NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2610442p-3026695c.html

(Original Bongboing.net link

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/04/canadian_politico_te.html)

I have never been prouder of my government.

It's a stern ass-chewing on why the Anti-Missle shield is garbage and it...it...it's just marvelous! :)

Here's the full article:

Missile Counter-Attack
Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Thu Mar 3 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY
Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.
Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence can be made openly.

You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.

Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.
Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.

These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.

To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.

To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.

And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.

On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.

This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.

There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.
Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.

In friendship,

Lloyd Axworthy

Lloyd Axworthy is president of the

University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister.

Which missile defense system did Canada choose not to buy into?

The Ground Based Interceptor - which has software failures in its battle management system - the missile itself works.

Other systems that Canada could buy that work and are operational:

SM-3
PAC-3 (also proven in combat against multiple rapidly fired targets)

And, operational at the end of this year:

Airborne Laser

Unworkable? Boondoggle? No, they fucking work, and work well. Even in combat.

If I was a Canadian, I would not argue on the basis of whether something worked or not. The remaining problems in the GBI are software-based - the basic technology for kinetic energy intercept and decoy discrimination has been solved and proven.

It would be better just to say that Canada isn't likely to be attacked by anyone. For any reason. At any time. So they don't need any missiles of any kind.

It stands to reason that Canada doesn't need an Army or an Air Force, or a rusty submarine, either. I wonder who the dumbass was who bought the submarine.

Well i as I told whispering before, a 80% success rate for some lab test does not make a working system.


And whats with this calgary think tank bullshit? Fuck that guy and his X-liberal cronies.

Doesnt take some jackass from winnipeg to point out the missile defence plan is flawed...

Wow, one Canadian politician gets into a tirade (including a remark that could be construed as racist) and suddenly Condi Rice is supposed to bow to Canadian intellectual superiority.

Well i as I told whispering before, a 80% success rate for some lab test does not make a working system.


And whats with this calgary think tank bullshit? Fuck that guy and his X-liberal cronies.

Doesnt take some jackass from winnipeg to point out the missile defence plan is flawed...

80 percent for GBI.

100 percent for PAC-3 in combat.
100 percent for SM-3.

But...

It doesn't take some jackass from winnipeg to point out that no one is going to shoot missiles at Canada.

Even if they all work, all the time, and the US gives them to Canada for free - a package deal involving the return of all NHL teams to Canada - it's still not something Canada needs.

Help me out here Zepp. Who in the blue blazes would ever attack Canada?

Monaco.

80 percent for GBI.

100 percent for PAC-3 in combat.
100 percent for SM-3.

But...

It doesn't take some jackass from winnipeg to point out that no one is going to shoot missiles at Canada.

Even if they all work, all the time, and the US gives them to Canada for free - a package deal involving the return of all NHL teams to Canada - it's still not something Canada needs.

Help me out here Zepp. Who in the blue blazes would ever attack Canada?

hello? how has ANY of the gear they are planning to use been used in combat?

They shot down missles in the middle of a desert, and over hawaii, thats not bloody combat its a lab test.

Denmark.

Denmark may attack Canada.

as an American, I'm quite glad to see some of our strongest - and most important - allies standing up to the rather, what i see as, foreful means of coercion that the State Dept. now calls diplomacy. There's no reason for Canada to throw billions of dollars into America's own gaping budget hole that down south manages to threaten the future security of the US.

So props to canada for being a practical, and wise country. Wish I could say the same for her southern neighbour...

hello? how has ANY of the gear they are planning to use been used in combat?

They shot down missles in the middle of a desert, and over hawaii, thats not bloody combat its a lab test.

I'll write this slowly.

GBI is the system that Canada rejected. It is a completely separate missile, radar, and software battle managment system from the other systems.

PAC-3 is a system that Canada never considered. It is a completely separate missile, radar, and software battle management system that WORKS and was proven in combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is deployed in South Korea to stop North Korean launches.

SM-3 is ANOTHER system that Canada never considered. It is a completely separate missile, radar, and software battle management system that WORKS so well it is on ships stationed off the North Korean coast to protect Japan.

They are NOT THE SAME FUCKING MISSILE! NOT THE SAME MISSILE! NOT THE SAME SYSTEM!

Ye Gods! The US deliberately developed missile defense along multiple engineering tracks to ensure that at least one system would be working before the others. And all work except GBI, which has a missile that works, but launch software that is buggy. That's just a minor engineering problem.

It's only a matter of time before GBI works as well as the others. Probably a year. Then you're going to look stupid for saying it would never work, or can't work.

The whole concept of "kinetic energy kill", or "hitting a bullet with a bullet" has been proven in combat with PAC-3. Proven. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Stop trying to say it doesn't work, and focus on the reality that Canada DOES NOT NEED ANY MISSILES FOR ANY REASON. EVEN IF THEY WORK.

It stands to reason that Canada doesn't need an Army or an Air Force, or a rusty submarine, either. I wonder who the dumbass was who bought the submarine.

The same dumbass who decided to not buy much needed helicopters to replace the 40-year-old Sea Kings.

IIRC Chretien made it a point in his election speeches that he would kill the contract for the helis and in a rare occasion a politician delivered on an election promise. Sadly, it was a promise everyone was telling him not to make.

The contract had a clause in it that he'd have to buy the same amount of military hardware anyway so in the end no money was saved by cancelling the contract. Then to save face some subs were bought. Beats admitting your wrong I guess.

I'm pretty sure this is how it went down.

Doesnt take some jackass from winnipeg to point out the missile defence plan is flawed...
The question here is, is it more flawed then the UN? I think not, seeing as technology can be improved whilst the UN is dealing with power hungry tin-pot dictators.

I'm sorry, I'm slow.
So USA has 3 (three) fully functional systems designed to shoot down missiles? And yet Canada didn't buy into it? Interesting. With 3 such systems Iraq with it's wmd's and N. Korea with its' missiles were/are no problem, surely.

Wow, one Canadian politician gets into a tirade (including a remark that could be construed as racist) and suddenly Condi Rice is supposed to bow to Canadian intellectual superiority.

Nah. They are being encouraged to practice intellectualism in his letter. Not the showboating, veiled threats, self-superiority and general ignorance the US administration tends to practice.

BTW which statement was racist?

Freaking A for Lloyd Axworthy, I always though he should run for Prime Minister. (he certainly was one of the best foreign ministers we ever had) Good on him! Sitting here pretty proud to be Canadian at the moment. :)

The question here is, is it more flawed then the UN? I think not, seeing as technology can be improved whilst the UN is dealing with power hungry tin-pot dictators.

How the Hell did the UN get involved in this?

How the Hell did the UN get involved in this?

Because he has no valid argument and is trying to change the subject?

I'm sorry, I'm slow.
So USA has 3 (three) fully functional systems designed to shoot down missiles? And yet Canada didn't buy into it? Interesting. With 3 such systems Iraq with it's wmd's and N. Korea with its' missiles were/are no problem, surely.

