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: Canada to reject missile defence

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Thanks parrhesia.

The above linked article, given in my last post, also says this:


Canadian soldiers are part of the Colorado-based Norad program that monitors the skies for incoming missiles.

But the Canadian government has repeatedly insisted their agreement last August to amend the longstanding Norad pact so that Canada will pass information along to U.S. officials didn't mean Canada had joined the project.

Missile defence supporters said the program wouldn't have cost Canada a dime, nor would it have placed missiles on Canadian soil.

U.S. officials have indicated they didn't really need Canada's help, but would have appreciated political support from their neighbour as they attempted to sell the plan abroad.

Canada has given up control of its airspace: U.S. ambassador

Interesting? It is to me, anyhow.
Please don't get me wrong, as many do when they read my posts, but I am not necessarily berating Canada over this decision. I am simply trying to point out some flaws to this decision. Now if going along with this program would not cost Canada "a dime," then there is an underline motivation to 'why' Martin turned it down. Would it be that he is pushing to spend nearly $13 billion on the Canadian military? I'm mystified, as are many others.

If it is not costing Canada anything, sardion2000, as indicated above, there is no such thing as "blackmailing."




seekerof

[edit on 24-2-2005 by Seekerof]




posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   




Missile defence supporters said the program wouldn't have cost Canada a dime, nor would it have placed missiles on Canadian soil.
U.S. officials have indicated they didn't really need Canada's help, but would have appreciated political support from their neighbour as they attempted to sell the plan abroad.


Interesting? It is to me, anyhow.
Please don't get me wrong, as many do when they read my posts, but I am not necessarily berating Canada over this decision. I am simply trying to point out some flaws to this decision. Now if going along with this program would not cost a Canada "a dime," then there is an underline motivation to 'why' Martin turned it down. Would it be that he is pushing to spend nearly $13 billion on the Canadian military? I'm mystified, as are many others.

If it is not costing Canada anything, sardion2000, as indicated above, there is no such thing as "blackmailing."



That is interesting.
And taking that into consideration, I think you're right about their being an underlying motivation regarding Martin's rejection of the program.
If the motivation is to spend $13 billion on our military, is that an attempt to promote canadian sovereignty rather than outright relying on American defences for our safety?

But at the same time, why not inject more money into the military, as well as join the program, particularly if it's not going to cost Canada anything?

hmmm



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   
if one of those misses its target hits a city.nuke fallout what will that do to the people?there is military and political fallout from this one already and many obsevers are wondering why such a wall is been built up for.the whole idea is an excuse to take airspace that belongs to canada.idea should of been tossed out just on its merit.canada will defend hershelf when boxed in.norad must be tossing there cookies with all this red tape.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
i see, and can you tell us why Russia, the Chinese and Europe have a missile defense system and the US doesn't need one?....


Maybe they have one because y'all are pointed at them, eh? There's an idea...no one has more nukes than the US, and they're pointed where...Russia, China, Iran, eastern Europe...Gee, I wonder why these people would have an ABM?

Nuclear disarmament my ass.

DE



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Maybe they have one because y'all are pointed at them, eh? There's an idea...no one has more nukes than the US, and they're pointed where...Russia, China, Iran, eastern Europe...Gee, I wonder why these people would have an ABM?

Nuclear disarmament my ass.

DE


And of course none of those countries is pointing their nuclear missiles at the US....and of course none of those countries have a worse history in human rights than the US....and neither have any of those countries ever engaged in wars of course.....

If European countries, Russia, China and others didn't want the US to get a missile defense system, then none of them should have gotten one either....



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
flukemol:


why such a wall is been built up for.the whole idea is an excuse to take airspace that belongs to canada.idea should of been tossed out just on its merit.

If a choice was given, there was no underline motivation to "take" Canadian airspace. Are you implying the US knew in advance that Martin/Canada would turn down something that would enhance its defense, etc. and would not cost "a dime"? I haven't read or found anything to that degree.



canada will defend hershelf when boxed in.norad must be tossing there cookies with all this red tape.

I have no doubt that Canada will defend itself. As to your comment about NORAD: you are aware that Canada has troops assigned to NORAD? That there are NORAD early warning radar installations in northern Canada?


