• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

US snubs Canada over missile defense

Status
Not open for further replies.

Saturnman

Banned
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050301.wrice01/BNStory/International/

Toronto — U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was so displeased by Canada's decision to opt out of the missile defence program that she has postponed a visit to Ottawa in mid-April, CTV News reported Monday.

It contradicts Ottawa's official line that U.S.-Canada relations are proceeding smoothly after the federal government announced last week that Canada won't participate in the controversial program.

A senior state department official, who was on a London-bound flight with Rice, confirmed that the cancellation of the visit was a direct consequence of Prime Minister Paul Martin's decision, CTV News reported.

But other Washington officials were more vague about the reasons for the postponed trip.

"There are discussions going about, going back and forth over timing, but it'll happen when the stars are all aligned in the right way," said State Department spokesman Adam Ereli.

Mr. Martin, who had expressed support for the project in his early days as prime minister, has insisted the move would not hurt relations with the U.S.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew made the official announcement in the House of Commons on Feb. 24, saying that while the U.S. is pressing ahead with the missile system, "Canada ... must act in its own interests and must determine where its priorities lie."

"Obviously on something so serious, people expect you to be truthful or you do pay consequences," said Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, says he's still stunned at Canada's decision.

"As I said last week, I don't understand why Canada would give up its seat at the table, given our history of working together in the defence of North America, particularly at NORAD. But that was a decision for Canada," he told CTV News.

Ms. Rice is in London at a conference of Palestinian reforms, as is Pettigrew.

Mr. Pettigrew will try to have a private word with Rice and perhaps even extend another invitation to Ottawa, an official in Pettigrew's office told CTV.

If only they would have recalled cocky US ambassador Paul Cellucci, they would have done Canada a favor.
 

Socreges

Banned
No amount of emoticons can express my sadness.

Until the US starts screwing us on trade, they can deliver all the reprimands that they'd like before I begin to care.

Saturnman said:
If only they would have recalled cocky US ambassador Paul Cellucci, they would have done Canada a favor.
Haha. But I'm sure they're saving such extreme measures for when Canada writes gay marriage into the constitution. ;)
 

Brannon

Member
Throwing a temper tantrum, and they call the democrats whiny? At least the gays can't marry, and that's all that counts eh?
 

bishoptl

Banstick Emeritus
Middle_Finger-6.jpg


That about sums it up, really.

A NATION SHRUGS
 

calder

Member
Opt out of the dumb missle defense plan and we are... "punished" by Condaleeza deciding to not visit? Someone's going to have to point out the downside for me.
 

Memles

Member
Hammy said:
Is he like the leading proponent of "missile defence"? He has an interesting name.

No; he's likely just another conservative lackey, being a dimwit as per the usual.

Or so I assume, Bish. I do not believe he's an MP.
 
BILL O'REILLY SHALL LEAD THE BOYCOTT OF CANADA, YOU CANADIANS SHALL BE CRIPPLED JUST LIKE THE FRENCH WERE!! HAHAHAH!!! USA! USA! USA! USA! *honks horn*
 

Socreges

Banned
A Conservative MP spoke to our class today and mostly fielded questions. He was cool, if not your standard politician (calculating each response in his head so as to give the most appropriate response, rather than the best). I asked him about his thoughts on NMD and he ended up expressing a lot of anger about the decision to opt out. The way it was handled and WHY we opted out were problems (I feel the same), but he conceded that the accuracy is terrible and agreed with me that there are potential dangers in the weaponization of space. He was still mostly right. Essentially, Canada's relationship in NORAD could eventually disappear. And that would suck.

Oh, and:

Socreges said:
Until the US starts screwing us on trade, they can deliver all the reprimands that they'd like before I begin to care.
...

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050302/w030286.html
Canada also suffered a devastating setback Wednesday when a U.S. judge postponed the reopening of the border to Canadian cattle because of mad cow fears.
The entire article is worth reading.
 

DrEvil

not a medical professional
Coincidence? I THINK NOT!


compare.jpg


*Proud Canadian

Screw you Yanks and your missles. Who the hell would attack US? Except you..
 

Boogie

Member
Socreges said:
A Conservative MP spoke to our class today and mostly fielded questions. He was cool, if not your standard politician (calculating each response in his head so as to give the most appropriate response, rather than the best). I asked him about his thoughts on NMD and he ended up expressing a lot of anger about the decision to opt out. The way it was handled and WHY we opted out were problems (I feel the same), but he conceded that the accuracy is terrible and agreed with me that there are potential dangers in the weaponization of space. He was still mostly right. Essentially, Canada's relationship in NORAD could eventually disappear. And that would suck.

But, but, I thought the Conservatives were all simple-minded right-wing reactionaries who are "untrustworthy" and "scary"? ;P (Kidding, of course:))
 

Azih

Member
Socreges said:
. Essentially, Canada's relationship in NORAD could eventually disappear. And that would suck.
Thing is Canadian involvenment in anything millitarily is nothing more than a token gesture with some diplomatic heft at this point. We're going to have to spend way more on our millitary to be anything more than moral cheerleaders. Since that's all we have, safeguarding that by not rolling over for the Americans is the only wise option... trade disputes notwithstanding but even there Britain has found out the hard way that being America's best friend gives you almost no play against American domestic protectionism policies.

