Canada to say 'No' to Ballistic Missile Defence

Search

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
I am positively gobsmacked at this new development. Earlier today, I read that Frank McKenna said that Canada was already signed up to Bush's BMD adventure ... and I was quite pissed. Here's hoping the following rumour is true ...

Martin will say No to U.S. missile shield in surprise announcement

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width=420 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=center><TD width="40%"><!-- Yahoo TimeStamp: 1109129940 --><!-- recent_timestamp 1109129940 3276 secs not stale 28800 secs -->54 minutes ago
</TD><TD noWrap align=right width="60%"></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


<!-- TextStart -->[size=-1]ALEXANDER PANETTA[/size]

[size=-1]OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin will deliver a firm No to Canadian participation in the U.S. missile defence plan and break a lengthy silence that fomented confusion on both sides of the border. [/size]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="1%" align=left border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width="99%"><!-- ult --></TD><TD width=5> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>[size=-1]

The announcement, first reported by a radio station and confirmed by federal officials Tuesday night, will come Thursday and end a streak of obfuscation where Martin refused to state Canada's position.



News of the announcement follows a day of confusion on Parliament Hill after Frank McKenna, Martin's choice to be the next ambassador to the U.S., sparked a political firestorm by saying participation in the controversial continental missile defence system is a done deal.



The end of Martin's silence will come as an about-face for a prime minister who had repeatedly stated his support for missile defence when he was a Liberal leadership candidate barely a year ago.



Martin had promised a new era of Canada-U.S. relations after bitter divisions over the war in Iraq. But American officials had warned it would be an inauspicious start to any new era if Canada refused to join the missile plan.



Opposition inside and outside the Liberal party made it impossible for Martin to move forward, said government officials.



The U.S. was informed of the Canada's plans at a NATO summit in Brussels, attended by Martin and President George W. Bush, and the news was also conveyed Tuesday through diplomats in Ottawa and Washington.



"(The Americans) were told we will not participate," a federal official, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Canadian Press.



"It is a firm No. I am not sure it is an indefinite No"



The prime minister had repeatedly voiced support for missile defence when he was a Liberal leadership candidate, but began backing away during the federal election campaign last June.



Desperate to court left-leaning votes in English Canada from the NDP and in Quebec from the Bloc Quebecois, Martin suddenly said he would not condone the project if it meant the weaponization of space.



The political realities - especially the frailty of the Liberal party in Quebec - have not changed and Martin will complete his retreat on the issue this week.



When even the staunchly pro-U.S. and military-friendly Conservatives began waffling over missile defence a few months ago, the Liberal government was left isolated.



Fear of seeing his Liberals take a beating in an election over missile defence forced Martin to hit the pause button months ago. Current political events appear to have hastened his decision.



With his minority Liberals braced for a potentially fatal confidence vote over the budget, and for a bruising battle over missile defence at a policy convention next month, Martin spent recent days preparing his reversal.



"The will to participate is no longer there," another government official said several days ago.



"I think the internal conflict - the dissension within the party - is now almost insurmountable. This is because of domestic considerations."

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="1%" align=left border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD width="99%"></TD><TD width=5> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>





Liberal brass was prepared to "get destroyed over this" by the rank and file at the Liberals' biennial convention in Ottawa early next month, said the source.

Public opinion polls have suggested two-thirds of Canadians opposed missile defence. That opposition grew in the vacuum of any public support from the federal government.

Within Martin's cabinet, only Defence Minister Bill Graham and Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan lobbied in favour of the project. Leading opponents included Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew and Infrastructure Minister John Godfrey.

McKenna's comments earlier in the day triggered an uproar and prompted an opposition pile-on during Tuesday's question period in the House of Commons.

"We're part of it now and the question is what more do we need?" McKenna said of Canada's role in missile defence.

"Canada's position is not a done deal," a beleaguered Graham insisted later in the House of Commons under a hail of opposition questions.

