Space Chef

"Man the torpedoes"? Holy shit Canada's attacking us! Nuke Toronto!

Base Brat

I predict the outgoing US ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, who has been lecturing us on 'playing nice with the USA' for the past 4 years to the point of nausea, is going to be replaced by someone with the personality of a pit-bull and the will to drive his master's demands home to the recalcitrant subjects who still think they live in a sovereign country that only borders on the USA.

If he has command of one of Rummie's special little squads of Delta-Force action figures to help with graduated regime-change, so much the better for his task. He can thus take credit for spreading the benevolent shield of US missile defense over the oppressed peoples of the north, whose own government would leave them defenceless.

Octavia

Is it the Canadian people or the Canadian politicians who are considering signing up on this one? Because if it's just the politicians, there's no excuse. There are a couple of politicians in NZ who would like to see the nuclear ban gone, basically to suck up to the US. The leader of the opposition, Don Brash, made a rather foolish comment some time ago to a visiting American delegation that if he was elected this year (not bloody likely, given his poll numbers at present), the nuclear ban would be "gone by lunch-time". Unfortunately for Dr. Brash, that comment was made public. Polls plummeted. His position spun so fast you'd think he was an extra on the Exorcist - his official position now is there would have to be a binding public referendum on the subject. Unfortunately for him, the result of said referendum is pretty much a forgone conclusion; and any sitting government who tried to reverse it would quickly be dissolved under votes of no confidence and national protests.

It might be a different situation for us because the nuclear issue is a defining one for our nation, while this programme might not be the same for yours. But if it's just the politicians gunning for it against the will of the people, then surely you can restrain the buggers? Give them a good swift kick up the backside?

Wyz_sub10

I hate to agree with a conservative () but this is very true. I don't support Canada's participation, but it's definitely going to happen with or without our consent.

It's said that you can better navigate the boat when you're in it, and while that may sound like a cop out it's also a reality. We could balk on principle, but the truth is that Bush is there for 4 more years and his policies aren't going to change.

The Canadian people don't seem to want this and the government, therefore, shouldn't simply capitulate. What the Libs need to do instead is to find a way to give tacit approval and try to ensure Canada has ownership of something significant.

I think Canadians would accept this move if it came with a resolution on softwood lumber, an increase in beef purchases, and an end to the hockey strike.

socratoad

I know that if a referendum were held this unspeakable nonsense with be beaten into the ground. Unfortunately its not so cut and dried here in Canada. Our economy is so intertwined with the US that the economic powers behind the scenes would not permit a referendum on this issue. The same bloody situation developed several years ago regarding the NAFTA agreement. The majority of canadians opposed this american fraud, and yet we have it.

Its situations like this that serves to remind me that we really are not a sovereign country when the elephant next door decides something is not within their "perceived" interests.

So they let us troop to the polls to vote every now and then which helps to preserve the fiction that we live in a democracy.

Reminds me of the joke about the married guy who bragged to his mates that he made all the important decisions in his home. He made the important decisions like whether Taiwan should be recognized as an independent country, whether an expedition to Mars should be undertaken, etc. Whereas his wife made the minor decisions such as where they lived, what kind of car they drove, where they banked, whether they would have children, and if so where they would be educated, what they, ate, wore, etc.

Puck

Naivety speaking here, but, wouldn't sanctions against Canada hurt the US more than Canada? I can't see us sanctioning Canada, a bluff perhaps, but to actually do it?

Someone please tell me we aren't as dumb as we are acting.

EarlFlynn

The problem is, only one political party actually wants to sign up for Canadian participation in the missle defence plan - the Conservatives. The governing Liberals don't really want to do it, and they know they'll lose votes if they sign on, but they feel like they have no choice in the face of threats from the US. The New Democrats and Bloq Quebecois are against the missle sheild, but they don't have enough votes to block it.

Even if Canadians could force an election on the issue, there's a risk that the pro-Star Wars Conservatives might win; if the Liberals win reelection, it's back to the waffling; and the NDP and BQ have no hope of winning. So it's pretty much lose-lose for everyone, unless you're a Conservative who supports participating in the program. (Thankfully a small minority of Canadians.)

muon

The biggest problem with missile defense is that it is technologically near-impossible. If the US wants Canadian participation, I don't really object, provided that the US foots the entire bill! If Paul Martin agreed to let the US station some radar stations and whatnot, in exchange for paying nothing towards its cost, and getting concessions on trade and other issues, then Canada gains a lot, while the US isn't helped one iota. If the Americans want to waste huge dollars on an unneeded and impractical boondoggle, why should Canada stop them? I say we let them go ahead, and charge them rent!

Space_Monkey #9

It's stupid to even contemplate joining this. We're one of the few nations in the world who can actually live up to the phrase "honest broker". Going along with it shoots our credibility to hell, and actually puts us on the map in regards to terrorism.

But, being somewhat of a pragmatist, if we are going to become America's northren province, than let's at least get a good price for it. You want Canada's stamp of legitimacy than pay us. I think several billion dollars to rebuild our military (to combat terrorism ya know, and because we don't want some future U.S president to question why the U.S is paying to defend us) and opening America's markets to our perscription drugs would be a good start.

muon

What does this have to do with terrorism? Al Qaeda and probably not even North Korea would launch an ICBM at the US. They'd smuggle it over in a shipping crate on a boat. This is why the system is unneeded---it doesn't protect against a realistic threat.

I can't imagine that the world is going to hold it against Canada one way or the other Canada joins an ineffectual, useless military program. How is this a credibility issue? :huh: I guess I don't understand the opposition to missile defense except for the fact that it doesn't work and won't actually protect anyone. That merely makes it useless, not harmful.