I'm all for beefing up the Canadian armed forces incidentally, but we have to retool to become much more specialised and y'know be willing to pay more taxes for it. BUT OH TEH NO, we can't have that now can we?
 

Socreges

Banned
Boogie said:
But, but, I thought the Conservatives were all simple-minded right-wing reactionaries who are "untrustworthy" and "scary"? ;P (Kidding, of course:))
All? No. Most? Something to that effect. This guy is a conservative for primarily economic reasons and actually happens to oppose his party on particular social aspects. You can see that he is conservative by education, not religious upbringing.

Also, don't take "he was cool" too strongly. He still skirted away from many of our questions, as I said.

Azih said:
Thing is Canadian involvenment in anything millitarily is nothing more than a token gesture with some diplomatic heft at this point. We're going to have to spend way more on our millitary to be anything more than moral cheerleaders. Since that's all we have, safeguarding that by not rolling over for the Americans is the only wise option... trade disputes notwithstanding but even there Britain has found out the hard way that being America's best friend gives you almost no play against American domestic protectionism policies.

I'm all for beefing up the Canadian armed forces incidentally, but we have to retool to become much more specialised and y'know be willing to pay more taxes for it. BUT OH TEH NO, we can't have that now can we?
Are you saying that NORAD isn't important for Canada?
 

Boogie

Member
Socreges said:
All? No. Most? Something to that effect. This guy is a conservative for primarily economic reasons and actually happens to oppose his party on particular social aspects. You can see that he is conservative by education, not religious upbringing.

Also, don't take "he was cool" too strongly. He still skirted away from many of our questions, as I said.

Dammit Socreges, that didn't require a nitpicky response :p
 

Socreges

Banned
Boogie said:
Dammit Socreges, that didn't require a nitpicky response :p
Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. It's just that you were still implying, joke or not, that this was supposed to be some kind of epiphany for me where before I might have been close-minded towards conservatives. In fact, I'm beginning to find that contemporary conservatism in terms of the economy might make a lot of sense.... but at the same time it's so difficult to support them considering their general social standings.
 

Shinobi

Member
evil solrac v3.0 said:
BILL O'REILLY SHALL LEAD THE BOYCOTT OF CANADA, YOU CANADIANS SHALL BE CRIPPLED JUST LIKE THE FRENCH WERE!! HAHAHAH!!! USA! USA! USA! USA! *honks horn*

Maybe America will start making Freedom Dry.





Azih said:
I'm all for beefing up the Canadian armed forces incidentally, but we have to retool to become much more specialised and y'know be willing to pay more taxes for it.

Heh, like we're not paying enough taxes already...
 

Azih

Member
Socreges said:
Are you saying that NORAD isn't important for Canada?
Actually I wasn't speaking to NORAD specifically. I think that NORAD is important certainly. But to keep Canadian participation strong we have to contribute more in terms of funding, equipment, and manpower. Whether we say yes or no to missile defense is meaningless in the face of a greater commitment.

And that's the thing. The only way we can support or disagree with American millitary decisions at this point is on principle. That's the only thing we've got left. Safeguarding that means disagreeing with a program that we know to be a foolhardy boondoggle that breaks international treaties that Canada was in favour of (ABM treaty). It's a sad situation to be in though and we need to retool and rebuild the millitary to get out of it. And for the love of god stop buying British millitary castoffs.


And Shin: Man we've cut taxes for more'n a decade now. How much is enough?
 
To add insult to injury, the American Ambassdor last week made a statment to the effect that the US still reserves the right to shoot down incoming missles over Canadian Air Space. So,, basically, Canada opts out of the missle defense program but remains the "Fallout Buffer Zone". Don't worry though, that radiation shit doesn't hang around for more then a few centuaries.
 

Socreges

Banned
Azih said:
Actually I wasn't speaking to NORAD specifically. I think that NORAD is important certainly. But to keep Canadian participation strong we have to contribute more in terms of funding, equipment, and manpower. Whether we say yes or no to missile defense is meaningless in the face of a greater commitment.

And that's the thing. The only way we can support or disagree with American millitary decisions at this point is on principle. That's the only thing we've got left. Safeguarding that means disagreeing with a program that we know to be a foolhardy boondoggle that breaks international treaties that Canada was in favour of (ABM treaty). It's a sad situation to be in though and we need to retool and rebuild the millitary to get out of it. And for the love of god stop buying British millitary castoffs.
Ok, yeah. I just wasn't sure why you were replying to me besides the fact that your post was related to NORAD, too.
 

Saturnman

Banned
Canada needs to rebuild its navy first and foremost, so that it can effectively patrol and assert its sovereignty in the North West passage. A sovereighty violated by countries like Denmark (with ice-braking destroyers, which Canada does not have) and the US. This is a major problem in the future when global warming will free the passage for commercial navigation, making it a highly strategic and thus coveted territory (on top of rich deposits of various minerals).