*kisses Bunnyducks, then runs away*

:D

I don't care. I don't think anyone cares. Woweee. Canada doesn't want in on the missile shield.

*kisses Bunnyducks, then runs away*

:D
They all do that!!! *sulks*

And, anyways, let's just say out of pure chance (I know this isn't going to happen, I'm just playing a hypothetical game here) China gets ueber-pissed at Canada for being nice. As such China shoots three ICBMs at Canada. Do you really think the US wouldn't try shoot them down? I mean, can you imagine the anger if the US just said "hey, you didn't want in on it, we were respecting your decision." No, I'd have to say that Canada is just being pragmatic. They don't want to shoulder the costs, and they know the US would help out Canada in this hypothetical (and incredibly unrealistic ) scenario even if Canada didn't put in some change.

And, anyways, let's just say out of pure chance (I know this isn't going to happen, I'm just playing a hypothetical game here) China gets ueber-pissed at Canada for being nice. As such China shoots three ICBMs at Canada. Do you really think the US wouldn't try shoot them down? I mean, can you imagine the anger if the US just said "hey, you didn't want in on it, we were respecting your decision." No, I'd have to say that Canada is just being pragmatic. They don't want to shoulder the costs, and they know the US would help out Canada in this hypothetical (and incredibly unrealistic ) scenario even if Canada didn't put in some change.

It's called the "free rider problem".

And it's not just Canada - though they are by far and away the biggest abusers - we have it with all of the West's millitaries.

That there's why we call him the Axe.

America telling Canada how to spend its money is a really, really ridiculous concept. We have better things to put funding into than paranoia.

In that scenario USA would try to shoot them down for sure. After they failed to do that, the missiles would land in Seattle, Detroit and Buffalo. If somebody did lob missiles at north america, USA would shoot em down if they could. I don't think they could be sure where they were aimed at. Way to save money Canada! :)

Because he has no valid argument and is trying to change the subject?
The guys whining is just as much a non-sequiter to the actual matter as what I said. He prattles on about how the tech doesn't work, and then goes off into a rant on canadian and US foreign policy. Now, the theory on the tech's perfectly sound and no one's suggest it's current iteration be put in place as a functional anti-missle shield. However, he acts like we are suggesting to put the current system in place and uses it as an excuse to bitch and whine. I did the same thing, albeit in a much more concise form.

I'll write this slowly.

GBI is the system that Canada rejected. It is a completely separate missile, radar, and software battle managment system from the other systems.

PAC-3 is a system that Canada never considered. It is a completely separate missile, radar, and software battle management system that WORKS and was proven in combat in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is deployed in South Korea to stop North Korean launches.

SM-3 is ANOTHER system that Canada never considered. It is a completely separate missile, radar, and software battle management system that WORKS so well it is on ships stationed off the North Korean coast to protect Japan.

They are NOT THE SAME FUCKING MISSILE! NOT THE SAME MISSILE! NOT THE SAME SYSTEM!

Ye Gods! The US deliberately developed missile defense along multiple engineering tracks to ensure that at least one system would be working before the others. And all work except GBI, which has a missile that works, but launch software that is buggy. That's just a minor engineering problem.

It's only a matter of time before GBI works as well as the others. Probably a year. Then you're going to look stupid for saying it would never work, or can't work.

The whole concept of "kinetic energy kill", or "hitting a bullet with a bullet" has been proven in combat with PAC-3. Proven. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Stop trying to say it doesn't work, and focus on the reality that Canada DOES NOT NEED ANY MISSILES FOR ANY REASON. EVEN IF THEY WORK.


You could puking out crap about how these missiles are on some ships. Where the actual proof that any of these missiles do work?

The only thing you posted was a page from one of the missile manufacturer web page about the "lab tests" where the missile worked 80% of the time in "lab conditions"

And the reason everyone in canada is up in arms over this issue is the usa will be using canuck airspace in its defence...

We have better things to put funding into than paranoia.
What do you call the Kyoto treaty?

What do you call the Kyoto treaty?
He has a point.

What do you call the Kyoto treaty?

The Kyoto treaty is DOA. I was in Europe last week and everyone is bitching their ass off about it and looking for ways to wiggle out of it now.

Ever since we opted out and it is no longer a "punish the evil US" effort, the Europeans have "surprisingly" discovered that global warming may not merit theis kind of response after all.

If Kyoto is still in effect three years from now I will be very surprised.

What do you call the Kyoto treaty?

I'm not entirely sure what to call it, since I'm not uber-environmentalist. But I will say that carbon monoxide is in fact disgusting to have to breathe, whereas North Korea is not, in fact, pelting us with radioactive doom.

I'm sorry, I'm slow.
So USA has 3 (three) fully functional systems designed to shoot down missiles? And yet Canada didn't buy into it? Interesting. With 3 such systems Iraq with it's wmd's and N. Korea with its' missiles were/are no problem, surely.

Since there is PAC-3 and SM-3 in position around North Korea now, yes it would be difficult for North Korea to hit Japan, South Korea, or targets further east.

But...

You don't have to deliver a nuclear weapon on a missile.

PAC-3 was validated in combat as of this recent invasion of Iraq. SM-3 came online shortly thereafter (they are testing more enhancements to it now).

Airborne Laser is a fourth system, going operational later this year.

But you could put a nuclear weapon on a freighter. If people can smuggle tons of cocaine, they can smuggle a nuclear weapon, even a crude one.

As for WMD, you only need a vial of smallpox the size of my thumb. Put it in your pocket.

That there's why we call him the Axe.

America telling Canada how to spend its money is a really, really ridiculous concept. We have better things to put funding into than paranoia.

Canada has been a sucker for soooo long. The UK tells Canada how to waste money as well.

You know, I still think that short of a coastal maritime patrol (some border guards, some coast guard ship types, a few search and rescue planes, some firefighting planes, and a few helicopters), Canada does not need armed forces.

Really. Not only should Canada not waste money on buying US and UK crap, they should not spend any money on armed forces that they don't need.

The Kyoto treaty is DOA. I was in Europe last week and everyone is bitching their ass off about it and looking for ways to wiggle out of it now.

Ever since we opted out and it is no longer a "punish the evil US" effort, the Europeans have "surprisingly" discovered that global warming may not merit theis kind of response after all.

If Kyoto is still in effect three years from now I will be very surprised.
True. I'm from a country that signed the treaty and I'm all for it, but I'm only for it cos I don't think pollutioning is good. It is just too damn hard to proove global climate change is man's fault.

The selling and buying of 'pollution rights' is hilarious though. I give it 5 years.

Since there is PAC-3 and SM-3 in position around North Korea now, yes it would be difficult for North Korea to hit Japan, South Korea, or targets further east.

But...

You don't have to deliver a nuclear weapon on a missile.

PAC-3 was validated in combat as of this recent invasion of Iraq. SM-3 came online shortly thereafter (they are testing more enhancements to it now).

Airborne Laser is a fourth system, going operational later this year.

But you could put a nuclear weapon on a freighter. If people can smuggle tons of cocaine, they can smuggle a nuclear weapon, even a crude one.

As for WMD, you only need a vial of smallpox the size of my thumb. Put it in your pocket.

I'm not sure what you are saying here... the system will never work..? I'm sure there must be more inexpensive ways to shoot down freighters.

Don't worry about global warming, or Kyoto.

The world is running out of oil - we're already just past the peak.

http://dieoff.org

The selling and buying of 'pollution rights' is hilarious though. I give it 5 years.
You know Russia's just gonna sell it's credits and then dump the treaty. Quick and easy cash, and since it's part of the sec. council not much can be done through the UN.

You know Russia's just gonna sell it's credits and then dump the treaty. Quick and easy cash, and since it's part of the sec. council not much can be done through the UN.
Yes, it's possible. I don't think they have THAT much credits to sell though. Their industrial sites are in a sorry condition.

I tell you, it just doesn't matter. There aren't going to be enough fossil fuels left to make a difference.

And we would be lucky to survive the war that ensues over what remains - a global war over the rest of the oil.

There is, and always has been, a different sense of the role of government. Most Americans, far from being stupid, simply tend to believe in a smaller, more efficient, and more patriotic government, rather than one that appeases tyrants and steals the fruits of people's labors.

Well, I'm not agreeing with you 100% with that 'oil war' thing. The world managed without oil for the best part of its recorded history. It would be tough though.

(Here in Finland 75% of the price of gas is taxes... so we had a headstart. You CAN drive less. :) )

Couple of things:
1- Are we sure it's from Mr. Axeworthy? This looks like a fake to me. Just the first paragraph seems like a fraud.

2- Kyoto: Every week we have news about climate changes and pollution modifying our environment. Sure, it's a pain to enact the Accord, but I think it's worth it. Many in the states agree. The politicians just want to protect their industries (big contributers to their campaign). I don't blame them for it, but I think we have to do something quickly to stopp the sate of affairs we are in.

Well, I'm not agreeing with you 100% with that 'oil war' thing. The world managed without oil for the best part of its recorded history. It would be tough though.

(Here in Finland 75% of the price of gas is taxes... so we had a headstart. You CAN drive less. :) )

Can you eat less?

Most of the world's food is grown with the support of fertilizers that come from petroleum. No organic method produces the crop volumes that come from artificial fertilization.

Additionally, most nations do not grow enough food to feed themselves. Countries like Canada, the US, and a handful of others export food. The other nations rely on transportation - which requires petroleum.

Before oil, there were what, less than a billion people in the world?

Want to reduce the world's population to that number in a single generation? 20 years of famine and war?

It's coming.

There is, and always has been, a different sense of the role of government. Most Americans, far from being stupid, simply tend to believe in a smaller, more efficient, and more patriotic government, rather than one that appeases tyrants and steals the fruits of people's labors.

i'm trying to make sense of whether you meant this to be pro-bush and are horribly misinformed, or if you were purposefully speaking against bush's policies.

Nah. They are being encouraged to practice intellectualism in his letter. Not the showboating, veiled threats, self-superiority and general ignorance the US administration tends to practice.

BTW which statement was racist?

Actually, I found his tirade to be dripping with self-superiority. It made a mess on my desk. I had to go get towels.

The part of Mr. Axworthy's (Is that really his name? LOL!) remarks that could be construed as racist was calling George W. Bush her "master". Conservative African-Americans (yes, they do exist) aren't too happy when people go around saying that Condi Rice and Colin Powell and other African-Americans aren't very qualified, very intelligent people who willingly take part in the administration.

Meh. Canada doesn't want in on the anti-ballistic missile shield. Most of us here have gotten over it already.

Can you eat less?

Most of the world's food is grown with the support of fertilizers that come from petroleum. No organic method produces the crop volumes that come from artificial fertilization.

Additionally, most nations do not grow enough food to feed themselves. Countries like Canada, the US, and a handful of others export food. The other nations rely on transportation - which requires petroleum.

Before oil, there were what, less than a billion people in the world?

Want to reduce the world's population to that number in a single generation? 20 years of famine and war?

It's coming.
I definately could eat less. 95% of the population in developed countries could. Fertilizers... well, in here there is a HUGE demand of organically grown stuff (food!!! though homegrown is good generally too).

It's more about curbing population boom globally, isn't it. I'm 100% certain there is enough of land to produce food for all people in the USA without fertilizers. Just requires more work.

2- Kyoto: Every week we have news about climate changes and pollution modifying our environment. Sure, it's a pain to enact the Accord, but I think it's worth it.
You hear "stories". Or you hear "news" based on claims that when actually looked at with any real scientific objectivity are found to be false or so completely off base it's seriously not funny.

I'm not sure what you are saying here... the system will never work..? I'm sure there must be more inexpensive ways to shoot down freighters.

Works on missiles (and aircraft).

Not on freighters, trucks, or bobsleds.

i'm trying to make sense of whether you meant this to be pro-bush and are horribly misinformed, or if you were purposefully speaking against bush's policies.

I'm not pro-Bush. I'm not pro-UN. I was pro-war because I tended to view Saddam as a tyrant whose reckoning was overdue. As for taxes, like I said, the tax rates in many nations are robbing people of the fruits of their labor. Efficiency in government and an actual military instead of UN-controlled peacekeepers are good things, believe it or not. I hate Bush's domestic policies on social issues and the environment, though. I think that the budget needs to be balanced too. Spending cuts should match all tax cuts.

Couple of things:
1- Are we sure it's from Mr. Axeworthy? This looks like a fake to me. Just the first paragraph seems like a fraud.

I can't speak for the second link, no information, but the Winnipeg free press is a credible news agency. I believe it's authentic.

I have an uncle named Erike who lives in Finland. At least, that how I think its spelled. I'm not really Finnish, ya know.

Anyways. I think, as far as food, is that the first step is to go ahead and get all these fat bastards that eat so much to ease off. Make some room for the rest of us. I only eat 2 meals a day, but they are big ones, mind you. Also, I work out, and stay in shape. If everyone would do this the world would be much better looking...

Ah yes, let my get back on track. That Axe fellow, if he really wants to try and make a point, should perhaps come down off his pedestal. You see, being smart is good. Trying to sound as smart as possible every time you write something just smacks of elitism, which Americans, by nature, hate. That would be why a redneck Texan is in office right now. I am a redneck, so i can say that without meaning it as an insult. In other words, if he really wanted to get to me and most Americans, it would be better for him to lay off the high and mighty act.

Not to mention, but what in the hell is the University of Winnipeg. I suppose I knew it had to exist, but what, exactly, is it well-known for, if anything? Because if Axe there was president of some crappy school, I'd say that would take away from some of the appeal of his message, not to mention being extremely ironic.

