Support NeoGAF

[SickBoy]

Big picture, based on what I read from yesterday, I think the Bush visit -- overall, in spite of the protesters and rallies across the country -- is a big political plus for both Martin's and Bush's images in Canada.

Re: Missile defense. It's become a really good sound-bite issue in Canada. It would seem the majority are opposed to "the weaponization of space" ... although in terms of politics, the parties with the largest standings in the House of Commons don't really have anti-shield platforms. The Liberals ran very neutral on the subject, while I think the Conservatives were essentially pro-missile defence.

 

[Azih]

I read that Reagan was heckled while addressing the Canadian parliament back in 1987, which is one of the reasons Bush didn't speak there.

Can anyone tell me the Canadian objection to the missile defense shield?

A few.

Firstly missile defense shield is completely useless against terrorist attacks, them terrorists aint going to be launching missiles from across the Atlantic or Pacific, yo. And the shield isn't exactly going to explode a suitcase bomb from the atmosphere. Anti terrorism funds are much better spent on the ground.

Secondly, it's an expensive, unproven, boondoggle that fails miserably in tests. It's not much of a shield at all

Thirdly, arms race. Despite the fact that the shield is crap other world powers (um.. pretty much just Russia and China) view this as a threat and so ramp up their own missile R&D programs to be able to bypass any shield the U.S puts up. It's a pure arms race scenario, and arms races are A BAD THING.

Fourthly, step towards weaponisation of space, if you get sattelites up there that can shoot down missiles, then how much of a step is it before they can attack targets on the ground? This is a VERY VERY BAD THING. Especially since Russia and China will want their own death toys and this leads to an arms race... IN SPACE. :shudder:

There might be more, those are the things I came up with off the top of my head.

 

[Azih]

Re: Missile defense. It's become a really good sound-bite issue in Canada. It would seem the majority are opposed to "the weaponization of space" ... although in terms of politics, the parties with the largest standings in the House of Commons don't really have anti-shield platforms. The Liberals ran very neutral on the subject, while I think the Conservatives were essentially pro-missile defence.

To some extent, but remember that the majority of the House of Commons is either leftist (NDP+Bloc) or pretty much goes with public opinion (Liberals), and the public opinion in Canada is opposed to this by a pretty comfortable margin. Liberals would have to suck up their guts and ram this through despite popular sentiment and Liberals do that very rarely. Especially since a large portion of Liberals that don't like the idea very much themselves. Carolyn Parrish was just the kookiest of the Liberal objectors, but she's far from the only one.

Edit: even the supporters of missile defense take the view "let's do it to keep the Americans happy and then maybe they won't slap unjustified tariffs on our lumber anymore". Which is a purely a stance of appeasement and hardly a ringing endorsement of the plan.

 

[Socreges]

Paul and I share a great vision for the future: two prosperous independent nations joined together by the return of NHL hockey.

It pains me to say that this probably helped warm some Canadians to Bush. OMFG he mentioned hockey! His speech-writers are too conniving for our country.

 

[Socreges]

Full transcript of Carlson vs Parrish

Man, he is such a douche. He prepared this stupid spiel on Canada's dependence on America concerning trade and just would not shut up. Otherwise, pure ignorance and rhetoric. But he entertains! That's got to be worth something!

 

[dem]

It pains me to say that this probably helped warm some Canadians to Bush. OMFG he mentioned hockey! His speech-writers are too conniving for our country.

Man thats embarrassingly lame

I think when the Redwings went to the whitehouse.. Bush didnt even know how to pronounce Yzerman..

 

[6.8]

Full transcript of Carlson vs Parrish

That convinced me that Parrish isn't as much of a douche as I thought. That convinced me that Carlson is 10000x the douche I thought he was. Thanks for the link.

CARLSON: I don't think every Canadian is dogsledding at all times but I do think there's a lot of dogsledding in Canada. Yes, I do think that's true.

PARRISH: Very little, my friend.

CARLSON: You know that's true, Carolyn. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But there's a lot of dogsledding.

PARRISH: No, there's not a lot of dogsledding. There's a lot of dog walking, my friend. Not a lot of dogsledding.

CARLSON: Welcome to our century.

I MEAN SERIOUSLY WTF. :lol :lol :lol

 

[Saturnman]

A few.

Firstly missile defense shield is completely useless against terrorist attacks, them terrorists aint going to be launching missiles from across the Atlantic or Pacific, yo. And the shield isn't exactly going to explode a suitcase bomb from the atmosphere. Anti terrorism funds are much better spent on the ground.

Secondly, it's an expensive, unproven, boondoggle that fails miserably in tests. It's not much of a shield at all

Thirdly, arms race. Despite the fact that the shield is crap other world powers (um.. pretty much just Russia and China) view this as a threat and so ramp up their own missile R&D programs to be able to bypass any shield the U.S puts up. It's a pure arms race scenario, and arms races are A BAD THING.

