It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Missile Shield: Canada PM Says No

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
In a year-end interview by Global National, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said that Canada will not put any money into the missile shield program. He also said that Canada will not allow Washington to station any missiles on Canadian soil. The comments come despite Bush's strong appeal for Canada to join his continental defense plan.
 



www.canada.com
Martin said Canada is not even close to negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. on missile defence, but added any document must include guarantees that it would not lead to the weaponization of space.

"I don't believe space belongs to any country," Martin said. "We will not engage in the weaponization of space."

"I'm not going to put money into it. I'm going to put money into our priorities ... Having missiles on our territory is not one of those priorities."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Considering that any missiles fired at the US from North Korea may likely pass over Canadian airspace, there is a need to station defensive missiles on Canadian soil to strike at incoming missiles before they can reach US targets near the west coast. The PM's comments are likely to raise concerns in Washington, and it will be curious to see how the Bush cabal will react.

Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com
us.rd.yahoo.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Missile defense shield?
U.S. prepares to activate missile defense system
NEWS: U.S. Missile Defense Test Fails




posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Its a good political move on the PM's part. he knows that the U.S. will defend Canada regardless of where the interceptors are located. This way he looks like he is rebuffing the U.S. President, all the while he knows he can stay under the sheild. If a nuke where fired at Canada, unlikely as that may seem, the environmental effects in both countries would be disasterous.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Why would Canada do anything to defend herself when she can get the good old USA to do it for her? Spending on military gear is not cheap and tends to raise the countries defits so why would Canada spend money on anything that they know the USA is going to do anyway and get the benifit of it for free.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I for one think the PM is right to distance himself
from this adminstration it will save him the trouble of
having to re-establish realtions with other countries
later on.

Since the 50's Canada has paid the US a lot of money for
the protection provided via the current early warning
system, and our current early warning system would
not be nearly as effective without the assitance and
monies frm the Canadian government.


GW will probably just give them the old
you are either with us or against us song and dance.

geo

[edit on 12/16/2004 by geocom]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Canada is respected around the world. There is no threat to Canada. Only the USA is a target in the entire Hemisphere. Canada has better things to spend its money on, universal health care etc. If the States is so paranoid, maybe it should start acting like a "world leader" instead of the "tyrant" it is now portraying.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Actually Policies and statements like these are why canada doesnt need to spend billions on defence. We dont provide a real threat to any other country.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Why would Canada do anything to defend herself when she can get the good old USA to do it for her?


Defend us from who?



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Martin said Canada is not even close to negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. on missile defence, but added any document must include guarantees that it would not lead to the weaponization of space.

"I don't believe space belongs to any country," Martin said. "We will not engage in the weaponization of space."


Well said that man, I could not agree more about weaponisation of space. I also whole heartedly support his wishes to spend the country's money on other things.

Spending money on something constructive instead of more weapons gets my vote, well it would if I was Canadian.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   
As far as I know, the only nation who's ever attacked Canada is the US.
If there is to be a missile defense system, maybe it should be on that border.

[edit on 16-12-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Well put Ace...although if '1812' happenned again, i dont think Canada would stand a chance!



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by geocom
I for one think the PM is right to distance himself
from this adminstration it will save him the trouble of
having to re-establish realtions with other countries
later on.


Very true, geocom.
It's going to take a lot of work for whoever succeeds Blair. He's really screwed Britain royally. It looks like the Canadian PM has more sense.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Maybe the US could save some money by just handing out Stinger Missiles to everybody. Then they would have the most elaborate surface to air defense program in the world! Would we all be safe then?



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Canada is already at war with Arab Islamic terrorists.
When someone credibly declares war on you, you are in the war - you don't get a choice.
They decided by initiating war. You only have a choice of whether or not to defend yourself. If you choose not to defend yourself it will be a short war, with you the loser.

Attacks may come by any means the enemy can devise and accomplish - when, where and how they decide. Your bureaucratic prediction of probable methods only serves to motivate them to try something different that has greater chance of success. Hence the Arab states who attacked Israel gave up on direct war, which they lost every time, and turned to terrorism.

Dishonest people will at first try harder when their initial efforts are countered. Only a defendant with resolve will succeed - by continuing to counter them. Ceasing to defend because the first battle was tough, or trying to appease, simply does not work with dishonest people - their mindset is fundamentally different (that's what makes them dishonest). Those who initiate war are dishonest because they are trying to gain something by force instead of cooperation such as trading values - thus they will behave similarly.

To defend you must be vigilant to detect attack, determine probable sources and strengths of attacks, and take pre-emptive action against sources that certainly will attack you.
WHO ARE THE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS AT WAR WITH?
Too many Canadians see the Arab Islamic terrorism as a war on the US not Canada. But Canada:
- was specifically named by Oslama bin Laden.
- is inextricably tied economically, militarily, and socially to the US.
- shares a way of life with the US and like countries (freedom with justice).
Thus Canada will be viewed as an ally, and as just another land of infidels.

Since the Islamic terrorists are making war on a way of life they are ultimately at war with any country that values that way of life. (They attack the US because it is the best example of the success of that way of life and the strongest defender of it. In a war one does not usually attack all targets at once, for many reasons including symbolic, strategic, and exploiting weakness.)

The Arab Islamic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were on the social system that Canadians enjoy and prosper from - a system based on individual freedom with justice. (There is ample evidence that the Arab Islamic terrorist leaders hate freedom and the prosperity it fosters. "At root, the war is about love of life versus hatred of life.". Since the nature of their campaign is explicitly nihilistic this is even more a fight for life on earth than defense against Hitler was, and avoidance of defense even more quickly a path to our own death (Hitler at least wanted many slaves, though he happily killed many such as Jews regardless of their productive capability).

That social system includes economics - it was not happenstance that the World Trade Center was a prime target on September 11, 2001. Canadians actively participate in US financial activities - many were killed in the collapse of the WTC towers on September 11, 2001 - and are suppliers to the military forces of the US and Allies.

Canada and the US are partners in NORAD, the North American Air Defense system, because the two neighbours agreed to help each other defend North America. (I do not know if Mexico is connected. I believe it is not part of NORAD, perhaps because the largest threat in the past was considered to be from the northerly quadrants (and Mexico is usually too poor to help much, because of its less free political system). NORAD is a joint effort such that specific Canadian and US military personnel have authority in each others' country, including over missile launch.)
Canada was used as a base for attacking the US (notably the Ressam effort to kill people at Los Angeles airport).
Two statements by Islamic terrorists exemplify their approach to life:
"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death,"
- al Qaeda's Mualana Inyadullah

Jews "love life more than any other people, and they prefer not to die,"
- official Ismail Haniya, of the Islamic terrorist group Hamas
Unfortunately the same statements are being made by the Chechnyan terrorists. While Russia is not a free country, the rebels are using unacceptable tactics and their terrorists are talking in ways that raise concern they don't want to build a society.
A related small attack may have occurred in April 2004 when a Jewish school in Montreal was bombed. The communique found at the scene said "If your crimes continue in the Middle East, our attacks will continue." An Inman living in Montreal, Gamal Solaiman, then said: "We must understand that peace in Canada .... can only be achieved by winning the hearts and minds of the citizens of the Muslim world."
That is, an attack in Canada on residents of Canada that both the perpetrators and a Muslim religious authority identify as for Islamic causes.



It looks like the Muslims are gaining a foothold in Canada to turn it into another Islamic extremist country. With the passing of the Shariah laws Muslims are starting to gain power in Canada.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   
A moot point really as the system seems to be a pile of cr@p


Good ol' Tony Blair has, I believe, already given the green light to have missiles stationed in the UK. Not that I'd expect them to be launched to protect us Brits if someone were to lob a few ICBM's in our direction.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Too many Canadians see the Arab Islamic terrorism as a war on the US not Canada. But Canada:
- was specifically named by Oslama bin Laden.

I'm not saying you're wrong about that but I just did a text search on my Bin Laden directory and it came up empty for the word 'Canada'.
Can you please post a link to his speech in which he mentioned Canada?



- shares a way of life with the US and like countries (freedom with justice).
Thus Canada will be viewed as an ally, and as just another land of infidels.


I don't think he cares about Canada's way of life of freedom and justice.
In his Oct 29 video, he said that if he hated freedom, then he would have attacked Sweden.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   
The Ronnie Raygun defense shield is a crock, Americans have to realize that there are nuclear bombs already in the country they call them static nukes put there by your favorite cold war enemies. In addition, when these static nukes go boom so does the gazillion dollar defense shield it is a money pit, a swindle, Martin knows this and so does Russia and china that own the static nuke, dont worry though America owns their own static nukes too.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by valkeryie
Canada is respected around the world. There is no threat to Canada. Only the USA is a target in the entire Hemisphere. Canada has better things to spend its money on, universal health care etc. If the States is so paranoid, maybe it should start acting like a "world leader" instead of the "tyrant" it is now portraying.


Well put valkeryie. I mean it's hard to say it better, really.

More power to Canada!



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Ace:

Found this with a quick search:
www.canadaka.net...


The Al-Qaeda terror network views Canada as a legitimate target because it is a "selfish" nation committing "terrorism" against Muslims around the world, an unofficial spokesman for jihadists waging holy war against the West said Friday.
Khalid Khawaja, a friend of Osama bin Laden's who calls the Saudi terrorist and his followers "the most wonderful people of the world," told the National Post that Canadians should not be surprised if suicide bombers want to strike their country.


Edit: Complete quote

[edit on 16-12-2004 by NERaptor]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
It's things like this that come around ever once in a while that make me proud to be Canadian. I was ussure on how politically smart our PM is up till now. He may be a greed, coniving polititian. But if he keeps to his word and does not participate(I believe somthing like this may have to go to a vote) then hes got my vote in the next election.



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NERaptor
Ace:

Found this with a quick search:
www.canadaka.net...


Thanks, I was missing the transcript of the November 2002 speech.

I found it here:

BBC Nov 12 2002
What do your governments want by allying themselves with the criminal gang in the White House against Muslims?

Do your governments not know that the White House gangsters are the biggest butchers of this age?

[US Defence Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, the butcher of Vietnam, killed more than two million people, not to mention those he wounded.

[US Vice-President Dick] Cheney and [US Secretary of State Colin] Powell killed and destroyed in Baghdad more than Hulegu of the Mongols.

What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking us in Afghanistan?

I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia.

We warned Australia before not to join in [the war] in Afghanistan, and [against] its despicable effort to separate East Timor.

It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in Bali.

Its government falsely claimed that they [the Australians] were not targeted


Missile defense won't protect against guys like Bin Laden though.
I doubt they'll use anything like missiles.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join