It needs to expand its forces ready for deployment at any time. Commitments abroad have its limited manpower stretched very thin. This is addressed in part in the new federal budget.

There's also a need for a variety of equipment such as armored vehicules, all-purpose choppers and the often overlooked cargo planes and ships.
 

Azih

Member
Socreges said:
Ok, yeah. I just wasn't sure why you were replying to me besides the fact that your post was related to NORAD, too.


Well it's not an unrelated response. I just find it extremely disingenous for the MP to contend that
Essentially, Canada's relationship in NORAD could eventually disappear.
over Missile Defense when the lack of Canadian millitary spending is a much much more significant factor.
 

Socreges

Banned
Azih said:
Well it's not an unrelated response. I just find it extremely disingenous for the MP to contend that over Missile Defense when the lack of Canadian millitary spending is a much much more significant factor.
Ok, that wasn't clear. But I feel the same as him. We've increased military spending recently and will dramatically over the next several years. But still, what makes you think that? As for NMD and NORAD, they're going to be inseperable.
 

Azih

Member
Socreges said:
Ok, that wasn't clear. But I feel the same as him. We've increased military spending recently and will dramatically over the next several years. But still, what makes you think that? As for NMD and NORAD, they're going to be inseperable.

NORAD protects airspace and gathers information. That information is made available to NMD. They are linked but not all that closely as the responsibilites of each program are different. NORAD will remain its own entity (Detcting and protecting against everyhing outside of missiles) it's just that NMD has access to everything NORAD sees.

Now how active Canada is in NORAD has nothing to do with Canada refusing to give its token moral support to NMD. How active Canada is in NORAD has everything to do with how much responsibility we take for scanning and protecting our own airspace.
 

Socreges

Banned
Azih said:
NORAD protects airspace and gathers information. That information is made available to NMD. They are linked but not all that closely as the responsibilites of each program are different. NORAD will remain its own entity (Detcting and protecting against everyhing outside of missiles) it's just that NMD has access to everything NORAD sees.

Now how active Canada is in NORAD has nothing to do with Canada refusing to give its token moral support to NMD. How active Canada is in NORAD has everything to do with how much responsibility we take for scanning and protecting our own airspace.
Are you just basing this on the nature of each? Or can you send me a link that explains this? Because from what I've read and heard, it is suspected that NMD and NORAD cannot co-exist unless Canada is involved in both, regardless of the two not necessarily being intertwined.
 

Azih

Member
From what I know Canada *could have* under the NORAD treaty refused to let any NMD program use NORAD gathered information. At that point the U.S would have been REALLY pissed off said 'Screw this shit'. Junked NORAD and set up an America only AORAD or whatever.

But that's academic. Canada agreed to let NORAD information be used for NMD and that's that. (edit: which is why everone says that this was the really significant decision that was taken as Canada did have direct impact that goes beyond moral)

Really what it boils down to is that Canada could have thrown a huge monkey wrench in the American plans by taking a hardline "NO, you aint using any NORAD info for this stupid shit", but we didn't. Now from here we could have said "We think NMD is a good idea, we're signing on!", but we refused to do that.

Basically our position became

"We're not going to cause any problems for you, but damn this is some stupid shit you're pulling".

Edit: Hell NMD doesn't require any Canadian money, or use of Canadian land or millitary. It's a purely American excercise. What they wanted from us is 1) use of NORAD information over which I guess Canada has powers under the terms of the treaty 2) moral support. They get the one, they didn't get the other.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Er, I don't see how Canada could *not* be involved in NORAD, since a lot of the radar towers are on Canadian land. Alaska would probably not be sufficient to cover the territory.

Unless they want to annex the north west territories and nunuvut or some part of them. Which would be a diplomatic disaster over the long run.
 

Azih

Member
THE EYE said:
Er, I don't see how Canada could *not* be involved in NORAD, since a lot of the radar towers are on Canadian land. Alaska would probably not be sufficient to cover the territory.

They just wouldn't be covered under NMD then and any newly set up AORAD could beef up the radar presence in Alaska and resort to permanently stationing radar ships in American and international waters. It would be less effective, but you have to understand the Canadian objection would have been to using the Canadian radar informtion in the use of NMD. We'd be pretty compliant with still providing the info to the U.S for non NMD purposes (the NORAD status quo which we were perfectly happy with). We ain't that stubborn.

Sure it might make NMD a little less strong, but :lol the damn thing doesn't work anyway.

Unless they want to annex the north west territories and nunuvut or some part of them. Which would be a diplomatic disaster over the long run.
.....
Ya think? Add the short term and the immediate term to that list.
 

Shinobi

Member
Azih said:
And Shin: Man we've cut taxes for more'n a decade now. How much is enough?

Depends on the income bracket I guess...but I reckon 50% of what you make plus 15% in sales tax (plus the anal raping at the pumps) is more then enough. Problem with the governments in this country is the same problem the world over...they don't have a fucking clue how to spend it properly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom