[sthompson]

About the bill idea--that's something that could be suggested to the NDP by writing to MPs etc.

[KevinGagnon]

[I guess this sort of kills the NDP's argument about star wars.] <a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1079305810385&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467"><b>Toronto Star Article: Canada to call for ban on arms in space</b></a>

[Reverend Blair]

I don't know, Kevin. It looks very much to me like the Liberals are trying to have their cake and eat it too. The US, especially the Bush administration, has not been at all quiet about their plans to put weapons in space. They have said that missle defence is the first step towards that. If we join in, then we are helping to get it off the ground.

[Steeve]

And if we don't join in we'll be left behind. Never mind the concept or whether it will work or not, the economic benefit alone is tremendous, as long as the Liberals and NDP (for obvious reasons)can be kept out of it.

[KevinGagnon]

oh economic benefits. Why didn't I think of that before. I think I will support it now.

[Steeve]

All I'm suggesting is that if this is going ahead, and we really don't have a say, then what does not getting on board accomplish? A few people demonstrate as usual, a few people drag out the soapbox and maybe, just maybe, a good few thousand people find gainful employment.

[KevinGagnon]

Steeve,

That makes it much more clear to me. But we will have to agree to disagree that getting on board is the only option. In fact the option is to elect a government who will oppose this. Although it seems clear that the NDP will not become the next leader of this country. Its possible with enough support they can win more ridings then then most will expect. I was having a conversation with someone recently who said that the Toronto Star reported a tip about a private meeting in Toronto where the Liberals had expressed concern about loosing to the NDP in Toronto. Joe Clark had mentioned that many BC ridings will return again to the NDP fold,

If the NDP can win enough seats, we can see them being a party who can at least try to stop this star wars plan.

Kevin

[Kory Yamashita]

I'm with Kevin on this. Steeve, why are you on a site discussing politics if you just plan on going ahead with everything the current government throws at you? This missile defense is the first step towards the weaponization of space and just the buzz about it has jump-started an arms race with Russia and China. And who knows who else. The only reason the US would need missile defense is because they expect to be nuked, right? But everyone knows that the Americans have enough nukes to kill everyone in the world. So why would anyone drop a nuke on the states? Well the idea is that the American military is getting so involved in so many places around the world, overthrowing dictators and democratically elected leaders alike. Well, occupying all these countries takes a toll on your military. It stretches it thin. So before the US REALLY starts invading all the countries it wants to invade, it needs protection from other attacks. Well how about a missile shield? Yeah that'll do fine. And heck, if the Americans have a missile shield, then the whole concept of mutual annihilation is gone. If the US sends a missile to China, it will hit. If China sends a missile to the US, it won't. There goes the equilibrium that's kept the peace all through the cold war. The US wants to be free to use its nukes in a more casual way? I say NO WAY!

[KevinGagnon]

<p>Sorry Steeve, I just noticed now that your new here. Welcome to Vive Le Canada. Nice to meet you online Take Care,<br><br> Kevin<br> <a href="http://http://www.kevingagnon.ca">www.kevingagnon.ca</a>

[Kory Yamashita]

New here eh? Welcome aboard, Steeve. Sorry for taking a shot at you in that last message :$ I just think it's important to fight for what you believe in!

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Steeve] All I'm suggesting is that if this is going ahead, and we really don't have a say, then what does not getting on board accomplish? A few people demonstrate as usual, a few people drag out the soapbox and maybe, just maybe, a good few thousand people find gainful employment.[/QUOTE] "What you do will be insignificant in the larger plan, but it it very very important that you do it" Mahatma Ghandi.<p> Welcome to the site Steeve!<p>

[sthompson]

Nice to see someone brave enough to take on all the intimidating stars under all of our names Yes, welcome Steeve. <p> So rather than debating apples and oranges, let's explore Steeve's point a little more. Setting aside all of the other arguments over missile defence, what ARE the costs/benefits of it economically? <P> Is it going to create jobs? Is Canada expected to pay into it, and how much (I think the latest was we would offer land, not money)? Are there new costs in terms of spending on security, personnel, etc? Are there other potential costs to think about--would it make Canada a target, and lead to attacks that could destory property etc? Or (devil's advocate) is it preventing those things and saving money in the long run?

[Dr Caleb]

The only information would be previous such alliances with the US. The Distant Early Warning System and SIGINT (Signal Interception) nets during the cold war, and still in use today.<p> <i>Is it going to create jobs? </i> In the short term, yes. In the long, well, most of the SIGINT bases, such as CFB Alert, are controlled remotely from Ontairo.<p> <i>Is Canada expected to pay into it, and how much (I think the latest was we would offer land, not money)? </i> The government wouldn't lie to us, would they?<p> <i>Are there new costs in terms of spending on security, personnel, etc? </i> Yes, but most would be military or civillian support for the new bases.<p> <i>Are there other potential costs to think about--would it make Canada a target, and lead to attacks that could destory property etc? </i> Definitely it would make us more of a target.<p> <i>Or (devil's advocate) is it preventing those things and saving money in the long run?</i> If we become more of a target, the US would have more of an interest in 'protecting' us. Read into that what you may. [/devils advocate]<p>

[Milton]

The Star Wars plan was originally going to place lasers and mirrors into orbit, the lasers would shoot down the IBMs. So the RMD proposal is not the original "star wars" plan. This new proposal would actually place nukes into orbit around the Earth. This is only a defensive weapon in the sense that "the best defense is a good offense". They are calling for increased investment in new tactical small yield nuclear "bullets". If you can see a license plate from orbit then you could target a small yield nuke to take out that target. You can also use it to deliver "bunker blasters", "neighborhood knockouts", "city litters" and whatever else the ring wraithes decide to manufacture. The point is that they do not intend to shoot down incoming missiles. They intend to use this as a first strike weapon. They could hit a country so fast that no one would be left to lodge a protest at the UN. They have already said that they are justified in striking first and asking questions later. They would have a full compliment of "surgical removal" nukes ready to go at a moments notice. Rather than put a whole whack of nukes into orbit I would propose that Canada start its own nuclear program and develop the biggest bang for the buck dirty (plutonium 10,000 year half life) bombs. We should make enough so that we can mine the country and then we should tell the world, "We know what MAD means, if you attack us we will set off our doomsday weapons, we will kill ourselves and place enough radioactive material into the atmosphere to kill everyone else on the planet as well". The real question is what is it that the human race wants to do? We don't need the permission of our governments to do what we want or to make changes like getting rid of the monetary system. We the people only need to decide that we will make changes and the ruling class can be put on the next ship to Mars. We are either investing in "illth" or "wellth". Illth could be defined as events designed to terminate, degrade or depress life. Wellth would be events designed to enhance, enable and energize life. If you are investing your resources in weapons then you don't have the resources to invest in universal medicare or social services or expanded educational opportunities. So if you are proposing investments in guns and combat troops you have gone over to the dark side. Have you ever noticed that when it comes to fighting a war there is no end to the supply of money to buy weapons but when a child is starving to death we can't afford to help.

[Kory Yamashita]

Milton: No one's afraid of the starving children they see on TV. Sometimes they fear the ones on the street, but they masquerade it as a fear of criminals, the poor, etc. Fear is the fundamental driving force of the American economy. It has been throughout American history, as Bowling for Columbine points out. So it is with fear that the economy-worshippers must make their political and military decisions, since both have become mere subsidiaries of the economic powers of modern times. I think that anyone aware of the true significance of the Star Wars II project should be wary of possible outcomes to supporting this project. Yet, we should investigate the economic significances in order to better understand the motivations of the masses so as to help draw their attention to the real key issues at hand here. We need to inform people that weapons in space are more of a threat than an extra 500 people living on welfare. In fact, for the same sacrifice (money or land) that we give to the Star Wars II gods (rumsfeld, bush, et al.), we could instead just employ people in good USEFUL jobs. Like fund schools, post secondary institutes, daycares, medicare, transporation structure maintenance, hydro dam maintenance, etc. Instead of these short-term useless projects like the missile defense shield, we could spend the money on long-lasting jobs that don't get cut by subsequent governments in order to fund their own new job creation. Military investment projects are ridiculously short-term in their economic benefits (regarding job creation anyways). Any real benefits that we would wreak from this "missile-defense shield" are fear-induced intimidation spoils. We need to refuse the American bully-and-steal, rape-pillage-plunder method of stimulating economic growth. In fact we should refute the economic growth argument in general. But that's a story for later...