"As part of this, Canada remains steadfast in its support of Norad," he said.

From the article linked in my last post.




seekerof



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Um, sorry Dues-ex, it a clearly known fact that Russia has 2-3 times more nukes than the U.S. U.S. had support from France, the U.K, and at one time Canadian nukes as well. Thus the Soviets needed to defend from more than just the U.S. The Soviets also were the first to invent transportable nukes, first on large trucks, then in suit cases. The Russians also have had ABM technology in place since 1974. Now the U.S. is going it alone. It's only reasonable that the U.S. would play catch up with a missle defence shiled. Canada had nukes on Canadian soil pointed at Russia until 1976. Do you really think they've forgiven Canada for this? Once again liberal la la land. Old men from the KGB still run that country. They don't forgive & forget so easily. THERE ARE NUKES POINTED AT CANADIAN TARGETS RIGHT NOW dumdums.
disgusted & ashamed of my Canadian Gov't.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
And of course none of those countries is pointing their nuclear missiles at the US....

Strange. When did China get nukes, and when did people start pointing nukes at them? I'm guessing the Americans started the nuclear cycle with them. And Iran? America's been threating to invade for two decades! IS it any wonder they want nukes?

and of course none of those countries have a worse history in human rights than the US...

Well, that's debatable at this point, what with your slow and steady erasing of free speech rights, 'internment camps', abuse scandals, and so forth. I haven't even mentioned the genocides of the Native population. I'm also guessing that most of America's dirty dealings are kept far from the light of day. Geez, the only difference between you and the communists you hate so much is that they don't bother to hide their crimes.

.and neither have any of those countries ever engaged in wars of course...

Yeah, of course. But hey, I don't see China declaring a new war every few years. Russia is happy with just one occupation, and that's INSIDE their borders. America has been going to war prettymuch consistently since the 60's, without even one decade since WWII where you've been at peace.

If European countries, Russia, China and others didn't want the US to get a missile defense system, then none of them should have gotten one either....

Gee, if a bunch of trigger happy warmongers with a complete and utter fool running their country was sitting on top of a giant stockpile of nukes, I'd want an ABM too. Canada, fortunately, is too close for you to consider the final alternative.

DE





posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   


THERE ARE NUKES POINTED AT CANADIAN TARGETS RIGHT NOW dumdums.


There have always been. Lets drop the namecalling m'kay, did you also know that those nukes that are pointed at us are not by rouge states. That is what the Missile defense system is for, protecting not from Russia or China nukes, but from North Korea, Iran, Syria etc. And it has been pointed out many many times before that ANY system could easily and cheaply be defeated, by sending up lots and lots of dummy missiles etc. You Neo-cons WANT to start another reckless arms race dont you?

I thought we were fighting terrorism?

It seems you guys are now fighting the War on Tyrants, Drugs, WMDs and Terrorism. A war on 2 fronts is bad enough, can the USA really keep it all up? If so for how long?

We are floundering and Al Queda is laughing at us, while they are quietly building support and readying for the next attack. They are scattered yes, but in the Internet age decentralization equals security.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
Um, sorry Dues-ex, it a clearly known fact that Russia has 2-3 times more nukes than the U.S. U.S. had support from France, the U.K, and at one time Canadian nukes as well. Thus the Soviets needed to defend from more than just the U.S. The Soviets also were the first to invent transportable nukes, first on large trucks, then in suit cases.

Damn, that ABM system is going to work so well against those...trucks and suitcases! Let me rephrase- I am fairly certain that the US has more ICBMs than anyone else.

The Russians also have had ABM technology in place since 1974. Now the U.S. is going it alone.

Maybe, that's because the US is always picking fights. We're stuck with them by proximity. I think you Conservatives need to face the facts... THE COLD WAR IS OVER.Back then, you needed an ABM. But now, Canada doesn't. We have this object, it's called 'diplomacy'.

It's only reasonable that the U.S. would play catch up with a missle defence shiled. Canada had nukes on Canadian soil pointed at Russia until 1976. Do you really think they've forgiven Canada for this?

Yeah, they're all about old grudges, which is why they sent waves and waves of motor infantry to Afghanistan! They sure taught them a lesson about being invaded....oh wait, no they didn't. Russia is trying to get into the present. Much like on the ABM issue, the Conservatives of Canada are some thirty years too late to do anything useful.

Once again liberal la la land. Old men from the KGB still run that country. They don't forgive & forget so easily. THERE ARE NUKES POINTED AT CANADIAN TARGETS RIGHT NOW dumdums.
disgusted & ashamed of my Canadian Gov't.

Naw, it's combination of mobsters and bussinessmen that run that country now, that's why it's call 'Kombinat'. I'm sure there are nukes pointed at Canada...and I'm guessing most either no longer work, or have an American at the trigger.

If you're so damn ashamed and mad about the government, LEAVE. I'm sure your American friends will take you.

DE





posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

That is what the Missile defense system is for, protecting not from Russia or China nukes, but from North Korea, Iran, Syria etc.
....................


Humm, i guess you are one of those people who don't think threats done by China to nuke LA if we get involved in China's conquest of Taiwan is anything to be worried about...

If anyone has begun a new arms race are these countries for getting and upgrading their own defense missile system while ordering the US not to acquire one or face a new arms race....



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Maybe, that's because the US is always picking fights. We're stuck with them by proximity. I think you Conservatives need to face the facts... THE COLD WAR IS OVER.Back then, you needed an ABM. But now, Canada doesn't. We have this object, it's called 'diplomacy'.


The US is the one that always picks fights?...is that why there is a war being waged by former Russian states and Russia?....

You need to face the facts buster.... Diplomacy only takes you so far, and then you will need something solid to defend yourself....the Russians, Europe and China are protected by a missile defense system....if none of these countries want to start a war with the US, why are they worried that we get a missile defense system?....we also have to defend ourselves against rogue nations....or are only Europeans, Chinese and Russians the only ones threatened by rogue nations?.....



Originally posted by DeusEx
Yeah, they're all about old grudges, which is why they sent waves and waves of motor infantry to Afghanistan! They sure taught them a lesson about being invaded....oh wait, no they didn't. Russia is trying to get into the present. Much like on the ABM issue, the Conservatives of Canada are some thirty years too late to do anything useful.


Russia is trying to get into the present?..... you mean the Russian government hasn't threatened that they will attack terrorists anywhere on the planet?..... and do you mean the blow to democracy and freedom of speech that is happening as we speak in Russia because of Vladimir Putin is how Russia is trying to live in the present?....



Originally posted by DeusEx
.......I'm sure there are nukes pointed at Canada...and I'm guessing most either no longer work, or have an American at the trigger.


Do you care to present evidence that any nukes from the US are pointing at Canada?.....


Originally posted by DeusEx
If you're so damn ashamed and mad about the government, LEAVE. I'm sure your American friends will take you.

DE


Wow, and this is coming from a liberal....



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
Um, sorry Dues-ex, it a clearly known fact that Russia has 2-3 times more nukes than the U.S. U.S. had support from France, the U.K, and at one time Canadian nukes as well.
..............
THERE ARE NUKES POINTED AT CANADIAN TARGETS RIGHT NOW dumdums.
disgusted & ashamed of my Canadian Gov't.


Well, i am glad that at least some Canadians are aware of what is happening.

That was an excellent way of pointing out some facts.



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   


Originally posted by SeekerofOttawa – Canada's announcement that it won't join the U.S. missile shield provoked an immediate warning that it has relinquished sovereignty over its airspace.


And then Mr. Martin has the nerve to say:


Martin said he would expect to be consulted on what to do about any missile passing over Canada.
This implies that when or if an incoming ICBM/missile is detected by NORAD, the US will control the decisions to fire at that incoming ICBM/missile over Canadian territory. Also per the article. Does Canada or Mr. Martin wish notification/consultation before it is intercepted over Canadian territory or after a US intercept is in progress?

Still taking the US for granted, eh?
We don't take you for granted, we take your conservative government for what they are; egoists, war-mongers and crybabies who do not like our decisions. If you are going to violate our sovereignty then why on earth should we legitimize that by signing on the dotted line? If to say that the US would do as it wishes over another's airspace is not the height of ignorance then what is? Then you wonder why the US is considered a bully and self-absorbed country. All that does is drive it home to those of us who see through the ruse that the talk of Iraq and ME sovereignty is nothing but hype and empty rhetoric of a deviant bent of government and its head nodders whining because they do not get their way.

Violate canadian airspace against the wishes of Canadians and you might find yourselves faced with foreign aggression walking right up to your borders, for if you cannot respect your allies, then you are no ally.

And by the way, that rhetoric is hyperbole, or Bush would not be traipsing up here to address anti-war Canadians in his customary fashion of speaking to his fellow citizenry.

[edit on 2/24/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The US is the one that always picks fights?...is that why there is a war being waged by former Russian states and Russia?....

I believe that would be a civil war, instead of one being fought on foreign soil half a world away. I'm pretty sure there would be a similar reaction from your country if Vermont, NH, Mass. etc (ei the 'good' states) broke off and wanted to become their own country- or better yet, part of mine.

You need to face the facts buster.... Diplomacy only takes you so far, and then you will need something solid to defend yourself....the Russians, Europe and China are protected by a missile defense system....if none of these countries want to start a war with the US, why are they worried that we get a missile defense system?....we also have to defend ourselves against rogue nations....or are only Europeans, Chinese and Russians the only ones threatened by rogue nations?.....

I think I've seen American diplomacy at work...we call that 'threatening' hereabouts. as I recall, Russia, China, and even those rogue states wouldn't so much as bat an eye at you if the United States didn't poke its nose where it didn't belong. Let's draw a diagram for our conservative friends

US threatens rogue state---> Rogue State X feels threatened ---> US continues to threaten rogue state X---> X feels threatened. Being small and largely incapable of defending itself, X goes and decides to get it some nukes.

Ergo, by bullying countries you consider rogue, you actually drive them towards bad things. If you just didn't talk to them, cut all diplomatic relations and embargoed them, they'd leave you alone.


Russia is trying to get into the present?..... you mean the Russian government hasn't threatened that they will attack terrorists anywhere on the planet?

What? So you're not going to allow Russians their own angry words after the Belsan tradgedy? As I recall, it took a few years to get your population off the idea of genocide. Hell, there are still Americans (and members on thsi board) that think that it would be a great idea to commit mass murder in the from of nuking the entire middle east. Anyways, I don't hear much about Russians invading other nations under false pretenses, do you?

..... and do you mean the blow to democracy and freedom of speech that is happening as we speak in Russia because of Vladimir Putin is how Russia is trying to live in the present?....

It's absolutely hilarious to hear an American talk about freedom of speech when you have 'Free Speech Zones'. And as far as moving forwards... I don't see any Russian gulags, but I sure do see American ones.


Originally posted by DeusEx
.......I'm sure there are nukes pointed at Canada...and I'm guessing most either no longer work, or have an American at the trigger.


Do you care to present evidence that any nukes from the US are pointing at Canada?.....

You'll note the word GUESSING, meaning that I have no proof, only a gut suspicion and the experience of living near Americans.


Originally posted by DeusEx
If you're so damn ashamed and mad about the government, LEAVE. I'm sure your American friends will take you.

DE


Wow, and this is coming from a liberal....

I simply find it amusing to use a Conservative's words against them. And, for the record, I actually fall under the 'crazed centrist' platform. I just don't see very many liberals toppling governments and attacking other nations.

DE




posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

I believe that would be a civil war, instead of one being fought on foreign soil half a world away. I'm pretty sure there would be a similar reaction from your country if Vermont, NH, Mass. etc (ei the 'good' states) broke off and wanted to become their own country- or better yet, part of mine.


And that gives a excuse for Russia committing attrocities on these people... hey, they should be going only after the terrorists right?...no women and children should be dying in this conflict....




Originally posted by DeusEx
I think I've seen American diplomacy at work...we call that 'threatening' hereabouts. as I recall, Russia, China, and even those rogue states wouldn't so much as bat an eye at you if the United States didn't poke its nose where it didn't belong. Let's draw a diagram for our conservative friends

US threatens rogue state---> Rogue State X feels threatened ---> US continues to threaten rogue state X---> X feels threatened. Being small and largely incapable of defending itself, X goes and decides to get it some nukes.