Fourthly, step towards weaponisation of space, if you get sattelites up there that can shoot down missiles, then how much of a step is it before they can attack targets on the ground? This is a VERY VERY BAD THING. Especially since Russia and China will want their own death toys and this leads to an arms race... IN SPACE. :shudder:

There might be more, those are the things I came up with off the top of my head.

It also hurts Canadians' self-image and our traditional diplomacy abroad by taking part in this new arms race.

 

[adam20]

The election is over. The people of America have spoken. Live with it. What is wrong with these people?

spoken?? many suspect the vote was rigged. Diebold machines from company owned by friends of bush family? no paper trails in many states? counties with 80% registered democrats had 80% bush votes (swapped votes)? More votes in counties than registered voters IE impossible vote totals accepted as truth? whatever.

 

[Guileless]

I understand the substantive criticisms of the missile defense plan, I was wondering specifically about Canadian objections to use of their airspace. Canada isn't being asked to fund any part of the program, is it? Why would cost matter?

And perhaps Moonraker-style space battles would be really cool. Ever think of that?

 

[Ripclawe]

A few.


Thirdly, arms race. Despite the fact that the shield is crap other world powers (um.. pretty much just Russia and China) view this as a threat and so ramp up their own missile R&D programs to be able to bypass any shield the U.S puts up. It's a pure arms race scenario, and arms races are A BAD THING.

Fourthly, step towards weaponisation of space, if you get sattelites up there that can shoot down missiles, then how much of a step is it before they can attack targets on the ground? This is a VERY VERY BAD THING. Especially since Russia and China will want their own death toys and this leads to an arms race... IN SPACE. :shudder:

There might be more, those are the things I came up with off the top of my head.

I'm always amazed by this reasoning, as if America shuts down R&D into weapons, everyone else will out of some sort of solidarity. China and Russia are already researching into "space weapons" and the Air force has said they want to control space.

 

[Saturnman]

Research is one thing, actual deployment of said weapons is another. The point was that a balance was struck, just like India and Pakistan had the capability to go nuclear for a decade or two at least but didn't do it until one blinked and decided to go all the way, forcing the other to follow.

 

[Azih]

I understand the substantive criticisms of the missile defense plan, I was wondering specifically about Canadian objections to use of their airspace. Canada isn't being asked to fund any part of the program, is it? Why would cost matter?

This is seen as an arms race, Canadians don't want to be a part of that in any way. Plus also what Saturnman said. Everybody knows Canada's stance on these kinds of programs (note the Canadian led Land Mine treaties etcetera) and to roll over for the sole reason of keeping Americans happy (edit: and that IS the sole reason) hurts the Canadian image as an independent sovereign nation.

Edit: and really, isn't thinking it's a stupid idea enough of a Canadian objection in any case?

 

[videogamer]

On FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Coulter said that Canadians "better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." On CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Carlson stated: "Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras, but colder and much less interesting"; he went on to say that instead of following politics, "the average Canadian is busy dogsledding." And on Crossfire, Carlson referred to the "limpid, flaccid nature of Canadian society."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010011

my gosh Americans rock

 

[AniHawk]

I'm always amazed by this reasoning, as if America shuts down R&D into weapons, everyone else will out of some sort of solidarity. China and Russia are already researching into "space weapons" and the Air force has said they want to control space.

I thought the US signed a treaty with a bunch of other countries not to do something like Star Wars (the defense program), and that there was a big deal about Bush breaking this treaty with this missile defense program.

On FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Coulter said that Canadians "better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." On CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Carlson stated: "Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras, but colder and much less interesting"; he went on to say that instead of following politics, "the average Canadian is busy dogsledding." And on Crossfire, Carlson referred to the "limpid, flaccid nature of Canadian society."

What a bunch of crazy, crazy fucks.

 

[Saturnman]

On FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Coulter said that Canadians "better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." On CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Carlson stated: "Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras, but colder and much less interesting"; he went on to say that instead of following politics, "the average Canadian is busy dogsledding." And on Crossfire, Carlson referred to the "limpid, flaccid nature of Canadian society."

That sort of right-wing talk from pundits does nothing to win them fans abroad. I also like to hear them complain whenever disaster strikes their shores, no one comes to their rescue. Gee, I wonder why.

The US is the biggest military threat to Canada. Has always been. As long as the US is prosperous and has access to most of the ressources it needs, Canadians are relatively safe. The US has already shown the same arrogance of other great powers so it is not like international law will stop them to do whatever they want. They are the ultimate rogue state, full of WMDs to boot.

 

[explodet]

I wonder what Coulter/Carlson thinks about Mexico.

 

[videogamer]

Is the Canadian news reporting this? I hope they are showing the other side of the issue.

 

[6.8]

Thank God for objective media (TM).

 

[Saturnman]

They will see it 24 hours/day when Fox News is shown in Canada.

 

[Socreges]

"limpid, flaccid nature of Canadian society."

Haha, what?