More Canadians Speak Out On BMD

Note, I did not compose this letter,(which I think is excellent) but I agree with its contents, and thought it important to express the other issues which are clearly being understated by our government. Much of what is written here, was not in my letter. My name is added in support of the contents of the letter.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Good questions Catherine. I wonder if any kind of an adequate answer will be forthcoming.

The answer lies in America seeing Canadians as being purposely obstructionist to a potential threat to America.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/8zgkc">http://tinyurl.com/8zgkc</a><br />
<br />
For the geographically challenged: the great circle route is the path taken by a ballistic missile from the place it is launched to its target. Notice Canada is overflight country for any potential threat from N.K. to Iran.<br />
<br />
That is why Americans laugh at PMPM's Canada "refusing" to take part in BMD. You will. Yes, you will.<br />
<br />

And for the mentally challenged and the not so funny thing is that it will be missiles going from the US to North Korea and Iran and nobody will be trying to blow them up over us. And now for the really hillarious part, the BMD does not work! Isn't that funny? Just don't tell the US and PMPM kay?

JesusMaryJosephX3

Well the reason we are not out of the BMD deal, is simple. If the US brings down a BM over Canada and we suffer the fallout, they(USA) can avoid being held accountable, because we never signed off.
Besides, if a BM doesn't destroy the Canadian environment, the Canadian government will with more deadly chemicals, like agent orange. The sad part about all this is those buggers will not be around to live through the mess they are leaving behind, there grand children will have to suffer for the mistakes these modern day political parties make.

Good article Ms Whalen



---
Good government is not a party government

Anon, holding somebody responsible for the nuclear destruction of the planet is like lynching the Captain of the Titanic as it sinks. The idea is to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and lessen the chances that some gang of maniacs will find an excuse to use them. BMD is a US ruse to put nuclear weapons in outer space. They would then control the high ground (if they could set up any launch platforms with their dysfunctional space program). For those militarily challenged folks, whoever controls the high ground and has the most destructive weapons of mass destruction ( and that is the USA) usually wins ( and in this case the prize would be nuclear winter and probably curtains for mankind). North Korea and Iran are just an excuse, just like the WMD threat in Iraq in 2003.

>>Correction regarding NORAD's North Warning System (NWS) and BMD<br />
>>> ><br />
>>> > The June 2005 issue of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)<br />
>>> > magazine, Press for Conversion!, lists a wide variety of little-known<br />
<br />
ways<br />
<br />
>>> > in which Canadian companies, government departments and agencies, as<br />
<br />
well<br />
<br />
>>> > as military-research scientists employed by the Canadian government, are<br />
>>> > actively participating in the creation, design, research, development,<br />
>>> > testing, deployment, maintenance and operation of numerous, essential<br />
>>> > "missile defense" weapons systems.<br />
>>> > <a href="http://coat.ncf.ca/missiledefense">http://coat.ncf.ca/missiledefense</a><br />
>>> ><br />
>>> > Unfortunately, an error was made regarding one of many items listed as<br />
><br />
>> ways<br />
><br />
>>> > in which Canada is involved in this controversial, U.S.-led weapons<br />
><br />
>> program.<br />
><br />
>>> ><br />
>>> > While it is true that Canada is involved in "missile defense" through<br />
>>> > NORAD, and that the Canadian government initiated a major change to the<br />
>>> > NORAD treaty on August 5, 2004 (which added "missile defense" functions<br />
<br />
to<br />
<br />
>>> > NORAD responsibilities), the actual manner in which Canada now<br />
<br />
contributes<br />
<br />
>>> > to "missile defense" -- through NORAD -- was stated incorrectly.<br />
<br />
Canada's<br />
<br />
>>> > commitment to "missile defense" through NORAD is to be found in Canada's<br />
>>> > financial commitment to that military pact, as well as through the use<br />
<br />
of<br />
<br />
>>> > Canadian military personnel stationed in NORAD facilities, and not<br />
<br />
through<br />
<br />
>>> > the use of NORAD's radar stations in Canada's north. NORAD's North<br />
<br />
Warning<br />
<br />
>>> > System (NWS) of radar facilities, scattered across Canada's north,<br />
<br />
cannot<br />
<br />
>>> > be used as part of America's controversial "missile defense" weapons<br />
>>> > tracking and targeting systems.<br />
>>> ><br />
>>> > While the NWS is most certainly used for the detection and tracking of<br />
<br />
so<br />
<br />
>>> > called "air-breathing" warplanes, as well as incoming cruise missiles,<br />
>>> > these radar facilities cannot fulfil such functions against<br />
>>> > intercontinental ballistic missiles.<br />
>>> ><br />
>>> > This error appeared on page 22 of Press for Conversion! in an article on<br />
>>> > corporate complicity, called "ATCO Frontec Corp." The article stated<br />
<br />
that<br />
<br />
>>> > this Canadian company is involved in "missile defense" through three<br />
>>> > different sets of contracts: (1) "The Canadian NWS," (2) "The Alaskan<br />
><br />
>> Radar<br />
><br />
>>> > System and (3) the "U.S. Air Force Space Command's SSPARS" (radar<br />
>>> > facilities in Greenland and the UK.) Although the second and third<br />
>>> > categories of ATCO-Frontec contracts do indeed support "missile defense"<br />
>>> > efforts, the first item should not have been included.<br />
>>> ><br />
>>> > Some small sidebars in the magazine contained sentences that repeated<br />
<br />
the<br />
<br />
>>> > same factual error: "Nasittuq Corp." (p.22, first paragraph), "The<br />
<br />
Origins<br />
<br />
>>> > of NORAD's North Warning System" (p.24, first paragraph) and "NORAD's<br />
>>> > 'Warning' and Control' Functions" (p.13, last paragraph), and "What did<br />
>>> > Pettigrew know and when did he know it" (p.19, eighth paragraph). Other<br />
>>> > than this particular error, all of the data in these sidebars is<br />
<br />
accurate.<br />
<br />
>>> ><br />
>>> > The same error was repeated in emails that I sent about these articles.<br />
>>> ><br />
>>> > The next issue of Press for Conversion! will continue to explore the<br />
>>> > largely-ignored but never-the-less very important subject of Canada's<br />
>>> > longstanding and ongoing role in so-called "missile defense." That issue<br />
>>> > will contain a correction notice. Similarly, the online version of Press<br />
>>> > for Conversion! will be corrected as soon as possible.<br />
>>> ><br />
>>> > It is important to note that this mistake, regarding the manner in which<br />
>>> > Canada contributes to "missile defense" through NORAD, does not take<br />
<br />
away<br />
<br />
>>> > from the basic reality that Canada is deeply involved in the "missile<br />
>>> > defense" weapons program. Neither does this error challenge my analysis<br />
<br />
of<br />
<br />
>>> > the problem now faced by the Canadian peace movement. It is still true<br />
><br />
>> that<br />
><br />
>>> > many, if not most, Canadians were deceived by the Liberal government's<br />
>>> > extensive public relations campaign that culminated in late February<br />
<br />
2005.<br />
<br />
>>> > That's when the government issued its supposed "no" to joining "missile<br />
>>> > defense." As a result of this successful propaganda effort, many<br />
<br />
activists<br />
<br />
>>> > within the peace/anti-war movement were tricked into accepting the<br />
>>> > government's "no" as if it had some real, concrete meaning. When<br />
>>> > peace/antiwar activists quickly claimed a victory on "missile defense,"<br />
><br />
>> and<br />
><br />
>>> > congratulated themselves for supposedly stopping the government from<br />
>>> > "joining" "missile defense," they missed the point that Canada had<br />
<br />
already<br />
<br />
>>> > long been involved and that the Canadian government had not actually<br />
<br />
taken<br />
<br />
>>> > any steps to either withdraw its existing involvement or ensure that<br />
<br />
such<br />
<br />
>>> > ongoing participation would not actually continue to grow. By spreading<br />
><br />
>> the<br />
><br />
>>> > false belief that Canada was not yet even involved in "missile defense"<br />
><br />
>> and<br />
><br />
>>> > that the government was being responsive to public concerns, many<br />
>>> > unwittingly helped to undermine the momentum against "missile defense"<br />
>>> > programs in Canada.<br />
>>> ><br />
>>> > Let's hope we can now begin to build a vigorous opposition to Canada's<br />
>>> > multifaceted commitment to the most extensive weapons development<br />
<br />
program<br />
<br />
>>> > in world history, that is so euphemistically called a "missile defense<br />
><br />
>> shield."<br />
><br />
<br />
Yours sincerely,<br />
Richard Sanders<br />
Editor, Press for Conversion! and coordinator, COAT.<br />
<p>---<br>If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Luckily for Canadians the United States will continue to provide us with security in this troubled world despite the fact that many naive Canadians turn themselves into petulant children at the mere mention of the word 'American'.

Incredibly, in Canada there are people who advocate the proliferation of nuclear weapons based on the simple premise that if the Americans are allowed to have them, everyone should be allowed to have them. With regards to North Korea, a simple analogy that simple people may understand would be - since hunters are allowed to have guns, your crazy neighbour should be allowed to have a gun, and if he threatens to shoot you with it if you don't keep his oil furnace filled up - well, you should keep his oil furnace filled up, always. Of course we have a police force to prevent such things, but there are no global cops.

Canada should have given public support to the US for BMD. Ignorance of our defences is not bliss, it's plainly irresponsible.

Anon, what are you trying to say, that because the U.S. is holding a gun figuratively or otherwise to our heads, we have no choice but to meet their fuel demands, and that somehow there having wmd should give us comfort? The big bad world you are referring to is in part, because every country is feeding one mouth, the 'military mouth' at the expense of everything else.

I am tired of people saying nothing can be done, life expectancy is about 70 years or so in North America, not so good in Iraq these days, but the question is what are we doing here? Why do we live, is it simply to fulfill someone elses greedy fantasies? I don't think so. There is enough food and resources in the world to sustain the population, but we are chosing this military agenda instead. We are buying into the threats which increase daily, because nobody will look it in the eye and say boo!

The old saying we have nothing to fear but fear itself, has never been more true. We fear the monstrous ideas of global takeover, but we listen as if we had no power. We fear losing our water, our oil, our freedom and ability to control our own lives, yet we fail to speak. I wasn't alive, when Hitler was threatening to take over the world, he had a plan and a mission, he had the ability to use the media to persuade, and people listened. He was later called, manic, sick, cowardly, evil and on and on. The people, once they realized what was going on, stood up. The U.S. has declared a very real plan for global dominance, they have laid it out over and over, A Plan For the New North American Century, Visison 2020 and others. Why do you suppose they write this stuff, somebody have a surplus of pens and papers and nothing else to do??? To suggest the population is asleep is a huge understatement!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

>>Note, I did not compose this letter,(which I think is excellent)>>

Run out of Crayon?

Siamdave, I understand your points, but disagree, first I guess it might depend on how much time it takes a person to write a letter, I know some people spend days composing, but that isn't my way. Second, letters do work, because they raise awareness, they are read by others, and it helps to counteract the mainstream press. Letters to the editor, give people the hint that they too, can express themselves. We lead by example, and unless a person is willing to express themselves and stand behind what they say, how will anyone else know what they are thinking. I find myself wondering what the leaders of the various parties are thinking about many issues, I waited with anticipation for Jack Layton to speak out against NAFTA, to speak out against LM Census, and our involvement in BMD, and although he has alluded to his dissaproval, he hasn't expressed it loudly! I have always thought that they would take a strong stand on these issues, but then I wonder why aren't they saying so?

I reviewed their website and hoping, (because I know the Conservatives and Liberals are the same and I don't expect either of them to speak out), that there would be some mention of these issues, but nothing. I think your points about the parties are important, and that is one reason I like CAP, we are too small to have handlers, nobody writes press releases for me, except me. So it is my thoughts and I can stand behind them. I don't have to apologize for a 'misquote' or 'mis-spoke'...jeepers, wouldn't politicians in decades past wished for an excuse like that, oops, I mis-spoke...they'd have been laughed out of politics.

If what you say you believe, you shouldn't be afraid to put it in print, and allow others to read it. Some things I have written have been quoted, in the Guardian in Britain, in Alaska, and all over the U.S. and Canada. So it does work.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Decent letter but it does contain errors. Anyone familiar with NORAD and those fifty so called BMD ready radar stations will know that is not very accurate, because they are incapable of acting in that manner. They can only acquire and track planes and MAYBBE slower moving cruise missiles. They have no ability to track ICBMs.

For the other anons - America was not voted by anyone to be the world's policeman, and in fact if the world could vote on that matter you can rest assured that they would not win - not by a long shot. It would be like putting one of the most known criminals in charge of the Supreme Court.

Ah yes, the world would be a wonderful place if only the Chinese and Islamic fundamentalists were calling the shots...

>>America was not voted by anyone to be the world's policeman, and in fact if the world could vote on that matter you can rest assured that they would not win - not by a long shot.<<

Yes it was as a matter of fact, by default. TRUST ME, I don’t like it even more then you don’t. But when other countries refuse to do anything, year after year to defend themselves someone has to step up. If we are not the worlds policemen why aren’t there Canadian troops is the Sudan? If you don’t like it why don’t you do something about it? Maybe because its easier to let someone else do the dirty work while you passive-aggressively take swipes at them for doing it. Police away Canada, Please.