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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Bush could stop picking fights with everyone and getting all the psychos p'od with his bullying. ...Everything that comes out of his office escalates hostilities - and now he's threatening Canada. Canada!?
.


Do you think the world will become peaceful when Bush leaves office?
Depending on what you believe about 9/11, do you think it was a result of Bush being in office?

I think your answer to this problem is far too simplistic.





posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by soficrow

Bush could stop picking fights with everyone and getting all the psychos p'od with his bullying. ...Everything that comes out of his office escalates hostilities - and now he's threatening Canada. Canada!?


How exactly is president Bush threatening Canada soficrow?....




The US is saying that Canada has abdicated sovereignty by refusing to take part in the U.S. project - thus not respecting her sovereignty.

The US is also saying that they will shoot at hypothetical missiles in Canadian airspace without consultation or respect for the sovereignty of her airspace.

Any nation's airspace is sovereign. It's international law. To threaten to invade that airspace is threatening invasion of the nation.

Very cut and dried.


.



.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia

I think your answer to this problem is far too simplistic.





Perhaps. But it's clear under international law.


.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
The point is though, Canadians do not WANT or need your missile "protection." More to the point, Canada's sovereignty is protected by international law, including her airspace.


Then why participate in NORAD at all? etc etc. No as I stated in another thread on this subject:

1) Canada can say "look we stood up to the US"
2) Canada get the benifits of the missile shield without having to spend a dime.
3) If a missile is lofted at North America the decison to launch the interceptors with our current system will have to take place almost immediately and there will not be time for a bunch of phone calls.
4) Even if targeted at Canada, the US will knock it down even if Martin or the PM Du Jour says no why? Any attack on Canadian or US soild by a nuclear tipped weapon will spread fallout over both countries.
5) The exothermic interceptors are at the fringes or above the atmosphere. National sovernty does not extend to space, but im not sure of the exact cut off. Odds are the missiles will that high for the intercept.


In as far as Canada feeling threatend by its poximity to the US, one of thereasons Canada can tread so lightly in foreign affairs is that very proximity. Nice having the neighbor taking care of things and external threats.


Seekerof, I don't think Martin needs to be briefed on this at all. He figured it out pretty well. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free eh?

[edit on 2/25/05 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Nice having the neighbor taking care of things and external threats.





Most of the world, me included, has observed that the US is creating those threats because the US President is throwing his weight around.

...The US is almost broke, just took a beating in Europe and came home to kick down it's neighbors fence.

The US health care system is the most expensive in the world and it's about to skyrocket to 50% of the GDP - because it funnels tax payer dollars straight to corporate coffers.

Yet the US, in all its wisdom, wants to go on another spending spree to buy bigger toys that make louder bangs. ...and just let its citizens die.

Great priorities.




.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

The US is saying that Canada has abdicated sovereignty by refusing to take part in the U.S. project - thus not respecting her sovereignty.

The US is also saying that they will shoot at hypothetical missiles in Canadian airspace without consultation or respect for the sovereignty of her airspace.

Any nation's airspace is sovereign. It's international law. To threaten to invade that airspace is threatening invasion of the nation.

Very cut and dried.


Oh, i see....so you agree that if any missile with a US target at it's sight that we must ask permission to Canada for shooting it down?...

The threat came from martin, not from the US.... that we have to ask them permission if we get attacked and the missile is flying over Canadian airspace...

Perhaps we should let loose any terrorist who has in sight Canada as a target too, hey, it's not our problem...as i remember almost a year ago Canada was threatened by Islamic terrorists too...

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
BTW Deus...let me get this straight....

You say in your post this...

Originally posted by DeusEx
I find it curious that an educated man like you simply takes what is handed to him and believes it, especially from his own government.

I find it sad that you refuse to consider anything but the highest opinion of your country, which has been without a shadow of a doubt, the most destructive force on the planet for the last sixty years.

DE


[edit on 25-2-2005 by DeusEx]


And then you say this....



Originally posted by DeusEx

Yeah, but see, it also means that you shouldn't run halfway across the world to kick over a regime that had nothing to do with terrorists.Hey, I was all for the war in Afghanistan. Canadian troops were there, and it was righteous.
.................


Who exactly is believing that only the wars fought by their countries are righteous?....