He noted the government has yet to sign a memorandum of understanding on the program.

The program would cost billions of dollars and the U.S. hasn't requested any money, and the Americans were offering Canada a decision-making role in the system's deployment.

Bush made a bold pitch for Canadian participation during his visit here late last year. He already secured Canada's agreement to amend the cross-border NORAD program last summer and make it the monitoring agency for missile defence.




BMD is seen by many Canadians (including myself) as the first stage in the longer-term goal to weaponise space. In the short term, it could well spark another arms race; heck, that might even be a goal for BushCo.

My vote last June was based almost entirely on this issue, so I'm quite happy with this news. Shocked, but very happy.[/size]
 

New member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
308
Tokens
xpanda said:
the U.S. hasn't requested any money, and the Americans were offering Canada a decision-making role in the system's deployment.

So basically the US wants to protect Canada from ICBMs, plus give Canadians a decision making role, and ask for no money in return. Sounds like a bum deal for you.

Unfortunately, when they finally get the thing working, Canada will be "under the shield" whether you like it or not.
 

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
612
Tokens
In protecting ourselves, we have to protect our pinheads to the north..it is for our own good and certainly not for their's.
 

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
612
Tokens
After all, we always seem to protect those who can't protect themselves...
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
It's just a scam, to get US taxpayers money.
The biggest asset of the program itself is its anti-aircraft missile potential.

On 9/11 the Pentagon got hit 40 minutes after the towers and there wasn't even a US airforce Sopwith biplane hovering around Pentagon airspace.

Submarine launched missiles would take about 6 minutes to zap the US.

The best you could ever hope for, in a proper nuke incident, is 50% of incoming stuff being caught.

So you would be half armageddoned, instead of totally armageddoned.

icon10.gif


As far as "Canada getting a decision making role" is concerned, well if they were dumb enough to believe that then they deserve everything they get.
 
Last edited:

hangin' about
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
13,875
Tokens
BMD is complete horsepoo. All one needs to do is attach a balloon (and no, not the birthday party variety) to the tip of an ICBM and it becomes undetectable. BMD is a ruse to put interceptor platforms in space, which of course then turns into putting weapons in space.

Even if our opposition is merely moral in nature, I say give a big fat FU to Bush and his GloboCop mandate. Way too much power concentrated in far too few hands.

I've been noting some of PM Martin's other activities of late ... since Xmas, he's been to Europe, India and China. I know he's been quite pissed at the US over trade issues and recognises that our economic dependence on exports to the south is dangerous for us, especially given the volatility in their economy. I suspect his 'no' to BMD is part of a larger signal to maneouver ourselves away from the US and into additional alliances. Never a bad idea to hedge, IMO.
 

Lester Rodney Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
1,635
Tokens

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,917
Tokens
Great logic there Fidel....something still has bugs to be worked out so DON'T DO ANYTHING. I'm glad geniuses like you weren't around when the Wright Bros. were trying to fly. You'd post the same sort of drivel.

Rumsfeld had it right when he said "the best way to develop a system is to get it into the ground, work out the problems and keep testing so the capability evolves into the early stages of a missile defense. If you didn't do anything until you could do everything, you probably wouldn't do anything,"
 

bushman
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
14,457
Tokens
As far as nukes are concerned if you can only stop 300 out of 500 modern high-yield warheads it's a waste of time.

You're still zapped.

And 60% is as high as you could ever hope for.

The French cancelled their supersonic Exocet anti-ship missile because unlike the sub-sonic version it was too darn dangerous to put into the hands of lesser military powers who might need a bítch-slapping from the West now and then.

They would effectively be selling a weapon to places like Iran/Iraq/Argentina that could scare the pants off a carrier group and had a high probability of penetrating a carrier groups' anti-missile defences.

If they can't even stop sea level anti-ship stuff then stopping ballistic stuff is a pipe-dream.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,122,542
Messages
13,614,072
Members
101,354
Latest member
starbookwriting
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com