Canada should sign on to missile defence: Senate report
Ahnimus
Posts: 10,560
Canada should not waste military resources on defending the Arctic, but should sign on to the U.S. ballistic missile defence program and double the amount of money it gives for foreign aid, a Senate defence committee report released Thursday says.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/05/defence-report.html
Oh yeah? and what about those U.S. Submarines patrolling the artctic?
A U.S. nuclear submarine cruised through the Arctic Ocean last month -- probably passing through Canadian territorial waters -- but the federal government is refusing to say whether it gave permission for the voyage.
However, experts say it is highly unlikely Canada was even notified of the USS Charlotte's northern tour, which included a Nov. 10 stop at the North Pole, because it has no way of tracking what goes on beneath the Arctic ice.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fb21432a-1d28-415e-b323-ceb22d477732&k=69493
About 6 months ago the residents of the area were reporting dozens of foreign Submarines in the waters up there. Why would we want to stop protecting that area?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/05/defence-report.html
Oh yeah? and what about those U.S. Submarines patrolling the artctic?
A U.S. nuclear submarine cruised through the Arctic Ocean last month -- probably passing through Canadian territorial waters -- but the federal government is refusing to say whether it gave permission for the voyage.
However, experts say it is highly unlikely Canada was even notified of the USS Charlotte's northern tour, which included a Nov. 10 stop at the North Pole, because it has no way of tracking what goes on beneath the Arctic ice.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fb21432a-1d28-415e-b323-ceb22d477732&k=69493
About 6 months ago the residents of the area were reporting dozens of foreign Submarines in the waters up there. Why would we want to stop protecting that area?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/05/fbi-border.html
Looks like our government is welcoming the American Union with open arms.
Personally, I don't like this state of affairs ... It erodes our sovereignty.
I think.. If I recall correctly.. some people live here.
Exactly, I read there is some kind of claus, where if we don't kick people out of our waters they become international after like 25 years.
news to me.
People that think we should not have a military drive me bananas ... Having a military does not mean your state is warmongering. Rather, having a military to secure ones borders is an important aspect of sovereignty.
Well, I deffinately rather we have military defending the arctic than sign on to some U.S. military project and consolidate our power. Any kind of military partnership between Canada and the U.S. ultimately means the U.S. controls our military.
thats a little extreme isn't it? we are neighbors. you act as if we are enemies.
I am inclined to agree ... Obviously we need to cooperate with the U.S. military, inasmuch as we share this continent. But yes, we need to do our own thing, with regards to bases, equipment, etc. I have mixed feelings about participating in the missile shield. On the one hand, its really not that different from the old days of NORAD. On the other hand, maybe resources would be better spent elsewhere, like the Arctic.
We may very well end up that way.
With all this talk of sovereignty in the last few years. Is it any suprise Canadians would want to keep their's?
I just don't see it. I don't know. I am hesitant to support military funding. They want to increase it by 15 billion. But I mean, we are already paying out our noses in taxes. If they want to do that, they are going to have to cut other programs, and they will probably be middle-class programs. Or they will jack the income tax on the middle-class up again.
You're welcome. My tax dollars to do it.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I think the point is that you don't really have anything that qualifies as a real military? Also, Im pretty sure that other than keeping US safe, we have no interests in your military, nor your sovereignty.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
dude, you honestly think we would end up enemies? we share a million mile border. the only way we would become enemies is if you outright attacked us. even canadians are smarter then that. no american or canadian would ever want that. its illogical to ever happen. you should be thankful we are patrolling your artic waters.
Oh, but we've been at war in the past! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812
I think we will probably be assimilated with very little resistance. But I'd like to think we'd fight you and win. You know, like we did before?
I agree that social programs are a more urgent concern ... That being said, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You want separation from the U.S., yet you aren't willing to help pay for what we would need to do to solidity this separation. Are you from Quebec, perchance?
No, I'm not from Quebec, I've never even been there.
We don't need as strong of a military as the U.S. though. Because we kick ass.
Dude, seriously ... The historical and political context has changed so much since 1812. The odds of an actual war are very, very slim. It strikes me as bizarre that you worry about a hypothetical American conquest of Canada. The Americans are not the biggest threat this country faces. Did a bunch of Americans get busted for massing explosives to blow up Ottawa?
No, I'm not from Quebec, I've never even been there.
We don't need as strong of a military as the U.S. though. Because we kick ass.
I'm just not dumb enough to fall into that trap. Things may not seem that way now. But things will change. The decisions we make now will affect us in the future.
I agree that one cannot just rule out the possibility entirely. But these days, the danger thermometer with regards to the U.S. is nowhere near the "red zone" ... We have much greater threats to our security to worry about.
not sure if you noticed but alot has changed since 1812
I guess that depends on perspective. I don't consider any other threat greater. I'm not even sure what other threads you mean.
Yea, I noticed. The U.S. isn't concerned about freedom anymore, it's concerned about Imperialism.
Sure, but ideally, a perspective is informed by ... you know ... observation. Its not just something you buy into because you feel like it. And I mean threats from inside Canada. All those guys who were planning to blow up government buildings? The ones the RCMP busted in time? That's the sort of thing that seems like a more immediate threat.
bold statement from such a little guy. you worry too much. maybe its time to end it. not everyone is out to get you. even the big bad USA.
My investigation of the 2006 Terrorist arrests has turned up only circumstantial evidence of terrorism.
Zakaria Amara one of the men charged, 20, was playing with his 8 month old son when his home was invaded by police.
"I'm crying ... My husband is telling me it's OK, they are screaming at him to shut up," she said.
Read this article and tell me what INSET is doing isn't terrorism.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060604/terrorists_court_060604/20060604?hub=TopStories
There are two pieces of evidence that have been presented in this case.
1) They purchased ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which could have been used for agriculture.
2) They made statements online that "connect" them to terrorists.
Zakaria Amara wrote the following here
The particular line "Soon I'll return to my lord" is supposed to be evidence of terrorism. But I don't get that impression from the poem. In any regard this evidence is circumstantial.
Has any of these people been convicted in a court of law?
Little is known about the one other prosecution under the Anti-Terrorism Act that was started with an arrest in March, 2004 but with no trial scheduled until January 2007, and defence lawyers have raised concerns about the adequacy of disclosure and have recently announced they will challenge the offences under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The resolution of the Toronto arrests are not likely to be known for some time.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/06/canadian-anti-terror-law-on-trial.php
I guess we won't know for a long time. So don't jump the gun.
lol, I'm not worried. I'm just looking at it analytically. I'm thinking about it.
o no not again.