Ergo, by bullying countries you consider rogue, you actually drive them towards bad things. If you just didn't talk to them, cut all diplomatic relations and embargoed them, they'd leave you alone.


Humm, so you are saying that rogues nations and terrorists have not threatened those nations you mentioned or Canada?.....they are only threatening the US... Let's see if that is true.... i have already posted the threats and attacks that Islamic terrorists were planning on France, and Spain...let me present some evidence on your notion that only those countries who poke their nose in the business of rogue nations get attacked by terrorists.....

This excerpt is from the Canadian Security Intelligence service....


1. The terrorist threat wears many faces. Over the last thirty years, Canadians have been touched by several acts of terrorism, each with unique motives and means. Examples include domestic separatist violence in Quebec, Sikh separatist terrorism in the Air India disaster, and, in the recent case of Ahmed Ressam, a bomb plot whose motives are thus far unknown. To counter these activities, Canada has developed a response to terrorism that meets the challenge of a serious and perpetually evolving threat.


humm, a "perpetual evolving threath"....to Canada?....but why?...they have never poked their nose in the businesses of rogue nations......
Here comes the interesting part...


CANADA’S INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
3.Terrorism is a global phenomenon, and the struggle against it must therefore be carried to the world stage. The 1999 Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence (the Kelly Committee) found that “to be effective, the fight against terrorism must be through a united international front.”(1)

4. Targeting terrorist financing is a key element in the fight against terrorism. At the 1996 Sharm El Sheikh summit in Egypt, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said that all like-minded nations must take “whatever measures are necessary to ensure that no country anywhere in the world can get away with giving support” to terrorists. CSIS Public Reports since 1996 all refer to terrorist fundraising as a source of concern for the organization, and in a 1997 report by the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC), the review body agreed that these activities could be of interest to CSIS as it plays a pivotal role in preventing politically motivated violence.


Excerpted from.
www.csis-scrs.gc.ca...

Wait a second....the canadian government is saying that the war against terrorism must be carried to the world stage?.....

Do you know what that means?....no?....

BTW...what does Prime Minister Jean Chrétien means when he says that "no country anywhere in the world should get away with giving support to terrorism"?....

Let me put another quote in here from the same Canadian site....


“Those who freely choose to raise funds to sustain terrorist organizations bear the same guilt and responsibility as those who actually carry out the terrorist acts.”




Originally posted by DeusEx
What? So you're not going to allow Russians their own angry words after the Belsan tradgedy? As I recall, it took a few years to get your population off the idea of genocide. Hell, there are still Americans (and members on thsi board) that think that it would be a great idea to commit mass murder in the from of nuking the entire middle east. Anyways, I don't hear much about Russians invading other nations under false pretenses, do you?


On the contrary, it is a natural response by many people to act in this way...and it is also natural to go after the countries that support terrorism and are planning on doing terrorist attacks on any country....

BTW....are you forgetting the fact that the Russian government, Vladimir Putin, told us that Saddam was planning on carrying out terrorist attacks on US soil?......


Russia warned the United States on several occasions that Iraq's Saddam Hussein planned "terrorist attacks" on its soil, President Vladimir Putin said Friday.

"After the events of September 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services several times received such information and passed it on to their American colleagues," he told reporters.

The Kremlin leader, who was speaking in the Kazakh capital, said Russian intelligence services had many times received information that Saddam's special forces were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States "and beyond its borders on American military and civilian targets."


Excerpted from.
www.perryonpolitics.com...

The original article was from CNN.


You forgot that too huh?....your memory is very selective for some reason.....




Originally posted by DeusEx
It's absolutely hilarious to hear an American talk about freedom of speech when you have 'Free Speech Zones'. And as far as moving forwards... I don't see any Russian gulags, but I sure do see American ones.


Hummm...is that why it has been found that the Ukranian elections were rigged...and this rigged election was supported by Putin?...

Tell me how many tv stations has the US government shot down because they don't paint a pretty picture of our president?....

So, what happens in Canada or any other country in the world, including socialist countries...when people want to protest and turn to violence and rioting?.... The police just let them do whatever they want right?......Riiiight....

i find it hilarious that you are so selective...just to promote your agenda against the US government...



Originally posted by DeusEx

You'll note the word GUESSING, meaning that I have no proof, only a gut suspicion and the experience of living near Americans.


My suspicion is that you will use any excuse and exagerate points trying to "spread" your own agenda against the US....



Originally posted by DeusEx
I simply find it amusing to use a Conservative's words against them. And, for the record, I actually fall under the 'crazed centrist' platform. I just don't see very many liberals toppling governments and attacking other nations.

DE


I just find it amusing that your reasoning is so out of whack... and you prefer to ignore evidence that clearly shows you are wrong.

---edited for errors---

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Muaddib]



[edit on 25-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
There is no need to engage in another arms race, nor is there any substantial threat to create a deterent system to combat rouge missiles or whatever may come flying across our borders. The very fact that America has decided to rely so heavily on military and physical deterents, tells us beyond a reasonable doubt, that this is a country which cannot successfully engage in diplomatic relations and even partake in those with foriegn countries firstly as a deterent, and is quite obviously living in a perpetual culture of fear, anxiety, and repression. Canada is not suffering from these same deliterious syndroms and we are in no need of such deterents to parry threats.

Deep



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Anyways, back on topic.... i think it is very possible that the reason why Canada is doing this is because of the mining busines they had just signed with China.

China has threatened the US that they will begin a new arms race if the US ever develops a missile defense system.... even though they already have one and are getting more of these systems....

I found a couple of days ago a link to a story on a new business partnership between Canada and China, for the mining rights in some parts of China...including Tibet.

I think it is very possible the Canadians are rejecting the missile defense system simply because of their business with China.

i am going to try to find the link again.


---edited for errors---

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Muaddib]


[edit on 25-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
There is no need to engage in another arms race, nor is there any substantial threat to create a deterent system to combat rouge missiles or whatever may come flying across our borders. The very fact that America has decided to rely so heavily on military and physical deterents, tells us beyond a reasonable doubt, that this is a country which cannot successfully engage in diplomatic relations and even partake in those with foriegn countries firstly as a deterent, and is quite obviously living in a perpetual culture of fear, anxiety, and repression. Canada is not suffering from these same deliterious syndroms and we are in no need of such deterents to parry threats.Deep


ah....i see...and Europe, China, and Russia are so good at diplomatic relations that they don't need a missile defense system right?....oh wait...they already have missile defense systems in place...

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Wow, I go away for a day or two and miss all the good stuff....

I've decided to take the least controversial of the questions, and the easiest and fastest ones to answer.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Now if going along with this program would not cost Canada "a dime," then there is an underline motivation to 'why' Martin turned it down. Would it be that he is pushing to spend nearly $13 billion on the Canadian military?

and

Originally posted by Seekerof
Are you implying the US knew in advance that Martin/Canada would turn down something that would enhance its defense, etc. and would not cost "a dime"?


The answer is politics, Canadian internal politics. The support for this program is very limited in Canada, and if Paul Martin signed on to this program, he would face a vote of non-confidence. This would mean that our government would be dissolved and a new election would need to be held; one his government might not win, if he supported the program.

Of course there are many little details and nuances to this, but the Liberal government is in a tricky spot right now. They do not have enough votes to push this through, and need to give the appearance of distance from the program to maintain their voter base for the next election. He has to say no, because if he doesn't, he would lose the job he schemed and maneuvered for all these long years.

I think perhaps there was an error in judgment made when George Bush brought the topic up in Canada, after the State Department had told Canadian officials it would not be on the list of covered topics. This brought the matter to the forefront in the Canadian media, and has made it impossible for Paul Martin to support the program. If this hadn't happened, and the US had been willing to wait, quietly, until the Liberals regained the majority; of which I'm fairly sure, not super sure though
, things might have unfolded differently.

As for the second question, if the current US administration is so unfamiliar with the political situation of their good neighbour and trading partner, then perhaps someone in charge of advising them on such matters may need a talking to. It is very easy to find this information; all they had to do was pick up a newspaper or two.

edited to add 'not' to 'on the list of topics to be talked about', because without the 'not', it makes no sense.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Duzey]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join