Canadians Irrelevant To Canada?

Does anyone else think this is just a 1st strike weapon, as mentioned in the National Security Strategy released in Fall 2002? Does anyone think that we could be targeted by Al Qaeda for being to close to the USA?

---
"So many right-wing Christians, so few lions." - t-shirt I saw @ school

<i>Does anyone else think this is just a 1st strike weapon, as mentioned in the National Security Strategy released in Fall 2002? </i><p> No. The US already has way too many first strike weapons. Subs are cheaper than this system.<p> <i>Does anyone think that we could be targeted by Al Qaeda for being to close to the USA?</i><p> Turkey has been targetted by them for not being "Islamic" enough. Britan has been targetted for being "Infidels". We will be targeted, but not because of our proximity to the US, it's just Al Queda policy.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

Doc, haven\'t we been targeted for over 10 years? Maybe we\'re just to likable, given our acceptance of Muslims in our society.

We also have acceptance of pretty much every other religion, to some extent.

---
JvH

It can be taken to be a \'first strike\' weapon because it would give the US the ability to strike first without fearing any retaliation that it could not face down.

The whole idea goes belly up when we see Russia developing new missiles that they claim will evade any measure the US can deploy today or in the future. China as well claims they will just build many more nukes with each containing not only more warheads but also more countermeasures.

This is good for nobody, not for the US, the world or Canadians pocket books. It will cost billions just to play along and for what? To rob millions of Canadians of their hard earned tax dollars is the only end conclusion I can see from all of this.

The best way to head off your enemies - dont make any to begin with!

Roy

<i>It will cost billions just to play along and for what? To rob millions of Canadians of their hard earned tax dollars is the only end conclusion I can see from all of this.</i><p> Since you might not have read the article: <blockquote>It is unlikely that any major equipment would be placed on Canadian soil, given the participation of European partners on the East Coast and the convenient location of Alaska on the West Coast.<p> <b>Since the funding for the project is already in place in the United States, the Canadian government will not be expected to make any major cash contribution.</b> It could, however, provide additional personnel at NORAD to work on the high-tech system designed to intercept incoming missiles.</blockquote><p> So, no, it won't cost Canada billions, and instead could lead to increases in our Military presence in NORAD.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain

Doc, wouldn\'t you rather see us defend ourselves, by ourselves?

Yeah, I would like to see us defend ourselves as opposed to being colonized! Too many Canadians are mentally colonized as it is!

---
Dave Ruston

As I was watching CPAC tonight, the spokesperson was clearly saying that, at this time, no missiles would be placed on Canadian soil, and we would not be paying into the system.

However, he later said that negotiations are ongoing, and that things could change in the future, such as Canadian soil being used for such purposes.

As it stands right now, it\'s all US controlled and paid for.

That begs the question: why are they asking for us to join in on the program if we aren\'t going to end up with missiles and money out of our pockets ??


Not only that, this will certainly start another arms race, so who wins here ??




---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

Maybe Martin will use this as his negotiating tool to get the border opened for the beef! We\'ll give you our cooperation to legitimize your missile program, you open the border to our beef...nothing would surprise me, he has to do something to gain the Western vote...We have already seen what increasing weapons is doing all over the world this is just another step to further the increasing violence. Russia is going further, China, Korea etc etc. The race is on, again. When will we ever learn, as the song says...when we obliterate the entire planet?

Considering the US admits they have no clue what the end costs will be beyond - \"in the trillions\", what do you think a \'fraction\' will mean for Canada?

Billions is what they will ask for. So, we spend billions to stay in favour with the worlds premier war making machine... so we can ride along with even older equipment because we spent what precious little we have to curry favour instead of upgrading our fighting potential.

Those billions have to come from somewhere - its not going to come from taxes on the rich or corporations. Its not going to come from thin air - its going to come from continued hacking and slashing of social spending, coupled with the removal of funding to other military needs.

And agian for what? It costs far less to explode a dirty bomb as smuggled over the Mexican border than it does to build, maintain then launch a ballistic missile. Which do you think the average terrorist will employ?

\"The best way to head off enemies -don\'t make any to begin with.\"

Exactly!

I wrote McCallum today after reading in the Globe and Mail that he\'s hoping missile defence will protect Canadian cities as much as U.S. cities. I told him that if he expects the U.S. to protect our cities then I do not feel safe with him as our defence minister.

I also told him I feel more threatened by the U.S. than any other country. And I pointed out that Paul Martin has not been elected by Canadians and I was horrified to see him dressed up in a miliarty jacket, Bush style, posing for his election ads. Until there\'s an election this government has no business making any policy changes or signing onto any deals with anyone.

I told McCallum that his position should be to go about Canada\'s business and let the U.S. spend themselves into 3rd world status without us. Keep Canada\'s nose clean and to focus on helping countries that HONESTLY need our help (i.e. the entire African continent). In that way we don\'t have to worry about \"terrorists\" devastating our cities. And, if it\'s the U.S. that is threatening us then get some nuclear weapons and we\'ll be just fine.

The only problem with this last comment is that McCallum is no longer defence minister, although he may have alot to say about the situation, he wasn\'t qualified to start with, he is an accountant; David Pratt is the new guy and he loves the U.S. ideas, and apparently so does Paul Martin.

That simply means we are moving in the direction of the lowest common denominator - the U.S.




---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca