Canada refuses further role in missile defence

[Esau]

The formal announcement Thursday that Canada will refuse any further participation in the controversial U.S. missile-defence shield was met with an immediate warning that Canada had given up its sovereignty.

Although Prime Minister Paul Martin said Canada would “insist” on maintaining control of its airspace, U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci warned that Washington would not be constrained.

“We will deploy. We will defend North America,” he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story

[Vermontdave]

You Infidel Bastards have thwarted us for too long!

peace

[StoneMtn]

This was the news I have wanted to hear for a long time now. Woo hoo!

[timouse]

three cheers for the guys in charge!

(did i actually just say that?)

i saw a deal on cpac with mel hurtig, a physicist from Quebec who's name escapes me, and a guy named Ted Postiol from the US. Postol worked on the early Patriot alti-missle missles and went public with their terrible track record. there's an interview with him at http://www.radio4all.net - search for postol.

from what postol & hurtig had to say, the US missle defense program essentially amounts to more state subsidy of private profit, only it's getting more overt and rather like the elephant in the middle of the room that everyone's trying to ignore. Missle defense is the angry elephant fart which we have no choice but to take notice (thanks bouche!)

good on the canadian government. but does this mean that the US will still be trying to blow missiles up over canada? presuming they can hit them, that is?

ok, time for futurama. too much serious thought.need brain candy.

[StoneMtn]

The plan was ALWAYS to blow up missiles such that they would "harmlessly" land in Canada.

[timouse]

indeed. they kept saying that they would explode harmlessly "in space" Over canada.

the good news, or at least less worse news is that they have only a few percent chance of hitting an incoming missle.

[d_rawk]

Postol worked on the early Patriot alti-missle missles and went public with their terrible track record.

There was a pretty good CBC documentary produced about this and the alleged "100% success rate" of the patriot missiles awhile back. Worth tracking down if possible .. it's called "Best Defense".

Dr. Theodore Postol is featured in it.

[paisley]

any step away from war machines is a good step

thank you Canada

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

Once again, I am very proud to be a Canadian, and once again, the Liberals (regarding this example) are defining their party name. And once again, we are defending the title of "peace keepers." You want to give out a Nobel Peace Prize?? Try the Government of Canada.

[purple foot]

it was really a non issue. the lib's pleasing the ndp's and bloc on missile defence. the states are going to go with it no matter what we say except now they'll be even more pissed at us. and the budget was huge! the only reason the conservatives aren't all over that is because of the large military budget.

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

It is definitely not a non-issue.

[d_rawk]

the only reason the conservatives aren't all over that is because of the large military budget.

... and because they aren't in the mood to force an election at the moment. For good reason.

Agreed about it being a non-issue. Canada's support for the program would have been primarily financial, and was sought mostly as a means of making the entire affair more palatable to the fence-sitters in the US. It is an expensive proposition, and much easier to justify when you can say that you are sharing the costs. It is also difficult to sell to the general American public when they are questioning why they should be footing the bill to defend another country (though whether any actual defense is provided is another thing entirely).

That said, I'm still happy with the announcement. It does mean something to say "No", even if the machinery of militarization proliferates unabated by your opposition (eww.. could someone reword that for me? I think I'm sleepy..). Though given the present political climate, and the widespread opposition to BMD/Star Wars, it wouldn't have made much sense for the Liberals to go any other way on it.

[ggrtrhhrtgg]

well, Canada likes to wear the role of Peacekeeper. And that idea is hard to sell when you jump on board everything "big brother" to the south is designing. NO goes a long, long, long, long way in International Politics.

Lately there have been more "NO" than "Yes" and that creates our own separate political agenda, which is always difficult to have when you are neighbours with the most powerful country on earth. Anyhow, I am buying the Liberal Policy, and they will once again receive my vote in the upcoming election.

and if you don't agree with me, President Bush was/or is on a crusade to a)find more willing, and b)mask or fix international political opinion in regards to U.S. foreign policy, and when their neighbours/closest supporter says "NO" this does carry some weight/influence on international opinion, albeit maybe mor mild than spicy.

[d_rawk]

Absolutely. As stated above, I think that "No" is meaningful. I think that you're correct about it being more 'mild than spicy' (hehe) as far as your point because international opinion is already pretty solidly against the entire endeavour. But yeah, "No" is important and a "Yes" in this case would have been expensive, embarrassing, and - in my opinion - morally untenable.

I somewhat disagree that dissent of its own accord is constitutive of a separate political agenda, but it does at least imply one .. so its a quibble, and I agree with the general point.