2
   

Canada and the Continetal defence system

 
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 04:09 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
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.


Interesting. I'm not sure how the live cattle and the missile defence system are related, but you are entitled to your opinion, as are we Canadians. It does seem that the world at large is truly insensitive to the needs of the USA. Wouldn't you agree georgeob1?
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 04:22 pm
live cattle-missile defense....live cattle-missile defense....hmmmm
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 04:36 pm
Space has long since been"weaponized". (ecept only for the warheads themselves - and that is not a planned part of the new system.) The U.S. will deploy a missile defense system, if fo no other reason, to avoid being one day held hostage to threats from a power like the DPRK or Iran. Denying such countries trump cards such as this can be argued as in the general interest. It will be cheaper and more capable if Canada cooperates. The system will protect both countries, whether or not Canada cooperates. This decision is, of course, entirely up to Canada.

In this and other matters - even ones as relatively inconsequential as restrictions on the import of live cattle - Canada must decide how much weight to give the interests and wants of her immediate neighbor and largest trading partner. Canada is free to make - and should make - whatever decision she regards as best representing her own long-term interests. Emotional reactions to short-term political factors may well point Canada to choices that have bad long-term effects for her.

Both sides should consider how these decisions are viewed by the other. Shall Americans conclude that the economic interests of Canadian cattlemen are more important than our public health? Shall Americans conclude that the political distaste of Canadians is more important than the protection of the continent from threats of missile attack by governments like the DPRK, which have no quarrel with Canada, but a large one with the USA.

Is there something about this that you find hard to understand?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 07:09 pm
Looks like Canadian involvement in missile defense is not on at this point. Just heard the prime minister's year end interview on the CBC.

If you're interested, you can click here to find out when the program will air in your area tonight (this link is one of the U.S. pages). Alternatively, check here http://www.cbc.ca/aih/findus.html
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 07:13 pm
The only thing I don't understand is how someone so intelligent can be so condescending and smirky...but then...you must have your reasons.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 07:19 pm
huh?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 10:47 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Space has long since been"weaponized".

Since when?

georgeob1 wrote:
The system will protect both countries, whether or not Canada cooperates.

Then Canada is obviously acting rationally by not cooperating.

georgeob1 wrote:
Both sides should consider how these decisions are viewed by the other.

I consider Canada's decision not to participate in a grotesquely expensive, technically flawed, easily circumvented, politically misguided, largely unnecessary, and probably unfeasible missile defense system to be eminently sensible.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 12:12 am
http://arscomica.org/pix2/madcow.jpg

Moooove or be mowed down.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 04:45 am
Celi,

That was cute - and funny ! You can keep the rest of your cows!

Joe,

Your last paragraph contains your views on the matter. They are arguable, and many serious and well-informed people think otherwise. As for the rest, you simply refused to consider the other (real) factors I listed. OK by me of you do, but don't pretend that you have dealt with them.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 09:29 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Joe,

Your last paragraph contains your views on the matter. They are arguable, and many serious and well-informed people think otherwise. As for the rest, you simply refused to consider the other (real) factors I listed. OK by me of you do, but don't pretend that you have dealt with them.

I never pretended to offer a comprehensive reply to all of your points. By using the quote function, I quite clearly identified those statements to which I was offering a comment. In any event, I considered the other factors that you noted; I just didn't think they were worthy of a response.

Moreover, I asked you a direct question regarding your claim that space is already weaponized. I can understand if you choose not to answer it, but I want to remind you of it here just in case you might have missed it the first time.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 10:52 am
cavfancier wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
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.


Interesting. I'm not sure how the live cattle and the missile defence system are related, but you are entitled to your opinion, as are we Canadians. It does seem that the world at large is truly insensitive to the needs of the USA. Wouldn't you agree georgeob1?


I think that speaks to the problem some of "us" have with Canada-US relations. There really is not connection between cattle exports and a missile defense system, but the Bush administration seems to make connections like these to administer some degree of retribution when Canada doesn't respond to His policies like a lap dog.

He has made it clear, not only with respect to the war on terrorism, but also economic policy, trade, defense, moral issues etc. that Dubya believes "you are with us or against us".

Canada has experienced fractured relations with the US most significantly within the last 4 years. This is no coincidence. It's not anti-Americanism per se, rather it's a new breed of anti-Bush-anything
anti-Americanism. If the US was truly concerned with our participation in the missile defense system, or any other issue that our two nations face together, Bush would live up to his campaign slogan that he is "a uniter, not a divider".

So far, Bush has done nothing but unite the GOP and the American right, and divide anyone else who doesn't agree with his vision.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 10:55 am
George, I'm not going to whine again but... after yesterday's underhanded illegal move by the americans on the whole soft wood lumber thang. I dunno, free trade ain't free when canadian tariffs go straight to lining the pockets of our competetion, but hey, it's all right if canada pays and loses - we've got a huge trade deficit, we should be happy as pigs in sh*t!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 10:56 am
Perhaps the Canadians don't want to be a part of a useless, failing system that only exists to make money for well-placed contractors?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/15/missile.defense.ap/index.html

Quote:
U.S. missile defense test fails

Interceptor shuts down, does not launch


WASHINGTON (AP) -- An interceptor missile failed to launch early Wednesday in what was to have been the first full flight test of the U.S. national missile defense system in nearly two years.

The Missile Defense Agency has attempted to conduct the test several times this month, but scrubbed each one for a variety of reasons, including various weather problems and a malfunction on a recovery vessel not directly related to the equipment being tested.

A target missile carrying a mock warhead was successfully launched as scheduled from Kodiak, Alaska, at 12:45 a.m. EST, in the first launch of a target missile from Kodiak in support of a full flight test of the system.

However, the agency said the ground-based interceptor "experienced an anomaly shortly before it was to be launched" from the Ronald Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean 16 minutes after the target missile left Alaska.

An announcement said the interceptor experienced an automatic shutdown "due to an unknown anomaly."

The agency gave no other details and said program officials will review pre-launch data to determine the cause for the shutdown.

The military is in final preparations to activate missile defenses designed to protect against an intercontinental ballistic missile attack from North Korea or elsewhere in eastern Asia.

Wednesday's test was to have been the first in which the interceptor used the same booster rocket that the operational system would use.

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.


The missle defense program we have doesn't work worth a ****. It's a waste of money and of effort. We would be better off throwing the research dollars into field technology, which (imho) shows a lot more promise for defense...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 06:02 pm
Ceili wrote:
George, I'm not going to whine again but... after yesterday's underhanded illegal move by the americans on the whole soft wood lumber thang. I dunno, free trade ain't free when canadian tariffs go straight to lining the pockets of our competetion, but hey, it's all right if canada pays and loses - we've got a huge trade deficit, we should be happy as pigs in sh*t!


Ceili,

I'll confess that I don't know have a balanced view of the details of the soft lumber issue.

I do know something about the concerns of our government. We are losing our forests to fire and parasite infestation at an unprecedented rate. This is the result of a thoroughly unnatural accumulation of densely packed small trees and underbrush resulting from prolonged fire prevention (however contradictory that may seem0 and the prohibition of selective logging enforced by misguided environmentalists. The remedy is increased, but controlled, logging done on a systematic basis. Our government is trying to accomplish this and this issue may be one of several influences affecting their actions.

Secondly, like all governments ours is also looking for ways to more closely balance imports and exports - to the extent permitted by trade conventions - with our principal trading partners, notably Canada, which enjoys a huge trade surplus with us.

I don't know anything about Canada's case or view of the matter, but am readily willing to stipulate that Canada is motivated by issues at least as meritorious as ours, perhaps even more so.

The fact is that feelings and emotions on both sides of our border are rather aroused right now. There may be as much American resentment and reaction to perceived Canadian slights as good old Yankee greed and selfishness involved in this matter. I tried earlier to illustrate this point without appearing to offer threats - which I do not intend. I don't think I succeeded. However it is an unhappy fact that our two countries don't feel particularly neighborly towards one another, and haven't felt so for a rather long time. I believe that Americans feel this way perhaps to a greater extent than many Canadians perceive. (even a decade ago in the Navy we were bothered by Canadian failures to live up to NATO committments, and criticisms of our international policies.) We do get enough public comment from recent Canadian governments to get a pretty good general impression of feelings there.

Even here on A2K there is a good deal more criticism of America by Canadians than of Canada by Americans. We do notice this - even those of us (not me) who don't mention it. I have no doubt that we are often hard to take with our characteristic self-centeredness and other overbearing qualities. However we react to more or less the same things that you do - and perhaps in similar ways. I happen to think that my country is - all things considered - a pretty good place. Moreover I believe we are doing a somewhat better job in our moment in the historical sun than did many of our European predecessors in this position. It often feels like we are being judged unfairly by people who do not consider the situations we face. I find it rather odd to be regarded by former allies as a threat to global stability so soon after the fall of a far more dreadful common foe. Moreover I simply don't buy that whole argument. I am not alone in my feelings in this regard, and I believe our recent elections confirm this as well.

This too may be a part of what is going on. Perhaps the question is not so much who is at greatest fault in the last or most recent iteration, but rather how to break a pattern that may be spiraling downward to the benefit of no one..
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2004 08:23 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The missle defense program we have doesn't work worth a ****. It's a waste of money and of effort.
Cycloptichorn


You should consider the possiblity that you don't know what you are talking about. The system is primarily designed to deny a DPRK or Iran or the equivalenty the ability to hold us hostage to a small capability on their part. Given the certainty of retaliation only a moderate probability of effective defense is adequate to negate such a threat. Without it we could be manipulated in intolerable ways. Over time we could develop more capable intercept systems using the same detection and tracking systems.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:16 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The missle defense program we have doesn't work worth a ****. It's a waste of money and of effort.
Cycloptichorn



Anyone have a dollar figure on this venture?
I heard on the CBC yesterday that the US was not asking the Canadian government for financial assistance with this program....but they did not elaborate beyond that.
Can anyone confirm this or elaborate as well?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:39 am
I believe the principaL U.S. interest is geographical - for the positioning of surveillance and tracking systems for transpolar missile trajectories.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:51 am
candidone1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The missle defense program we have doesn't work worth a ****. It's a waste of money and of effort.
Cycloptichorn



Anyone have a dollar figure on this venture?
I heard on the CBC yesterday that the US was not asking the Canadian government for financial assistance with this program....but they did not elaborate beyond that.
Can anyone confirm this or elaborate as well?


candidone - if you'll look at the cross-country check-up link I gave toward the beginning of the thread, you'll find a lot of the details. The backgrounder (if you click on guests) may be helpful. In the call-in, it was interesting that several people commented on the clean-up costs after other U.S./Canadian/Nato programs ended. I hadn't been aware of some of the chemical clean-up that had been required in some regions.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:55 am
While I'm not sure I'm wild about this site - it does have some very good links running down the left side.

ploughshares

ie. under


Missile defence program
- Program details
- Program context
ABM Treaty
Deployment issues
- Nature of missile threat
- Technology status
- Cost estimates
- Impact of deployment
Canada and missile defence
- Canadian government
- Parliamentary testimony
- Ploughshares position
Missile defence link pages
Missile defence news

if you click on cost estimates (at the site)

you get further links to sites including


Quote:
Budgetary and Technical Implications of the Administration's Plan for National Missile Defense
Congressional Budget Office
April 2000
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2004 09:57 am
in any case, it's a bit of a moot point, as the PM has said Canadian involvement is not on.

i definitely recommend always making an effort to catch the year-end interview the PM's do with the CBC
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/31/2023 at 01:42:10