Not to mention, but what in the hell is the University of Winnipeg.

Actually he was Canada's foreign minister for a great number of years.

I can't speak for the second link, no information, but the Winnipeg free press is a credible news agency. I believe it's authentic.

Mr Axworthy was on "As It Happens" (CBC Radio) last night and proudly confirmed his authorship of this self-righteous ideological diatribe.

It's sad that so many of us Canadians seem to think the definition of Canadian is "Whatever The Americans Aren't", and that our highest accolades should go to those who are the rudest and most condescending to our southern neighbours.

I can't speak for the second link, no information, but the Winnipeg free press is a credible news agency. I believe it's authentic.
Well blow me down.

Mr. Axworthy sure has changed his style since the time he was in the government.

I came into this conversation very late in the game.
As far as the argument of petroleum-based fertilisers is concerned, the point is valid but there are most certainly ways to get around it.

Start with the practical things:
For example, the United States and many other industrialised countries with large agricultural sectors simply do away with surplus stores grain and other commodities due to the fact that releasing them into the market would cause their prices to drop, which would be "bad" for the very people producing them.

Another point is that, through breeding drought and pest resistant plants, the reliance upon artificially produced methods of fertilisation would not be as much a necessity.

Furthermore, a concerted global effort needs to be undertaken to enable the developing countries of Africa and Asia to stand on their own and develop the agricultural foodstuffs that their people need rather than what we (the North and West) are TELLING them they need. For example, in some major east African country (it might have been Kenya), they've been working for some time on breeding methods that have produced some very promising results.

Those are just a small handful of the methods we could implement to ween ourselves off of petroleum fertilisers. The two keys are efficiency and intelligent planning. It's not necessary to eat less at all, though maybe with the obesity rates in the North and West, that may not be such a bad idea. :)

Mr Axworthy was on "As It Happens" (CBC Radio) last night and proudly confirmed his authorship of this self-righteous ideological diatribe.

It's sad that so many of us Canadians seem to think the definition of Canadian is "Whatever The Americans Aren't", and that our highest accolades should go to those who are the rudest and most condescending to our southern neighbours.
Actually Mr. Axeworthy raised some very valid points and I do not think that it based on "self-righteous ideological diatribe", as you have suggested.

He finishes with a strong point of view:

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.

It certainly is an adult like approach when discussion Canada/Us relations.

Kudos for speaking up Mr. Axeworthy.

Actually Mr. Axeworthy raised some very valid points and I do not think that it based on "self-righteous ideological diatribe", as you have suggested.

He finishes with a strong point of view:

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.

It certainly is an adult like approach when discussion Canada/Us relations.

Kudos for speaking up Mr. Axeworthy.


missile defence is BS no doubt, axeworthy is still a jackass though

Canada needs to be annexed anyhow, a country that still has a head of state that isn't even Canadian or lives in Canada, that ain't a real country anyhow.

The best of all is, it would all be over in 24 hours, Canada has no armed forces to speak of, it'd be a cakewalk.

Some minor points that should be mentioned:

1. Overall, Canadians are 53% opposed to missile defense. In Quebec, opposition runs 75% against missile defense, and Quebec has been consistently against anything military in nature all the way back to the Boer War. Excluding Quebec, Canadians are actually 54% in favor of missile defense.

2. It's a crock to claim that the system "weaponizes space". Anyone who knows anything about ICBM's knows that they travel through space on the way to a target. That's what a ballistic trajectory is. So, frankly, space has already been weaponized for half a century.

3. Canada doesn't actually have to do a damn thing to get in on missile defense. America isn't asking for any money. America isn't asking for any personnel. America isn't asking for any equipment. America isn't asking for any land to put missile launchers on. They're asking for two things: a) real-time tracking data from NORAD. b) moral support. They got "A" last August. Effectively all Canada has to do to make nice with the US on this matter is say "Yay! Go team!" or something along those lines, and then sit back and let the Americans do all the work, as has been the case on just about anything defense-related since the sixties.

4. Canadian airspace sovereignty is done. It's over. An ICBM takes roughly forty minutes from launch to target. In that period of time it is foolish to believe that Canada will be 'consulted' about what to do about said missile. The United States will decide whether to fire or not, even if the missile is in Canadian airspace, and Canada has just signed away its seat at the table.

So what it comes down to is this. Canada is already fine with depending on the United States for defense, and has been for decades. Canada is already fine with the United States tracking missiles over Canada using Canadian radar stations in the NORAD system. But what we're essentially saying here is that Canada isn't fine with systems that have at least a chance to shoot down said missiles before they reach their targets, even when the system in question is provided for free, with no obligations to contribute in any way besides providing the tracking data Canada's already agreed to provide.

So... where's the logic in it? The only explanation is that Martin, despite repeatedly saying before he became prime minister that he was a supporter of missile defense, is making a self-serving attempt to kiss up to his Quebecois constituents, and selling all of Canada short in the process.

Wow, one Canadian politician gets into a tirade (including a remark that could be construed as racist) and suddenly Condi Rice is supposed to bow to Canadian intellectual superiority.

Condi Rice probably has an IQ of about 160. That flamer will get more than he bargained for.

Canada needs to be annexed anyhow, a country that still has a head of state that isn't even Canadian or lives in Canada, that ain't a real country anyhow.

The best of all is, it would all be over in 24 hours, Canada has no armed forces to speak of, it'd be a cakewalk.

Actually, their Prime Minister is this guy named Paul Martin.
Also, Iraq had no armed forces to speak of either, and look what happened. They didn't even have the forces of the British Commonwealth behind them.

Actually, their Prime Minister is this guy named Paul Martin.
Also, Iraq had no armed forces to speak of either, and look what happened. They didn't even have the forces of the British Commonwealth behind them.

Hockey pucks bounce off of Abrams tanks.

Iraq actually had a lot of troops, but they weren't enough to save them because the people didn't feel like fighting us.

Canada would probably resist better, but the people would be too poorly armed to make a difference. Not that I'd invade. We have a treaty, and the rest of the world would tend to oppose us on this, with more justification.

Also, administering Canada would be a headache.

Anyway, a Prime Minister is not a head of state. A Prime Minister is a head of government. There's a difference. Just look at your almanac. The Governor-General is the de facto head of state, and I think he or she is Canadian.

Iraq actually had a lot of troops, but they weren't enough to save them because the people didn't feel like fighting us.

Canada would probably resist better, but the people would be too poorly armed to make a difference. Not that I'd invade. We have a treaty, and the rest of the world would tend to oppose us on this, with more justification.

Also, administering Canada would be a headache.

Not to mention you could only occupy the country April through October before you had to go south for the winter.

Pansies. :rolleyes:

(OK, maybe you could leave behind a unit or two of Minnesotans or something, but you know they'd be fraternizing with the enemy 5 minutes after everyone else left...)

Some minor points that should be mentioned:

Paul Martin ran on a platform of refusing to be part of the missile defense system and won the election, nuff said!

Actually, their Prime Minister is this guy named Paul Martin.
Also, Iraq had no armed forces to speak of either, and look what happened. They didn't even have the forces of the British Commonwealth behind them.

hahaha, you still live in the imperial mindset? all the Commonwealth will rush to Canada's defense?

I'll put it like this, Canada and it's allies would be no match for us, Britain is no match for us. Our president says 'jump', British PM asks 'how high'.

That's how its been since Roosevelt/Churchill and ain't nothing gonna change that.

hahaha, you still live in the imperial mindset? all the Commonwealth will rush to Canada's defense?

I'll put it like this, Canada and it's allies would be no match for us, Britain is no match for us. Our president says 'jump', British PM asks 'how high'.

That's how its been since Roosevelt/Churchill and ain't nothing gonna change that.


You know what I'd love to see, is America even try to invade Canada, it would ruin them on the world stage.. every country should have a little humility, it's about time the Americans realized that. As being the only super power is like giving the main drug dealing corner to the new comer.. works for a while, but a bigger fish always comes along. In case you don't keep up with politics, America is on the decline.

You know what I'd love to see, is America even try to invade Canada, it would ruin them on the world stage.. every country should have a little humility, it's about time the Americans realized that. As being the only super power is like giving the main drug dealing corner to the new comer.. works for a while, but a bigger fish always comes along. In case you don't keep up with politics, America is on the decline.
*jaw drops* Hmm. If there was a way to package pure bitterness and sell it, you dear lady, would be a treasure trove.

There is, and always has been, a different sense of the role of government. Most Americans, far from being stupid, simply tend to believe in a smaller, more efficient, and more patriotic government, rather than one that appeases tyrants and steals the fruits of people's labors.

My government steals some of the fruits of my labor and gives it to people i don't know. I want to know who partakes of my hard work and get a "thank you" card from them.

Like, "Merry Christmas, Tom! Your $0.32 bought us three packages of Ramen Noodles. thanks for your generosity!"

hehe

Owned? Because one small-time canadian decided to write an article? Surely, you're joking. Last time i checked, Condi is still Secretary of State for the most powerful nation on the Earth... and this guy runs a university which people outside of his own nation don't know exist. Now who exactly owns whom?

I'll take a shot. Must be Condi owning the Canadian university guy.

(now read that again.. wasn't it Condi calling Bush her husband...)

I enjoy how an American has yet to make a argument against Condi or the missle defense yet (or one at least based on facts, not blatant Bush-bashing)
Canada's jealous.
I could be wrong, but didn't Canada just gain the ability to amend it's own constitution only 20 years ago?
i could be wrong, but since when has anything Canada said or done had any effect on the rest of the world?
Basically, some windbag from a country nobody cares about is belittling the most powerful woman in the world, who is too diplomatic to be rude back.
More facts: Our missle defense system is so close to being perfected that now Russia has pledged over 300 billion dollars to try and counter it.
Now, from Putin's recent remarks about American press, it's obvious he isn't the smartest comrade, and dislikes America.
But if he understands (and Russian do know their missles) it's stupid to think some guy from Canada is the only one who's right here.

Condi '08

Denmark may attack Canada.

Yeah, you watch out. We'll use the awesome might of the danish fleet (http://wlambr.skumleren.net/Ixcatlipocatl/tis.jpg) to land more supplies at you on Hans' Island, and then we'll use it as a jump off point for an army of genetically enhanced inuit cyborg dog sleeds. But don't tell anybody. It's supposed to be a secret...

Some minor points that should be mentioned:

1. Overall, Canadians are 53% opposed to missile defense. In Quebec, opposition runs 75% against missile defense, and Quebec has been consistently against anything military in nature all the way back to the Boer War. Excluding Quebec, Canadians are actually 54% in favor of missile defense.

2. It's a crock to claim that the system "weaponizes space". Anyone who knows anything about ICBM's knows that they travel through space on the way to a target. That's what a ballistic trajectory is. So, frankly, space has already been weaponized for half a century.

3. Canada doesn't actually have to do a damn thing to get in on missile defense. America isn't asking for any money. America isn't asking for any personnel. America isn't asking for any equipment. America isn't asking for any land to put missile launchers on. They're asking for two things: a) real-time tracking data from NORAD. b) moral support. They got "A" last August. Effectively all Canada has to do to make nice with the US on this matter is say "Yay! Go team!" or something along those lines, and then sit back and let the Americans do all the work, as has been the case on just about anything defense-related since the sixties.

4. Canadian airspace sovereignty is done. It's over. An ICBM takes roughly forty minutes from launch to target. In that period of time it is foolish to believe that Canada will be 'consulted' about what to do about said missile. The United States will decide whether to fire or not, even if the missile is in Canadian airspace, and Canada has just signed away its seat at the table.

So what it comes down to is this. Canada is already fine with depending on the United States for defense, and has been for decades. Canada is already fine with the United States tracking missiles over Canada using Canadian radar stations in the NORAD system. But what we're essentially saying here is that Canada isn't fine with systems that have at least a chance to shoot down said missiles before they reach their targets, even when the system in question is provided for free, with no obligations to contribute in any way besides providing the tracking data Canada's already agreed to provide.

So... where's the logic in it? The only explanation is that Martin, despite repeatedly saying before he became prime minister that he was a supporter of missile defense, is making a self-serving attempt to kiss up to his Quebecois constituents, and selling all of Canada short in the process.


Ahh i doubt 50+ % of peops outside of quebec are for missile defence, link that stat up. (other than a national post article ;) )

That being said even though the missile defence system is BS, i still think canada should be in on the talks. IMO i still think they will sign up if they can be assured that they wont be dumping any cash into this black hole...

Condi Rice probably has an IQ of about 160. That flamer will get more than he bargained for.



ahhh ok lol

I enjoy how an American has yet to make a argument against Condi or the missle defense yet (or one at least based on facts, not blatant Bush-bashing)
Canada's jealous.
I could be wrong, but didn't Canada just gain the ability to amend it's own constitution only 20 years ago?
i could be wrong, but since when has anything Canada said or done had any effect on the rest of the world?
Basically, some windbag from a country nobody cares about is belittling the most powerful woman in the world, who is too diplomatic to be rude back.
More facts: Our missle defense system is so close to being perfected that now Russia has pledged over 300 billion dollars to try and counter it.
Now, from Putin's recent remarks about American press, it's obvious he isn't the smartest comrade, and dislikes America.
But if he understands (and Russian do know their missles) it's stupid to think some guy from Canada is the only one who's right here.


where is russia going to get 300 billion :rolleyes: ?

Again the only proof anyone has posted about missle defence working is a link from a defence contractor's site, stating how 80% of the time they shot down a missile under "lab" conditions.

Its just common sense to think that shooting down a missile with missiles or "lasers" (said in a dr evil voice) would be tough to pull off. But hey its the usa's cash.


edit*** its important to note that the guy shooting off his mouth here is a FORMER politician and a crappy former one at that...

It's called the "free rider problem".

And it's not just Canada - though they are by far and away the biggest abusers - we have it with all of the West's millitaries.

Look, if your next-door neighbour comes up to you and said, 'I'm putting in a swimming pool,' you'd say, 'sounds great. have fun' and think nothing more of it. But what if the guy putting in the pool next door gets uptight with you, telling you that because he's going to the expense of having a pool installed, that you should happily let him use your toolshed as a diving platform, because after all, he's having a pool installed?

It's all predicated on the assumption that we swim, like pools, or even like the neighbours next door. In this case, I'd say: we don't, we couldn't care less, and only in small doses when there's witnesses or a camera present.

Re-think this "free rider problem". We have no reason to coccoon our nation, never asked for a missile shield, never wanted a new arms race, never needed extraterrestrial space to be militarized...and in my books, you don't buy what you don't want or need in this world. You want it? Okay - personally, I think you're shovelling money into a furnace on this one - but whatever! Put your backs into it, men! There's dollars to be burnt! Just don't assume that anybody else wants a piece of this action.

And damn right, good on Lloyd Axworthy - he may be a former pol, but he still ranks highly on public profile. I put him as 'obvious choice number 2' to succeed Martin as leader of the Libs, right after Pettigrew.

I'm sorry, I'm slow.
So USA has 3 (three) fully functional systems designed to shoot down missiles? And yet Canada didn't buy into it? Interesting. With 3 such systems Iraq with it's wmd's and N. Korea with its' missiles were/are no problem, surely.
One for each axis of evil! Perfect!

And damn right, good on Lloyd Axworthy - he may be a former pol, but he still ranks highly on public profile. I put him as 'obvious choice number 2' to succeed Martin as leader of the Libs, right after Pettigrew.
John Manley all the way.

John Manley all the way.

something shifty about John Manley's eyes...nothing rational, just a gut feeling...reminds me a little too much of John Turner, who I also didn't love or trust especially much.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149142,00.html

I just came across this blurb by a John Gibson of FoxNews. Listen to this bias:

..."Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cancelled a meeting with the Canadians in a fit of frustration and pique -- and now the Canadians are running around madly trying to get an appointment with her, which appears to be scheduled for a week from now."

Honestly, when I heard she was staying away because we opted out of this malarkey, all I could think was, 'are there any other programs we could opt out of? How about Free Trade (ripoff from day one)? Anything that we can do to help keep 'Condi', 'W', or any other cutely-nicknamed American pols from showing up and hassling us in future, especially if all that's required is to choose to do nothing, should be explored thoroughly and implemented over time to guarantee no visits 'til there's regime change for Americans...

Canada's jealous.

No, Canada just thinks your government is insane..

I must say...again... USA has 3 (three) deadly accurate systems that can shoot down (as proven in combat) any missile from the sky (according to WL)... and one that can intercept 80% of them. And you silly Canadiens didn't buy into that system!?! Man you are sillier than we euros thought. When put together... they can shoot down 380% of the missiles Iraq can lob towards you. Silly Canucks.

Freaking A for Lloyd Axworthy, I always though he should run for Prime Minister. (he certainly was one of the best foreign ministers we ever had) Good on him! Sitting here pretty proud to be Canadian at the moment. :)

Better to be rational, than totalitarian. Imperialist are the worst kind of evil. The kind that has everyone convinced that its good for them. You cannot have inequality in the world or empires just get torn down. I look forwar to the day with relish.

Denmark.

Denmark may attack Canada.

Think about this, the Canadian government is spending 13 billion extra on thier Miltary... Why? The Minister of Defence said "We are in more danger from attack on Canadian soil than we ever have at any time during the Cold War." Seems reasonable. The focus of the money : "Country-wide defence reinforcement to promote a means of immediate military response".

Canada is preparing for War. They know you will attack them shortly (10 years?) to get at their resources as your totalitarian corporations and government gain more momentum. I mean you have teachers yelling and screaming at children who are dissenting (who refuse to stand for the anthem). Thats the same crap that happened when some young people refused to acknowledge Hitler as their new leader...

The United States Empire is officially completely and totally insane. There is no democracy left, only christian based fundemental fascism and outright hypocracy. The people have been duped so bad they will never see the truth.


%100 Libertrian Socialist,%100 for ALL the people.

Which missile defense system did Canada choose not to buy into?

The Ground Based Interceptor - which has software failures in its battle management system - the missile itself works.

Other systems that Canada could buy that work and are operational:

SM-3
PAC-3 (also proven in combat against multiple rapidly fired targets)

And, operational at the end of this year:

Airborne Laser

Unworkable? Boondoggle? No, they fucking work, and work well. Even in combat.

If I was a Canadian, I would not argue on the basis of whether something worked or not. The remaining problems in the GBI are software-based - the basic technology for kinetic energy intercept and decoy discrimination has been solved and proven.

It would be better just to say that Canada isn't likely to be attacked by anyone. For any reason. At any time. So they don't need any missiles of any kind.

It stands to reason that Canada doesn't need an Army or an Air Force, or a rusty submarine, either. I wonder who the dumbass was who bought the submarine.
We didn't buy into the whole "lasers in space that shoot down missiles" crap. Those are the ones that have failed all the tests and Bush wants to proceed with anyways. I bet he thinks that lasers in space are cool or some shit.

I enjoy how an American has yet to make a argument against Condi or the missle defense yet (or one at least based on facts, not blatant Bush-bashing)
Canada's jealous.

Right... A country that lives in near utopia, who when they were faced with an seperatist movement that wanted a referendum on seperation Quebec, what did they do? Bomb them? Attack them? No... It allowed them to debate on it, then VOTE. I know seems weird huh? Giving people a say in their destiny? For shame on them...(sarcasm)


I could be wrong, but didn't Canada just gain the ability to amend it's own constitution only 20 years ago?
i could be wrong, but since when has anything Canada said or done had any effect on the rest of the world?

Wrote the Declaration of Human Rights. Proposed and implimented the first peacekeepers in the world. Won Vimy Ridge. Home of the Black Watch and the VanDoos. Took Juno beach.

Basically, some windbag from a country nobody cares about is belittling the most powerful woman in the world, who is too diplomatic to be rude back.

She's only powerful because she is corrupt and stealing millions from your peoples pockets. She's a criminal, and if she had any hand in Iraq, a Warcriminal. I hope the ICC tries her and convicts her.

More facts: Our missle defense system is so close to being perfected that now Russia has pledged over 300 billion dollars to try and counter it.
Now, from Putin's recent remarks about American press, it's obvious he isn't the smartest comrade, and dislikes America.
But if he understands (and Russian do know their missles) it's stupid to think some guy from Canada is the only one who's right here.

Putin, whatever he is is completely right. The rest of the world now has to flock to Russia to get defence from the Americans. I am certain we are all hoping he succeeds, because otherwise, the United States will just take over the world and turn to all into crash crop. They will kill millions if the moneys good, already have in East Timor, why stop there? Democracy of unequals and brutality, isn't that so nice...

We didn't buy into the whole "lasers in space that shoot down missiles" crap. Those are the ones that have failed all the tests and Bush wants to proceed with anyways. I bet he thinks that lasers in space are cool or some shit.
I'm sure Orville and Wilbur thought the idea of airplanes was cool too.

Some minor points that should be mentioned:

(skipped some parts because I didn't feel like commenting on everything)

2. It's a crock to claim that the system "weaponizes space". Anyone who knows anything about ICBM's knows that they travel through space on the way to a target. That's what a ballistic trajectory is. So, frankly, space has already been weaponized for half a century.

I think our politicians were more afraid of satellite with missiles attached to them. That's what we called weaponization of space. We were not talking airspace, but actual space.

Because we are only talking phase one here with the current technology. The missile shield have more than one phase according to what I've gleaned in the news.
3. Canada doesn't actually have to do a damn thing to get in on missile defense. America isn't asking for any money. America isn't asking for any personnel. America isn't asking for any equipment. America isn't asking for any land to put missile launchers on. They're asking for two things: a) real-time tracking data from NORAD. b) moral support. They got "A" last August. Effectively all Canada has to do to make nice with the US on this matter is say "Yay! Go team!" or something along those lines, and then sit back and let the Americans do all the work, as has been the case on just about anything defense-related since the sixties.

But Canada does not want his name associated with the project at all. We won't even run the risk of giving it our OK because then the Bush administration can go around saying "this is a coaltion of the willing" or "Canada is on board, you should be too." If the US really wanted nothing more than a thumbs up, they wouldn't pressure us that much, to the point of Bush speaking about it in Halifax when the diplomats had agreed that nobody would make a public statement about it. That was a cheap shot done by Bush. Of course they have ulterior motives or else this would not be such a point of contention.

We didn't buy into the whole "lasers in space that shoot down missiles" crap. Those are the ones that have failed all the tests and Bush wants to proceed with anyways. I bet he thinks that lasers in space are cool or some shit.

The Airborne Laser Project (YAL-1A) is not the same project you are referring to. You are thinking of the 'Star Wars' concept, something pioneered by the Reagan Administration. In Star Wars, a constellation of satellite-mounted lasers would be able to shoot down a volley of ballistic missiles, over the country that fired them in the first place.

The Airborne Laser Project is a different concept. The ABL is a Chemical-Oxygen-Iodine-Laser (COIL) that can pump several megawatts of energy into any target, from great distances. The use of a deformable ('rubber') mirror and adaptive optics compensates for any atmospheric distortions, and allows the targeting crew to precisely place that laser on any part of a far-away target. To increase its range, the ABL is mounted in the nose-cose of a 747-400F. The laser can track targets fairly quickly. It is not, however, designed solely for intercepting ICBMs, but also to protect against tactical missiles, such as the Frogs, Scuds, and Nodongs that North Korea currently deploys. However, it has the capability to shoot down ICBMs in the boost phase (right after launch), which is what makes them 'Missile Shields'.

Strategists envision it operating in concert with 2-3 other aircraft in the same theater, being fed data by internal radar (not too sure about this one), ground-based systems, and AWACs aircraft. Assuming that the aircraft are spread evenly over a territory, they can cover a massive amount of airspace. The ABL is scheduled to perform a shootdown of a ballistic missile towards the end of this year, which would fulfill the design goals of this project. Several more aircraft are planned for construction. The project was begun during the Clinton Administration.

where is russia going to get 300 billion :rolleyes: ?

Again the only proof anyone has posted about missle defence working is a link from a defence contractor's site, stating how 80% of the time they shot down a missile under "lab" conditions.

Its just common sense to think that shooting down a missile with missiles or "lasers" (said in a dr evil voice) would be tough to pull off. But hey its the usa's cash.


edit*** its important to note that the guy shooting off his mouth here is a FORMER politician and a crappy former one at that...
The technology isn't radically different from the AEGIS missiles on guided missile cruisers, or the patriot missiles...

Krackonis, I ... am actually speechless. I almost cried an laughed at the same time. Pathetic. To begin:

"Right... A country that lives in near utopia, who when they were faced with an seperatist movement that wanted a referendum on seperation Quebec, what did they do? Bomb them? Attack them? No... It allowed them to debate on it, then VOTE. I know seems weird huh? Giving people a say in their destiny? For shame on them...(sarcasm)"
Um, America had the right to vote hundreds of years before Canada, and we still vote! WTF??!! America VOTED to re-elect our President. What the hell are you talking about?


"Wrote the Declaration of Human Rights. Proposed and implimented the first peacekeepers in the world. Won Vimy Ridge. Home of the Black Watch and the VanDoos. Took Juno beach."
Exactly. Nothing important. The Declaration of Human rights is ridiculed even in the U.N. nowadays as being remarkably ambiguous and useless ( even by Kofi Anan to some extent.) As seen in Hotel Rwanda, your peacekeepers were laughably useless, and the rest of the things you mention actually had no effect. At all.


"She's only powerful because she is corrupt and stealing millions from your peoples pockets. She's a criminal, and if she had any hand in Iraq, a Warcriminal. I hope the ICC tries her and convicts her."
This proves you have NO idea what you are talking about. How is she corrupt? How is she stealing millions? Before joining Bush's staff she was the head of Stanford University (a bit more prestigious that your windbag's school), and still makes under $100,000 a year. How the hell is that corrupt? What are you even talking about? "If she had any hand in Iraq . . ." you don't even know!!!! You're guessing. Yes, she was involved. What the hell did she do to be a war criminal? Like, what war crimes? If you mention the murder of Iraqis, thats idiotic. They were an enemy. WHAT CRIMES??!!

"Putin, whatever he is is completely right. The rest of the world now has to flock to Russia to get defence from the Americans. I am certain we are all hoping he succeeds, because otherwise, the United States will just take over the world and turn to all into crash crop. They will kill millions if the moneys good, already have in East Timor, why stop there? Democracy of unequals and brutality, isn't that so nice"
Again, you don't even know what you're sayin (whatever he is.) He is the ex-head of the KGB, a man who has eliminated free press and assembly totally, and a man who spends 30% of his country's GNP on an army that pale's against Americas. Combined with Russia's threats to take Northern Chinese territories, I'm really impressed how you would flock to him for protection against 'Americas evil empire'.
Bah Humbug

BTW:
Nobody knows how Russia would get the $300 billion. Putin said it in a speech, but it is probably impossible. But he's desperate. Fact is, the way the missle sheild is designed, it would really be fairly impossible for any missle to avoid it, short of bobbing and weaving in mid-air (impossible, as all missles today follow pre-programmed computer routes.)

Sigh.
So very many people in blind support of imperialism makes baby so sad.

Anyhow, this whole missle defense thing is over the top. I would much rather see money be spent on healthcare, bailing out Social Security, and improving border security than something that might protect us from only a few missles at once.

I'm happy to see that Canada still thinks of itself as a friend to the US. Perhaps I could point out one KEY phrase at the end that I foud positively heartwarming...

"Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power."

All that you need to say to sum up that entire article is in that phrase.

Sometimes the truth, no matter how irritating, inconvenient, unpopular, arrogant sounding, back talking, snidely spoken, flippant, funny, overlooked, and/or underappreciated, must be spoken and must heard. Or perhaps I should say SHOULD be heard, if you wish to keep your nation intact?

Power corrupts, remember that pithy little saying? There's more truth packed into that you could possibly exhaust in a thousand years, ten thousand even. Its true right now, in the US, at the highest levels of power in the most hallowed halls of our beloved or hated government. This person from Canada, I've never heard of him; but I feel now as if he might be my brother. For he is deeply worried about a powerful friend, one who acts like there is no problem...when there IS a problem, and all the power in the world won't make that problem go away.

This thread is horribly named. Condi Rice didn't get PWN3D. This was a slightly humorus but very serious attempt to talk a neighbor and friend from running further down a fool's errand.

Most Americans, far from being stupid, simply tend to believe in a smaller, more efficient, and more patriotic government, rather than one that appeases tyrants and steals the fruits of people's labors.
You think the American government is small? Hasn't spending gone up by around 50% during Bush's first term?

I would imagine that many Canadians would object to you calling their government less patriotic than America's. How is spening money on missiles and helping your corporate buddies more patriotic than helping your citizens out with healthcare?

It pisses me off that the extreme right is trying to copywrite patriotism.

"Wrote the Declaration of Human Rights. Proposed and implimented the first peacekeepers in the world. Won Vimy Ridge. Home of the Black Watch and the VanDoos. Took Juno beach."
Exactly. Nothing important. The Declaration of Human rights is ridiculed even in the U.N. nowadays as being remarkably ambiguous and useless ( even by Kofi Anan to some extent.)
Not at all. It is Amnesty International's source document.

Canada needs to be annexed anyhow, a country that still has a head of state that isn't even Canadian or lives in Canada, that ain't a real country anyhow.

The best of all is, it would all be over in 24 hours, Canada has no armed forces to speak of, it'd be a cakewalk.

Your a lovely fellow.

I suggest after the invasion, that America also steal candy from babies. I mean you get candy, which is yummy, and it is also very easy.

Denmark.

Denmark may attack Canada.

Denmark has already attacked Canada.

Actually, I found his tirade to be dripping with self-superiority. It made a mess on my desk. I had to go get towels.

The part of Mr. Axworthy's (Is that really his name? LOL!) remarks that could be construed as racist was calling George W. Bush her "master". Conservative African-Americans (yes, they do exist) aren't too happy when people go around saying that Condi Rice and Colin Powell and other African-Americans aren't very qualified, very intelligent people who willingly take part in the administration.

Meh. Canada doesn't want in on the anti-ballistic missile shield. Most of us here have gotten over it already.

You yourself have been racist, by suggesting the moment a white man says anything to those of another colour he is construing it as Racist. You read to deeply into the comment, obviously trying to make the man seem like an evil racist, when I can do the same to you.

BTW:
Nobody knows how Russia would get the $300 billion. Putin said it in a speech, but it is probably impossible. But he's desperate. Fact is, the way the missle sheild is designed, it would really be fairly impossible for any missle to avoid it, short of bobbing and weaving in mid-air (impossible, as all missles today follow pre-programmed computer routes.)

Heard of the SS-25 Topol-M? Did you hear the press release from Putin and his Defence Minister about the new ICBM being created? Wanna know about it? ok!
10 MIRV's (Multiple Independant Re-entry Vehicles) that are hypersonic, and yes, can perform evasive actions. This is why Russia has not been overly furious that the United States left the ABM treaty, because they know the Americans attempts are futile.

How about we all just go back to the nice days of MAD, and put money into the problem that will probably bankrupt most western countries, including Canada and the United States... especially Canada and the US. That is the baby-boomers and their retirement/subsquent social security. That is going to hurt us. As a seventeen year old, every dollar I give to the government from my taxes, 44cents will goto social security, instead of the 22 cents my mother pays right now. That is insane, and scary.

Oh and by the way, I'd love to see the world without our Human Rights intiatives, or the peacekeepers. I can tell you right now, there would be a lot more dead people. And just remember who kicked you out of Ontario, and Quebec in 1812, after you got the manifest destiny bug in you.

Wrote the Declaration of Human Rights. Proposed and implimented the first peacekeepers in the world. Won Vimy Ridge. Home of the Black Watch and the VanDoos. Took Juno beach.
mor, why stop there? Democracy of unequals and brutality, isn't that so nice...

You forgot the defence of the Suez Canal which forged the UN Peacekeping force and possibly averted WWIII

Heard of the SS-25 Topol-M? Did you hear the press release from Putin and his Defence Minister about the new ICBM being created? Wanna know about it? ok!
10 MIRV's (Multiple Independant Re-entry Vehicles) that are hypersonic, and yes, can perform evasive actions. This is why Russia has not been overly furious that the United States left the ABM treaty, because they know the Americans attempts are futile.

How about we all just go back to the nice days of MAD, and put money into the problem that will probably bankrupt most western countries, including Canada and the United States... especially Canada and the US. That is the baby-boomers and their retirement/subsquent social security. That is going to hurt us. As a seventeen year old, every dollar I give to the government from my taxes, 44cents will goto social security, instead of the 22 cents my mother pays right now. That is insane, and scary.

Oh and by the way, I'd love to see the world without our Human Rights intiatives, or the peacekeepers. I can tell you right now, there would be a lot more dead people. And just remember who kicked you out of Ontario, and Quebec in 1812, after you got the manifest destiny bug in you.


The Space Based Laser (I'm not joking) and the SBIRS-Low should have no problem with
a) detecting and identifying real warheads out of any group of real and decoy warheads (SBIRS-Low already can do this)
b) hitting multiple moving targets

Besides, the current missile defense systems are not intended to be used to negate Russian missiles.

They're to stop North Korean missiles, as well as Iranian missiles.

It may interest Europeans on this forum to know that Iran has successfully developed a missile capable of hitting Europe, but not capable of coming close to reaching the US. Now that they're developing the nuclear bomb, one may wonder who they're going to shoot at. Their new missile has twice the range necessary to hit Israel - so who do you think they're going to shoot at?

They are good friends with the Russians - so that's not it.

Want to guess who will be pressured by a nation with nuclear missiles (Iran) and no way to retaliate and no way to defend itself?

Have fun talking the Iranians out of it. They have said today that no matter what the outcome of European negotiations, they will never stop enriching uranium. They want nuclear weapons on top of ICBMs regardless of what the Europeans ask.