Reply
Fri 10 Dec, 2004 01:13 pm
Should Canada accept the Continental ballistic defence system thing that the US proposed? The problem as critics have argued is that this could be the first step of the weaponization of space.
I'm anxious to hear some feedback form the members here on this one too.
I have a very limited knowledge of the implications (read: why the hell Canada would want to supoort this!?) of Canada getting involved, and would like to hear a defence or support for it that wasn't pitched by Dubya.
Wouldn't exactly be continental if Canada wasn't included, would it?
McGentrix wrote:Wouldn't exactly be continental if Canada wasn't included, would it?
No it wouldn't.
But it also wouldn't be
necessary for Canada to join for the US to go ahead with it anyway.
Kinda like "free trade". It's not really free, is it?
I guess it's up to the Canadians really. If they want the protection of the US they cooperate, otherwise, they don't.
Canada is a free nation welcome to do what they think is best for themselves.
ray - they had a Canada-wide call-in show on this on the CBC last week. It might be worth looking at the archives for that debate. A lot of interesting issues were discussed.
Edit to change Sunday to week - I have to look up the actual show.
It was Sunday.
http://www.cbc.ca/checkup/archives.html
Look at December 5.
from Rex Murphy's intro essay
Quote:"Is President Bush right about Canada not pulling its weight?"
This week U.S. President, for a second term, George Bush made his first official visit to Canada. It was a double stop: in Ottawa, where he did not address Parliament, and Halifax, where the president came to say a belated thank-you to the east coast and all the country for helping stranded U.S. citizens in the days following 9-11.
Halifax turned out to be more than just thank-you for good deeds past. The American president used the occasion to make a substantial speech on a number of matters, and in particular went out of his way to bring up the controversial issue of continental missile defence. Here in this country, the missile defence initiative is strongly opposed by the NDP, divides the Liberal caucus, polls tell us is fiercely opposed by most Quebecers, and is probably not an easy choice for the Conservative as well.
I think Rex framed the debate questions well - worth taking a look, and listen, to what's at that link.
In this and several other issues Canadians will have to decide to what degree they wish to cooperate with their southern neighbor in matters of concern to him. The United States has every right to propose such things as joint continental defense. Canada, of course, has the right to decline to participate. In this case the U.S. will undoubtedly go ahead with the program but with higher costs and less effectiveness due to the geographic constraints. Inevitably the resulting system will function to defend Canada as well, at least to some degree. This will remain as another irritant in our relationship.
Canadians will go on thinking that the U.S. is excessively militaristic, too preoccupied with criminal enforcement of drugs laws, and too restrictive in its trade policies.
Americans will go on resenting Canadian refusals in these areas, but will generally turn their attention to other, more pressing matters. At some point we will recognize that Canada enjoys an enormous favorable trade balance with the United States, but treats us as an opponent instead of as their best customer and neighbor. Then we will start exercising appropriate controls of people and goods crossing our border, and Canada's economy will be sorely stressed - and they will wonder why
.
I think you'll find some of the discussion at the link I posted interesting, georgeO.
The balance of trade thing is interesting. Most people aren't aware of how spiderweb-like some of the connections and interests are between Canada and the U.S. A surprising amount of Canadian investment in the U.S., and Germany, Japan and China have interests in both that also need to be assuaged.
I understand and agree. My point is that, in both relative and absolute terms, Canada is by a very large margin, the principal beneficiary of the very open border we share. If we were to start inspecting containers and goods crossing the border much of Canada's industrial plant, particularly that supporting just in time delivery, would be shut down and the marginal economic advantage it enjoys, wiped out.
In such circumstances it is a bit surprising that Canadians feel so free to wag their fingers at us so spiritedly, and to criticize our drugs, security and international policies with so much evident energy and self-satisfaction. At some point there may be a reaction, and, once engaged, such things are not easily reversed.
I believe the current dispute over the importation of live cattle from Canada is illustrative. The import restrictions we took are identical to those imposed on us by other countries once the diseased cow was discovered here. They were even less than those imposed on Britain by her EU trading partners. Despite this, Canadian rhetoric suggests we have imposed something unreasonable on them, and have no real right to do it. At some point Americans will wake up to this nonsense and our relationship could well change very quickly and in a lasting way.
Thanks for the link EhBeth.
georgeob1, I agree that we (as in the Canadians) need the U.S. for economic benefits and I am ashamed of those who make fun of Americans ( but we do it for jokes mostly anyways as you guys would joke about us living in igloos), but as for criticizing the current administration's actions I am not ashamed on. It's not only Canadians who are criticizing the current Bush administration, it is also some of the Americans themselves who do not agree with Mr. Bush. I mean, they should not have invaded Iraq, but rather help secure Afghanistan, capture the terrorists within and pressure Pakistan to let American troops clear out terrorist zones within their country. In my opinion the invasion of Iraq was not a part of the war on terror and it was a strategic mistake to occupy Iraq when Afghanistan needs to be fully stabilized.
As for the continental defense system, I don't think that the U.S. really need it anyways. Who would actually be dumb enough to strike at a country with so many nuclear arsenals at their disposal? There are issues to be discussed and this is why it's not that simple to just accept the U.S. proposal.
georgeob1 wrote:Americans will go on resenting Canadian refusals in these areas, but will generally turn their attention to other, more pressing matters. At some point we will recognize that Canada enjoys an enormous favorable trade balance with the United States, but treats us as an opponent instead of as their best customer and neighbor. Then we will start exercising appropriate controls of people and goods crossing our border, and Canada's economy will be sorely stressed - and they will wonder why
.
Canadians, fear our MIGHTY WRATH!
What an idiotic idea the missle defense system is. There is zero evidence that the system would work, and the amount of money it would cost is staggering.
Perhaps we can focus on a more, I don't know, Canadian approach: trying harder not to piss people off.
Cycloptichorn
The Missle Defense System is nothing but pure pork.
It is designed as a political perk to US Aerospace companies and as a boost to the ego of mindless ultra-patriotic hawks.
Why the heck should Canada waste a single cent on this?
It is a fair question to ask why the US should waste a single cent on this, but obviously people in the government are profiting from it. If American voters and taxpayers are too stupid to stop them, who's to complain.
No mighty wrath at all. Merely bad feelings that could last and change the character of the relationship. Canada enjoys extremely good access to US markets and the benefits of a very open border - the result is an enormous trade surplus. The U.S. is by a very large margin Canada's best customer. In business one ignores his customer at his own jeapordy.
Certainly Canada made a very big deal about our embargo on live cattle imports from them as a result of the case of MCD. Is this a public health or an economic issue? Canada says it is purely an economic issue and demands we lift the embargo, now. The U.S. has said it is a public health issue and kept the embargo on, but has promised a speedy review. Given that such embargos are routinely established by EU nations, and were imposed on us until we had proved to them we had the matter under control, our response to Canada seems reasonable. Who is right?
The fact is that the attitudes of the people involved have a lot to do with how such issues are handled. It seems to me that in these and other issues Canadians are asking a lot and offering very little indeed. This could change both the attitudes and behavior of people in many ways. The economic sensitivities are such that only slight changes could have large adverse effects on Canada.
There is clearly a significant relationship - but tightening the borders would not be to the advantage of either side, as many of the border governors will attest to (even when you're not asking - they seem to be the most vocal proponents of more open borders when Canadians talk about tightening them).
Balance of trade stats -
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/gblec02a.htm
$330,375.3 million - canajun exports to u.s.
$239,870.7 million - canajun imports from u.s.
The question remains - who would benefit from Missile Defense?
As many debates as I've listened to and read - the answer is not obvious.
Your figures are correct and they demonstrate what a large trade surplus Canada enjoys with us. Canada is a large net importer with all of her other trading partners. Her surplus with the United States more than makes up for the difference.
I generally agree that any restraint on trade hurts both sides. However, both in relative and absolute terms, Canada has far more to lose in this than the United States. It seems to me that Canadians are behaving with less sensitivity than their self-interest requires. I believe the live cattle matter illustrates the point.
Re: Canada and the Continetal defence system
The question Ray is trying to work on is not live cattle. It's ...
Ray wrote:Should Canada accept the Continental ballistic defence system thing that the US proposed? The problem as critics have argued is that this could be the first step of the weaponization of space.
What are the pros and cons?
Whether or not it is in Canada's interest to agree with the U.S. on any number of issues may be one aspect, but it's not really speaking to Ray's question.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace