decade back, but it was so much more advanced than the then current F-16, it was ridiculous. We (the US) basically went over and destroyed all the plans and prototype jets.

No more crack for you, mmkay?

 

[maharg]

Eh, he's not as wrong as all that. The arrow was an interceptor, not a fighter, and it was being made in the 50s not the 90s, but it was a very advanced jet for its time. Hell, as an interceptor it probably is still very advanced because there's been no R&D on interceptors for a long time because of rise of ICBMs.

 

[GG-Duo]

The time for diplomacy is now, eh?

 

[DopeyFish]

The Avro Arrow was the most advanced airplane at the time, it could outrun and out maneuver any plane from any country... upon the cancellation of the arrow program, all the designs and whatnot were cut up and burned to prevent any possibility of any country getting the designs.

Supposedly if the plane was still in production today, it would still do fairly well with current planes

 

[videogamer]

Interesting info on the Arrow. Seems like an amazing plane indeed. Well, there are always Bombardier's planes.

 

[Socreges]

The time for diplomacy is now, eh?

To be fair, that quote came after Bush was in Canada, back when diplomacy was still for pussies.

 

[Shinobi]

Clearly, having an 800-pound gorilla as your neighbour offers a lot of protection (rattle its cage and what will it do?), but aside from its proximity to us, I'm not clear on what protection the U.S. is "paying" for.

Perhaps its protection like dropping a 500-pound bomb on Canadian troops doing a training mission or something...

:lol Don't get me started...

 

[Warm Machine]

The US is actually buying many of its armored vehicles from Canada. Most of the world is standardizing the technology in armored personel carriers and fast attack vehicles. and Canada has been pretty succesful building them.

Regardless, missile defence is so bullshit. The first few rounds fired in a nuclear war will likely not be as clean as people think. Any commercial airliner that clears customs in it's native country could theoretically just be a shell for a nuclear weapon. With that sort of device, you don't even have to land the plane, just fly it over a city at a certain height and press play.

Other than that, how many thousands of miles of unguarded coast is there in north america? Hell, load a weapon on the back of a 1/2 ton in Canada, drive it across a farmer's field at the border in Manitoba / North Dakota and then it is pretty much clear sailing all the way to a metropolitan area.

How many containers on a container ship do you think customs actually checks? Hell, if found out, detonating a weapon on a container ship in port would do significant damage to the surrounding area.

Its sad how undefended the world really is and a space based piece of shit isn't going to do dick to someone with the means and the motivation. Lets hope to hell it never happens.