[edit on 26-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Just an example of canada taking advantage of America's Love for its allies. They know that despite this should a threat to Canada ever emerge we would protect them anyway, whter they helped or not. Why fund this, why help us to defend them when they know we will anyway?


What are you talking aobut? Love for thier allies? We've all seen what has happened to those that defy the almighty soverign of states, America. Iraq, got smacked (literally), the french were rideculed throught aberica (freedom fries) and I think everyone is really sicka nd tired of america's push-over, fear infested, propoganda attitude. Yes in the case of a war on canada, the US would back us up.. But you see, Canada doesnt have half the enemies the US has, IMO. So no worries here, I feel safer at night knowing no fool is playin' round with missiles over my head. thank you verry much

-your's frankly



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
This is an editorial from the Toronto Star:



Editorial: Martin misfires on U.S. missiles
Prime Minister Paul Martin knows Canada stood to gain more than it lost by joining the American missile defence program.

He ran for the Liberal leadership supporting the program, recognizing that U.S. President George Bush and the U.S. Congress put a high value on it in a 9/11-traumatized world where 40 nations, including North Korea, have missiles and more are getting nuclear weapons. He knew it might affect our sovereignty.

Canada was asked for little more than political support, at this early stage. The entire North Atlantic Treaty Organization had agreed that the research program makes sense. And Canada has always participated in continental defence.

Yet Martin failed to make this case, persuasively, to Canadians. He failed to sign on early, when it would have been politically less costly. He dithered until many factors combined to force his hand. And yesterday, his weakness forced him into a humiliating climb-down.

"Canada will not take part" after all, he announced, bowing to the inevitable. Polls show fully 54 per cent of Canadians, including many in the Liberal caucus, oppose missile defence. Barely 36 per cent are in favour.

Martin must now shake a growing perception, fed by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and other critics, that he is a reed that bends in the wind. Being labelled "Mr. Dithers" in the Economist magazine is not the legacy to which he aspires. Ottawa's current foreign policy and defence reviews had better produce a focused vision of Canada's role in the world, one calculated to restore U.S. confidence and that of other allies.
Editori al



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Must agree with soficrow here. Regionally speaking, over the years US governments have not taken into consderation the danger that is brought (by its defence and foreign policies), to other countries in the west, ie Mexico and Canada. We should'nt need a missle defence system to begin with.

Spending money on health care opposed to bullits and armor is apath Canada is following. Canada being within the target range of the US by mid-east ratical nut-balls with an ache to hate and kill is not a place I feel Canadians want to be. A radiation shield between the US and Canada might be more advantageous to Canadians, than a shield above.

Let's face it, the US is in trouble as it only takes one fruitcake to bring in a weapon and detonate it. Who would know what country or group was behind the blast for sure (being hated by so many), so how to retaliate?

The US and Canada are close - geographically, and falling further and further apart policy wise. The Tor Star does not speak for Canadians, PM Martin does for now at least.

Dallas



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Who exactly is believing that only the wars fought by their countries are righteous?....


What's this? Hey, did I not say I was a centrist? I think you're not seeing my arguement. The US had every opportunity to root out AQ in Afghanistan, and everyone was there, helping. Instead, you use the vague shadow of terror to start a crusade, to attack another country and to occupy it. You use terrorism -terrorism that Americans instigated in the first place- to justify attacks on civil liberties, war crimes, and attacks on other countries. I don't see how American's don't get it. The world world was there, or at least cheering for you, when you went into Afghanistan. You toppled a corrupt regime that was directly linked to 9/11, rounded up a mess of bad guys, and it was all good. Then, you abbandoned your commitments. Instead of trying to help the Afghani people keep the peace, rebuild their country, you decided to attack Iraq with extremely tenuous evidence. Now, the country remains in shambles because rule of law doesn't exist outside Kabul's city limits. Then, you get your war crimes on, and your Camp Ect. on. You've managed to pervert your mission, turn on your allies, and make everyone a target by jamming the proverbial stick into the hornet's nest.

Man, we used to be tight. Now lookit what you've done. You're encroaching on our airspace, put Canada in danger, and basically chucked everything you believe in out the window. What happened to the America I knew growing up?

DE



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredTIn as far as Canada feeling threatend by its poximity to the US, one of thereasons Canada can tread so lightly in foreign affairs is that very proximity. Nice having the neighbor taking care of things and external threats.
I keep seeing blanket statements such as this, and I presume they are made as blanket statements because it is hoped that they will impact the readers with blank minds. Yet, no one ever qualifies those threats, so I ask;

What external threats are those?



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
First of all, you were claming that you did not understand why i beleived that all wars fought by the US are righteous, which i did not say in the first place, but i proceeded to show who is the one that really believes all the battles fought by their country are righteous...and that person is you Deus....



Originally posted by DeusEx

Afghanistan, and everyone was there, helping. Instead, you use the vague shadow of terror to start a crusade, to attack another country and to occupy it. You use terrorism -terrorism that Americans instigated in the first place- to justify attacks on civil liberties, war crimes, and attacks on other countries.


So the US instigated terrorism now?....

So, i guess that Russia did not instigate terrorism when they "truly invaded" Afgahnistan and parts of the Middle East....

I guess that France did not, and is not, instigating terrorism with their former colonies as in the case of the Ivory Coast right at this moment, and by the wars they fought also in the Middle East trying to "conquer" those lands...

i guess terrorism has also nothing to do with Middle East countries fighting against one another as they also commit acts of genocide agaisnt their own people and others....

Sure...it is all because of the US...Riiiight.....





Originally posted by DeusEx
Instead of trying to help the Afghani people keep the peace, rebuild their country, you decided to attack Iraq with extremely tenuous evidence. Now, the country remains in shambles because rule of law doesn't exist outside Kabul's city limits. Then, you get your war crimes on, and your Camp Ect. on. You've managed to pervert your mission, turn on your allies, and make everyone a target by jamming the proverbial stick into the hornet's nest.


So everyone is a target because of the US....where is the logic on that?...what does France have anything to do with the US?... What does Spain, now that they are a socialist country, have anything to do with the US?.....

And as you continue to ignore....evidence came up from other countries pointing Iraq's involvement in terrorism against the US.....




Originally posted by DeusEx
Man, we used to be tight. Now lookit what you've done. You're encroaching on our airspace, put Canada in danger, and basically chucked everything you believe in out the window. What happened to the America I knew growing up?

DE


What happened indeed to Canada and their 67 year old agreement signed by the then PM of Canada to jointly defend North America?.....

It seems that it is Canada who has changed, not the US.... The US still wants to defend North America, and want to extend that protection to Canada, but Canada retracted from wanting such protection, and in fact "threatened" the US that we must ask them permission, if we are to shoot at any missiles which fly over Canadian airspace with the intention to hit any cities in the US....



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
What happened indeed to Canada and their 67 year old agreement signed by the then PM of Canada to jointly defend North America?.....

It seems that it is Canada who has changed, not the US.... The US still wants to defend North America, and want to extend that protection to Canada, but Canada retracted from wanting such protection, and in fact "threatened" the US that we must ask them permission, if we are to shoot at any missiles which fly over Canadian airspace with the intention to hit any cities in the US....


Could it have something to do with the fact that an "isolationist" US, changed?
Oh, now you want to protect NA?

Canada hasn't changed one bit. It just became convenient for the US to need us. And what do they need us for? BACKYARD. "Like to have those ICBM's that the gov't I supported, landing in someone elses yard."

Folks, when you get to the point that you can discourse on an international level, ie: WW's 1 and 2, send me the bill. You haven't even come close to paying your way to the table. And now you want us to arbitrarily take your #? What amazing arrogance.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
do what your good at.this is a easy bad leader wants to push canada around.thinks he can take something thats not his to have.this like when a drunk wants to drive home drunk and we wont give them the keys.this is easy no is no.no is not a bad word but breaking the international laws are thow.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Could it have something to do with the fact that an "isolationist" US, changed?
Oh, now you want to protect NA?

Canada hasn't changed one bit. It just became convenient for the US to need us. And what do they need us for? BACKYARD. "Like to have those ICBM's that the gov't I supported, landing in someone elses yard."


Wait a second there....we are discussing whether or not the US should fire at a missile over Canadian airspace...not on the US making any bases on Canada's soil....


Originally posted by intrepid

Folks, when you get to the point that you can discourse on an international level, ie: WW's 1 and 2, send me the bill. You haven't even come close to paying your way to the table. And now you want us to arbitrarily take your #? What amazing arrogance.


First of all, you will have to be more specific as to what you mean by "paying your way to the table" and " when you get to the point that you can discourse on an international level"......

First of all, are you saying that we have to bribe you to be able to shoot missiles that cross Canadian airspace with the intention of hitting US or Canadian cities?....

Second of all, when you say that we should "discourse on an international level, ie: WW's 1 and 2"..... Let me get this straight...... So, you are saying we should be using the policies which made it possible to have two World Wars?..... so, you are looking for a third world war?....



[edit on 27-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by flukemol
do what your good at.this is a easy bad leader wants to push canada around.thinks he can take something thats not his to have.this like when a drunk wants to drive home drunk and we wont give them the keys.this is easy no is no.no is not a bad word but breaking the international laws are thow.


Well, guess we all know who is drunk don't we?...

Perhaps when you are sober up you can tell us exactly what you were trying to tell us here. Get some rest first man.

[edit on 27-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Ok - this is my first post on this site so be gentle


A little background about myself as it's relevant to the topic on hand. I'm Canadian but spent a good deal of time living in the states, so I kind of had the opportunity to look at how both countries are.

Personally, I'm glad to see that Canada turned down the BMD as the odds of a missile accidently (or on purpose) hitting Canada is just about the same odds of a hunk of space rock falling out of the sky and smacking us. We went through World War 2, the Cold War and everything in between when the fear of missiles was very real. I don't recall ever hearing about any missiles being fired at another country (and Iraq Scud Missiles dont count, they just made a loud bang), although there was that Cuban Missile crisis but that was as close as we came.

Most of us can agree that the biggest threat is a dirty bomb, a rogue terrorist group somehow smuggling it into the country and hitting a major city. Missile defense or not, it's still going off.

Now...let's just say a country somehow is going to fire a missile in an act of war to the States. How would it be deployed? A sub firing it off shore to the nearest city? Not sure if the shield can stop that. Okay, maybe a little more "old school" and just launch them from their respected countries. Let's take the crazy countries of N. Korea, Iran, a country to be named later. Actually, it doesn't really matter which country launches because with the exception of Russia, the direct flight path of a missile wouldn't hit Canadian airspace unless the missile steers off track.

Now say, Missile Defense or no missile defense, what do you think the retaliation is going to be like? A country launching a nuke against the US. But wait...anyone crazy enough to command a country and to fire a nuke at the States would surely know that the US will hit back hard...so...they won't just fire one nuke at a time, but multiple missiles at a time....

You see the picture Im painting here. Regardless if Canada's in the missile shield program or not, by the time we ever get to that point, the only thing left will be the roaches.

That's why Canada needs to do what it's doing. Make sure that our border security is top notch so that bomb doesn't get into the States.

And just to make it clear, I think a lot of Canadians would rather see a missile hit Canada than Canadians being responsible for a terrorist smuggling a bomb into the States from Canada.

We may disagree with your policies or your way that you go about doing things but we're still your family and we do watch out for you. After all, who's got more natural resources (hint: oil) than the Middle East. We do. Who gives your East and West coast power (hint: Hydro)? We do. Canada does more for the States than most Americans realize. I'm just hoping the ones that do know are the ones in power.

Jetro.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
WOW WOW WOW HOLD IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Muaddib, what on EARTH are you drinking, and the rest of you too, for not pointing out this point.

CHINA, RUSSIA HAS MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD?????

What on this damn planet have you being all being smoking???

Please tell me that was not one of the reasons told by the Bush admininstration to get missile defense?????

The only thing Russia and China have is the S-300 which is mainly designed for SAM purposes but can be considered similar to the Patriot Missiles.

Russia now has the S-400, again, mainly for SAM purposes.

[edit on 5-3-2005 by rapier28]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Muaddib
What happened indeed to Canada and their 67 year old agreement signed by the then PM of Canada to jointly defend North America?.....

It seems that it is Canada who has changed, not the US.... The US still wants to defend North America, and want to extend that protection to Canada,



Oh, now you want to protect NA?

Canada hasn't changed one bit. It just became convenient for the US to need us. And what do they need us for? BACKYARD....You haven't even come close to paying your way to the table. And now you want us to arbitrarily take your #? What amazing arrogance.





The 67 year-old NORAD agreement still exists, and Canada still supports it. The US unilaterally decided to put NORAD under NORTHCOM, and establish new non-negotiable terms.




More info at: Patriot Act II



.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join