I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Dec 28th, 2004 02:33 AM

Neurotic monkey

HA HA canada has no army

Dec 6th, 2004 03:55 PM

Emu

Walter, why don't you ever post anything relevant?

Dec 6th, 2004 03:43 PM

Zebra 3

King's Thoughts on Meeting Loving Adolf

Quote:

He [Chancellor Adolf Hitler] smiled very pleasantly and indeed had a sort of appealing and affectionate look in his eyes. My sizing up of the man as I sat and talked with him was that he is really one who truly loves his fellow man. His face is much more pre- possessing than his pictures would give the impression of. It is not that of a fiery over-strained nature but of a calm, passive man deeply and thoughtfully in earnest. His skin was smooth. His face did not present lines of fatigue or weariness. His eyes impressed me most of all. There was a liquid qualify about them which indicates keen perception and profound sympathy. Calm, composed and one could see how particularly humble folk would have come to have profound love for the man. As I talked with him I could not but think of Joan of Arc. He is distinctly a mystic.
- Mackenzie King, Canadian PM 1937

Dec 6th, 2004 09:42 AM

AChimp

http://www.canada.com/national/story...1-26f144a539aa

Bush scoffed at opposition to missile defence during private meeting with PM

Robert Russo
Canadian Press

Sunday, December 05, 2004

OTTAWA -- A brief question laden with incredulity foreshadowed George W. Bush's determination to sell missile defence directly to Canadians and taught Prime Minister Paul Martin that what occurs behind closed doors rarely stays there.

The U.S. president had a pointed question for his host on missile defence: Why would anyone be opposed to this?

Martin, describing the Ottawa discussion a few days later during an impromptu encounter with a handful of reporters, said Canada's possible participation in the U.S. plan to erect a system aimed at knocking down supersonic missiles was raised during the private meeting Tuesday between the two leaders.

The prime minister said the discussion on the contentious issue lasted less than a minute.

But Bush's emphatic pitch, made so publicly to Canadians, caught Martin's team unawares and will undoubtedly roil political debate in Canada for months.

The Pentagon has strung together a preliminary system that uses detection devices in space to track threatening missiles. But the current U.S. plan calls for any rogue missile to be brought down by ground-based rockets rather than space-based weapons.

China and Russia are developing new long-range rockets in response to Bush's ballistic missile defence project, prompting fears of a new arms race.

Any doubts about the effect of Bush's intervention were put to rest over the weekend when the Quebec wing of Martin's Liberal party voted in favour of a motion calling on the prime minister to keep Canada out of U.S.-led missile interceptor program.

Among those urging Martin to say no to Bush were several Liberal MPs, including Denis Coderre.

"It is perhaps by standing up like we did during the war in Iraq that we show that we have our own identity and that we are in favour of the welfare of the entire planet," Coderre said during the policy conference in Montreal.

About 30 Liberal MPs are considering voting against any agreement that would lock Canada into an anti-ballistic missile defence shield led by the United States. Opposition Leader Stephen Harper has yet to take a formal position on the question, although the Conservatives' deputy leader was sending strong signals in favour of missile defence on Sunday.

"If we don't participate, we completely lose our voice in these discussions," Nova Scotia MP Peter Mackay said.

"I think this is very much about the defence of North America."

Bush's private scoffing at opposition to his missile defence plans would suggest a surprising lack of awareness of Canadian political reality or a president who is determined to prod his host into defending his reticence to take a clear position on one of his legacy projects.

State Department officials said Bush was amply briefed on the fragility of Canada's minority government. He knew exactly how divisive a House of Commons debate over missile defence would be and he knew that debate would be largely controlled by the opposition parties.

Any president with aides able to pluck a six-decade-old quote from Mackenzie King - a Canadian prime minister who's been dead for over a half-century - and deftly drop it into his centrepiece speech Wednesday in Halifax knew what he was doing when he decided to effectively go over Martin's head and sell missile defence to Canadians.

"I hope we will also move forward on missile defence to protect the next generation of Canadians and Americans from threats we know will arise," Bush said, as Martin looked on, shortly before concluding his first official visit to Canada.

Martin acknowledged later that he had no inkling that Bush would use Canada's longest-serving prime minister to advance one of his cherished foreign policy goals.

Nor did he expect Bush to go from questioning the opposition to the system in private to trying to convert Canadian skeptics in public.

Martin did tell Bush during their closed-door meeting that the issue was divisive in Canada and it would be brought forward for debate in the fractured Commons.

Bush evidently decided to use the presidential bully pulpit to subtly strongarm the direction that debate might take. That has likely forced Martin, who keenly wanted to control the timing of any public discussion on the issue, into taking a stand sooner than he would have liked on a question that wins him no votes in the province that will make or break his hopes for a majority government: Quebec.

Dec 3rd, 2004 10:53 PM

Zebra 3

- Four fuckin' million dollars spent on extra-extra security in Ottawa to protect that little shit...

Dec 3rd, 2004 12:39 AM

Command Prompt

Somewhere in Alberta, a village has it's idiot posting on the internet.

Dec 2nd, 2004 10:14 PM

FartinMowler

We don't need Norad... The U.S. has put so much money into this peice of crap that will never work. They use are wilderness to do testing and put at risk everyday with there giant heavy war hand and we can't even do fair trade and stay nuetral. I think we should just wait out this clowns administration and make a clear point we don't approve of his tactics.

Dec 2nd, 2004 10:09 PM

Command Prompt

NORAD: This is true.

But saying we need to get on board with him, was like Japan and Italy saying, let's get on board with this Hitler guy, since he's gonna do it anyway.

I think the funniest protest sign was the one that said

BUSH: Get your flu shot and go home

Dec 2nd, 2004 09:58 PM

AChimp

Chretien would have knocked Bush over the head with his brass balls.

That said, I think that it would probably be a good idea for Canada to get onboard with the BMD in a limited way, because the US is going to go ahead with it regardless of our participation. It would just suck to find out one day that we have missiles pointed over our territory and not have any say in when or where they get shot at.

The US needs us for NORAD, as well. Without the DEW line, BMD is useless.

Dec 2nd, 2004 09:37 PM

Command Prompt

I don't like where this is going. Your president is clearly fucking insane, while Our prime minister has lost any marbles he had left, by even thinking that this idiotic missle thing would be a good idea, especially after the border has been locked down for so long, its practically crippled our economy. What good is a rising dollar when the people who buy our goddamn cows the most WON'T BUY OUR GODDAMN COWS

P.S. Crietien never would of stood for this shit. He would of sent Bush packing. So what if he was by far the laziest prime minister for the 50 years he was in power, at least he didn't get bulliet around by the US.

P.S.S. I think Bush has been playing too much C&C: Generals inbetween naps.

Dec 2nd, 2004 09:04 PM

FartinMowler

pretty much sums up Canada's relationship with the U.S. :/

Dec 2nd, 2004 08:56 PM

ziggytrix

Well, I wish I could say it's been fun chatting with you, but this is clearly going nowhere.

Dec 2nd, 2004 08:50 PM

FartinMowler

I'm not the best at explaining things so I will try my best to make my point. The show clearly explained, but doesn't show very well in the internet site that The terrorists are still working on bombing the shit out of the world and the war in Iraq is just a training ground. Bush know's that Canada is really not impressed (to say lightly) with him and he is Antangonizing us.

Dec 2nd, 2004 08:44 PM

ziggytrix

No, I genuinely don't see your point.

Dec 2nd, 2004 08:22 PM

FartinMowler

Your just trying to annoy me

Dec 2nd, 2004 08:07 PM

ziggytrix

Skimmed it and checked your link and I don't see where Bush "threatened" Canada.

Dec 2nd, 2004 08:00 PM

FartinMowler

[/quote]What does that link have to do with what you said above?

Quote:

After watching it the new's came on talking about Bush and his comments about Canada joining in on the Missile defense.

Also, in the original post, the first paragraph is yours, and the next two are a quote of something, aren't they?

Quote:

Read the News Release:

Canada-U.S. Exchange Letters On Missile Defence (January 15, 2004)

CANADA AND BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE
Discussions with the United States on possible Canadian participation in the Ballistic Missile Defence of North America.
I. Background
In accordance with the 1994 Defence White Paper, Canada has held regular consultations on Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) with the United States and other allies in recent years, both bilaterally and through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Canada and the United States established a BMD Bilateral Information Sharing Working Group that has met twice a year since 2000. In addition, Canada placed a Canadian Forces Liaison Officer with the US Missile Defense Agency in early 2001 for the purpose of supporting the ongoing consultation and information exchange process.

On December 17, 2002 a major development occurred in US BMD policy. President George W. Bush announced that the United States would deploy an initial operational BMD system for the defence of North America by the fall of 2004. This announcement prompted Canada to review its position on BMD and its implications for continental security.

On May 29, 2003 the Government announced that it would enter into discussions with the United States on possible Canadian participation in the missile defence of North America. The key issues for Canada were identified as protecting Canadians, Canadian territory and other Canadian interests. Since that time Canadian and US delegations have met on a number of occasions at various levels.

On January 15, 2004 the Minister of National Defence and the US Secretary of Defense exchanged Letters of Intent, stating the interest of both nations in negotiating an agreement on cooperation in the ballistic missile defence of North America. The Letters confirm high-level US support for potential Canadian participation in BMD and will facilitate access to more detailed information on missile defence planning.

The Letters of Intent do not constitute an agreement between Canada and the United States on Canadian participation in BMD. The exchange is a non-binding mechanism developed by both nations to facilitate further talks on BMD. When the discussions have concluded, the Government will assess if Canadian interests have been met and will take a decision on Canadian participation in BMD. Due to the complexities of the issues at stake, these talks are expected to take a number of months.

The Letters of Intent also refer to an interim amendment to the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) Agreement. This amendment will be developed in the coming months. Its purpose is to give Canadian NORAD personnel access to critical BMD planning information until the system's deployment in October 2004.

II. US Plans for a BMD System
Brief History: The United States has been researching BMD since the 1940s, briefly deploying a system in the mid-1970s. President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) of the 1980's revived the concept of ballistic missile defence. However, SDI was based on exotic space technologies and was intended to counter the entire nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union. Technological challenges, high cost-estimates, and the end of the Cold War halted SDI.

Responding to the changing strategic environment and the proliferation of ballistic missile systems and weapons of mass destruction, President Clinton agreed in principle in the mid-1990s to the need for BMD. The National Missile Defense Act of 1999 stated that a modest ground-based missile defence system would be deployed as soon as the technology permitted. At this time the United States attempted to continue developing BMD plans while remaining consistent with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

In 2002, believing that the international strategic environment had deteriorated further and that the ABM Treaty was outmoded, the United States negotiated an end to the treaty with Russia in order to permit the expansion of missile defences. The United States argued that the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine was no longer appropriate in a world of asymmetric threats and where an increasing number of countries are acquiring and seeking to acquire ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.

Current US Plans: The US objective is to develop the capability to defend its territory, deployed American forces, and its friends and allies from hostile or accidentally launched ballistic missiles. The system, which will initially provide only limited capability to protect North America, will be ground- and sea-based, starting with ten missile interceptors in 2004, increasing up to forty by 2005. Interceptors would destroy their targets by making physical contact with them at extremely high rates of speed (not using nuclear or conventional explosive warheads). Unlike SDI of the 1980s, the BMD system to be deployed in 2004 is intended to defeat only a small number of incoming missiles. It is not intended, nor would it have the capability, to counter the Russian strategic arsenal.

Long-range US BMD plans envision a 'layered' approach to intercepting missiles by using land (large interceptor rockets or mobile launchers such as the current US 'Patriot' system), sea ('Aegis' class missile ships), and air (airborne laser) platforms to shoot down incoming missiles. Air- and sea-based platforms can be positioned close to the launch site to intercept a hostile missile during its 'boost phase' (the period just after a missile's launch). Land-based platforms are better at intercepting missiles during the 'mid-course phase' (when the missile is coasting through space or high in the atmosphere) and 'terminal phase' (when the missile makes its final approach toward its intended target). The 2004 deployment focusses on the 'mid-course phase', with interceptor sites in Alaska and California.

The US is continuing to research space-based weapons technology, but has made no decision on fielding such systems. The cost and technological challenges of space weapons means that such systems will likely be many years away from deployment, if ever.

BMD Tests: Testing of the ballistic missile defence system in recent months and years has had mixed results: five of eight tests of long-range interceptors have succeeded. Testing is gaining in complexity and precision, integrating multifaceted systems as well as improving the capability to intercept targets. The United States is committed to providing the resources and the effort to ensure that an effective system is developed. This includes integrating new technologies as they become available and continually upgrading the BMD system at two-year intervals.

Pending Decisions: In order to meet the fall 2004 deadline, the US has already begun to make far-reaching decisions regarding command structures and the overall architecture of the system. Of particular concern to Canada, US decision-making will likely have an impact on the future role of NORAD.

Since its formation in 1958, NORAD has been the mainstay of Canada's aerospace defence and control capability. First conceived to deal with the strategic bomber threat of the Cold War, NORAD evolved to track and warn North America of attack by aircraft, missiles, and space vehicles. Significant overlap exists between NORAD's threat tracking and assessment mission and the missile defence mission assigned to the US-only Northern Command (NORTHCOM), which is co-located with NORAD in Colorado Springs. Many US NORTHCOM personnel, including the commander, are at the same time 'double-hatted' as NORAD personnel.

Other forthcoming US decisions on BMD that may have an impact on Canada concern research, development, and industrial activity. Missile defence is one of the largest research and development programs in the US, with an annual budget of approximately $9 billion (US) in 2004.

III. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence
Canada shares many US and NATO concerns about the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Proliferation, combined with the changing character of international terrorism, is creating a more dangerous and complex security environment, both at home and abroad.

Although the ballistic missile threat to Canada is currently considered low, joint Canadian and American intelligence estimates suggest that in coming years the range and accuracy of ballistic missile technology available to proliferators will improve, weapons of mass destruction proliferation will continue, and the threat to Canada and Canadian interests could increase. In addition, Canada and the United States have for generations cooperated on the joint defence of the continent to our mutual benefit.

Canada also has a comprehensive approach to addressing ballistic missile proliferation, based on diplomatic engagement with proliferators, strong national export controls on missile-related technology, membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), support for the Hague Code of Conduct on ballistic missiles, and examination of potential defensive capabilities. Through this approach, we seek to address the threats posed by the proliferation of missile technology, especially missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, in a manner that also reflects Canada's longstanding policies on arms control, disarmament, and strategic stability. Canada respects and fulfills its international non-proliferation obligations, and will continue to do so.

Complementing these efforts to halt the proliferation and use of missile delivery systems, Canada remains active in working to control the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that could be employed as warheads for such weapons. The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty forms the foundation of Canada's nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation policy. Canada continues to play an active role in strengthening this cornerstone of strategic stability. Canada has also been very active in the development, universalization, and implementation of the 1975 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, as well as the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.

More recently, Canada has begun devoting considerable resources to supporting the G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. Through this initiative, Canada will focus on working closely with its G8 partners, including Russia, to assist Russian authorities to secure the destruction of chemical weapons, dismantle nuclear submarines, ensure the safe disposition of nuclear fissile materials, and find employment for former weapons scientists.

The Government holds consultations with Parliamentarians, security and defence experts, interested non-governmental organizations, and interested Canadians. The Minister of Foreign Affairs heard the views of Canadians on missile defence during the 'town hall' meetings he attended as part of the Foreign Policy Dialogue. The Department of National Defence convened missile defence forums with expert stakeholders, as well as a number of focus groups on the issue of North American defence. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade (SCFAIT) made a recommendation on missile defence in its December 2002 report and heard further evidence on BMD in June, 2003.

IV. International Perspectives on BMD
International reaction to the US announcement that it would field a BMD system in 2004 has been varied. The United States has been active in engaging allies and others to explain what the system is intended to do and to open itself to international cooperation. A number of nations have come forward to express their interest in BMD, both in terms of participating in the system or in terms of research, development, and industrial opportunities.

NATO: The Alliance has been addressing the threat of short-range missiles for almost a decade. NATO countries have broadened their examination of missile defence by launching a new NATO missile defence study on November 3, 2003, to prepare a threat assessment on missile proliferation, and to look at options for protecting Alliance territory, forces, and population centres against the full range of missile threats. Aside from these Alliance activities, some of the Allies are looking at their own national missile defence needs. Two examples are the US-German-Italian MEADS medium-range missile defence programme, and the French ASTER missile defence programme.

United Kingdom: The United Kingdom has been supportive of US efforts to develop missile defences. In February, 2003 the United Kingdom finalized an agreement with the US on upgrading RAF Station Fylingdales radar site for the purposes of the ballistic missile defence system. Moreover, the UK government also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United States on BMD, which, as Minister of Defence Geoffrey Hoon stated in Parliament,

"facilitates bilateral information exchanges on missile defence matters, establishes a top-level management structure to oversee cooperative work, and prepares the way for fair opportunities to be given to UK industry to participate in the US programme."

This was complemented by the creation of a UK Missile Defence Centre to interface with the US Missile Defense Agency.

Denmark: Another key European nation in US BMD planning is Denmark. In December, 2002 the United States formally requested that Denmark consider allowing the upgrade of the US radar site in Thule, Greenland for use in BMD. Negotiations on upgrading Thule are ongoing, involving both Denmark and the Greenland home rule government. Upgrading the Thule facility, however, would not imply the participation of Denmark itself in the US BMD system.

Japan: Japan has been involved in discussions on BMD with the United States for many years. It currently has joint BMD programmes with the United States, though their systems function independently. On December 19, 2003 the Japanese government announced it would begin building a missile defence system, to be deployed between 2007-2011. Japan will acquire a layered missile defence system, using naval ships to engage an incoming missile during its mid-course phase, with shorter range ground-based Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) missiles providing point defence.

Australia: The government of Australia announced on December 4, 2003 its intention to participate in US BMD. Although the exact nature of Australian-US BMD cooperation is yet to be specified, it will most likely entail early warning, ship- and ground-based sensors, and research and development.

Israel: Like Japan, Israel has been actively engaged in BMD programmes with the United States for many years. The US 'Patriot' short-range missile defence system was deployed in Israel during the Gulf War, with mixed reports of success. Israel has subsequently developed in conjunction with the United States the 'Arrow' system. The Arrow was deployed in 2002, and operates alongside PAC-3 installations at strategic sites around Israel.

India: India has expressed interest in BMD cooperation with the United States, cooperation which could have implications for stability in the region. India has recently proposed to buy PAC-3 anti-missile systems.

Russia: Russia initially voiced serious concerns over US plans for BMD for two main reasons:

1) that BMD would counteract the Russian strategic missile threat, and 2) that the US decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty could destabilise the arms control regime. The signing in May 2002 of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which obligated both nations to reduce their strategic arsenals by two-thirds, seems to have limited the potential negative repercussions of the end of the ABM Treaty.

Although it continues to have concerns about the impact of BMD, Russia has been discussing BMD cooperation with the United States and with NATO. Discussions with NATO are the more advanced, as Russia has declared itself willing to cooperate with NATO in Theatre Missile Defence (defence against short-range ballistic missiles). Russia has also expressed interest in technical and industrial cooperation in US BMD. As part of the May 2002 Joint Declaration on the New Strategic Relationship, the United States agreed to assist in improving Russia's missile early-warning coverage through the establishment of a joint ballistic missile launch information-sharing centre, and in continuing to develop the Russian-American Observation Satellite warning system.

China: China is believed to have concerns about the viability of its own very limited strategic deterrence in light of US BMD planning. China is also concerned BMD will lead to the weaponisation of space and has worked with Russia to advance these concerns in the UN Conference on Disarmament. The most recent annual US review of Chinese military power noted that China has been modernising its missile systems in number and quality, although such activities have been under way for at least a decade. The US decision to sell PAC-3 missiles (for short-range missile defence) to Taiwan and US-Japanese cooperation on BMD have touched on Chinese regional interests.

V. Conclusion
The Government entered into discussions with the United States on possible Canadian participation in BMD after years of consultations. The primary aim of these discussions has been to establish whether or not participation in BMD could enhance Canadian security. It is only responsible that the Government examine possible BMD participation, especially in light of the US administration's announcement in 2002 of its intent to deploy an initial system in fall 2004, bringing the concept to reality.

It is in Canada's strategic and national interest to be involved in decisions concerning the security and defence of North America. Being engaged with the United States on BMD early, when key operational and command decisions are being made, would increase the ability of Canada to have meaningful involvement in the system as it develops. Talks with the United States on BMD to date have been constructive and informative. The Government will take a decision on participation in BMD after these discussions are complete.

The Government is committed to ensuring and enhancing the security of Canada and Canadians. Examining possible Canadian participation in the Ballistic Missile Defence of North America is one aspect of meeting this commitment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Updated:
2004-07-19
Top of Page Important Notices

Dec 2nd, 2004 07:40 PM

ziggytrix

What does that link have to do with what you said above?

Also, in the original post, the first paragraph is yours, and the next two are a quote of something, aren't they?

Dec 2nd, 2004 06:09 PM

FartinMowler

I was watching this special on W-Five and I was really upset

I sent to Max and wanted his opinion but I will post it here to see what you guy's think.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/warwithoutborders/index.html

Dec 2nd, 2004 06:03 PM

ziggytrix

Holy shit, a post where you don't seem like you're high off gas fumes! :O

Dec 2nd, 2004 05:57 PM

FartinMowler

Did Bush threaten Canada?

Is Bush pissed that Canadians didn't want him re-elected so that's why he slipped out the fact that he want's us on board for his Ballistic missiles? It seem's as though we where threatened with trade. I'm sorry I really hope we can hold our breath for the next clown you elect :/

The Letters of Intent do not constitute an agreement between Canada and the United States on Canadian participation in BMD. The exchange is a non-binding mechanism developed by both nations to facilitate further talks on BMD. When the discussions have concluded, the Government will assess if Canadian interests have been met and will take a decision on Canadian participation in BMD. Due to the complexities of the issues at stake, these talks are expected to take a number of months.

More recently, Canada has begun devoting considerable resources to supporting the G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. Through this initiative, Canada will focus on working closely with its G8 partners, including Russia, to assist Russian authorities to secure the destruction of chemical weapons, dismantle nuclear submarines, ensure the safe disposition of nuclear fissile materials, and find employment for former weapons scientists.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off