» GC Stats |
Members: 329,707
Threads: 115,665
Posts: 2,204,916
|
Welcome to our newest member, Samuelner |
|
 |
|

02-24-2005, 05:43 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta - Canada
Posts: 3,190
|
|
Canada says no to missile defense
Well it looks like the government has finally decided to say no to participating in the US's missile defense system... glad to see it was either say yes or reliquinsh soveriegnty
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...le_defence&e=3
Quote:
U.S. says Canada relinquishing sovereignty with No to missile shield
ALEXANDER PANETTA
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's announcement that it won't join the U.S. missile shield provoked an immediate warning that it has relinquished sovereignty over its airspace.
From now on, the U.S. government will control any decision to fire at incoming missiles over Canadian territory, declared the top U.S. envoy to Canada.
"We will deploy. We will defend North America," said Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada.
"We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty - its seat at the table - to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada."
The response came just moments after Prime Minister Paul Martin ended months of ambiguity Thursday by announcing that he would not sign on to the controversial missile-defence program.
The warning was no slip of the tongue: Cellucci repeated several times that Canada's decision had in effect handed over some of its sovereignty to the United States.
"I personally don't think it's in Canada's sovereign interest to be outside of the room when a decision is made about a missile that might be incoming towards Canada."
Cellucci said he understood the political "challenge" that made it difficult for Martin's minority government to accept missile defence - and agreed it was Canada's right to make a decision.
The formal announcement completed a lengthy retreat for Martin, who expressed support for the project last year in his early days in office, then qualified his support, and finally fell almost silent on the issue.
Still, even the final announcement was not without confusion.
Martin said he would expect to be consulted on what to do about any missile passing over Canada.
Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew, however, seemed to indicate the ultimate decision lies in U.S. hands - whether or not Canada ever joins the missile shield.
"Would it have been otherwise?" he replied when asked whether Canada's refusal to join means the country now officially relies on the United States for protection.
"Canada . . . must act in its own interests and must determine where its priorities lie," Pettigrew said as he made the formal announcement in the House of Commons. "After careful consideration of the issue, we have decided that Canada will not participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defence system."
He said the decision is based on sound policy principles rather than emotion.
Martin insisted the move won't hurt relations with the U.S.
"Canada and the United States remain one another's staunchest allies and closest friends . . . and we will continue to ensure that our overall relationship grows stronger and that our people enjoy increased security and prosperity."
He said though Canada remains deeply committed to security, "ballistic missile defence is not where we will concentrate our efforts."
Instead, Canada will work on border security, reinforcing coastal and Arctic sovereignty and expanding the military.
"As part of this, Canada remains steadfast in its support of Norad," he said.
Martin noted that the $13 billion in new military funding announced in Wednesday's federal budget is "a tangible indication that Canada intends to carry its full share of that responsibility."
Pettigrew said he told his U.S. counterpart of the decision Tuesday at the NATO summit in Belgium attended by both Martin and U.S. President George W. Bush.
"Of course the U.S. is disappointed, but they recognize our decision," Pettigrew said.
Neither Martin nor Pettigrew explained precisely why they oppose missile defence, but opponents, including the NDP, argue it may trigger a new arms race.
The NDP immediately hailed the decision.
Critics also question why the elaborate plan is necessary in a post-Cold War climate where the U.S. government is fighting low-budget terrorist operations, not state-run communism.
Supporters of the scheme contend Canada will sit on the sidelines without any say over how the system is used, without any access to billions in related research contracts, and without any political credit from Washington.
Any plans to join the project were buried under a wave of political resistance - from the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and many Liberals - that Martin's minority government did not risk trying to overcome.
Polls have suggested most Canadians oppose the project and Martin might even have faced a revolt within his own Liberal caucus.
Coming on the heels of Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-led war in Iraq (news - web sites), Thursday's announcement marked a second major break with the United States over a military project.
Martin had promised a new era of Canada-U.S. relations after bitter divisions over the war in Iraq. But U.S. officials had warned it would be an inauspicious start to any new era if Canada refused to join the missile plan.
They privately expressed befuddlement, frustration and even mild amusement at how long it took for Martin to make an announcement.
Bush raised the issue repeatedly during a trip to Canada late last year and, against all expectations, publicly requested Martin's support with the prime minister sitting by his side.
Martin's waiting game became increasingly untenable in recent days.
The Conservatives had not budged from their silence on the issue in an attempt to isolate the Liberals, who also faced a bruising battle over missile defence at its March convention.
The final straw came this week when Frank McKenna, Ottawa's ambassador-designate to Washington, triggered a flood of attacks on the government by saying Canada was already effectively part of missile defence.
Canadian soldiers are part of the Colorado-based Norad program that monitors the skies for incoming missiles.
But the Canadian government has repeatedly insisted their agreement last August to amend the longstanding Norad pact so that Canada will pass information along to U.S. officials didn't mean Canada had joined the project.
Missile defence supporters said the program wouldn't have cost Canada a dime, nor would it have placed missiles on Canadian soil.
U.S. officials have indicated they didn't really need Canada's help, but would have appreciated political support from their neighbour as they attempted to sell the plan abroad.
|
__________________
Λ Χ Α
University of Toronto Alum
EE755
"Cave ab homine unius libri"
|

02-25-2005, 12:12 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 797
|
|
well America was always going to protect Canada, it's really not that big of news if you get right down to it.
|

02-25-2005, 06:12 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta - Canada
Posts: 3,190
|
|
I just find it incredibly arogant that the US ambassador would state that because Canada didn't agree to the plan that it sacrificed it's sovereignty - think about the US reaction if Canada declared that it wouldn't respect US sovereignty or politics... besides O'Reilly having a heart-attack on air  . There would be justifible protests and anger at the gall or arogance of that position...
__________________
Λ Χ Α
University of Toronto Alum
EE755
"Cave ab homine unius libri"
|

02-25-2005, 09:29 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: "...maybe tomorrow I'm gonna settle down. Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on."
Posts: 5,713
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
I just find it incredibly arogant that the US ambassador would state that because Canada didn't agree to the plan that it sacrificed it's sovereignty - think about the US reaction if Canada declared that it wouldn't respect US sovereignty or politics... besides O'Reilly having a heart-attack on air . There would be justifible protests and anger at the gall or arogance of that position...
|
You know, and I know, and the rest of our country knows that we have just exercised our sovereignty. So Mr. Cellucci can talk out his ass all he wants. I don't think anyone is listening.
|

02-25-2005, 11:44 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 797
|
|
Quote:
The blunt warning from Paul Cellucci came minutes after Prime Minister Paul Martin announced Thursday that he will not sign on to the controversial U.S. missile defence program. "We will deploy. We will defend North America," Cellucci said.
|
Just curious why the first sentence was not included?
|

02-25-2005, 02:04 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: The 2010 Winter Olympics
Posts: 1,068
|
|
__________________
DFE
Delta Phi Epsilon
Justice*Sisterhood*Love
|

02-25-2005, 04:57 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
|
|
Context, people - it's 'sovereignty' not "Sovereignty" in this case. While I don't think Celucci has ever had a way with words, certainly here he spoke pretty far out of left field if the implications are intentional (and they probably are, b/c he's sort of a douche bag). However, the fact that the US will still combat issues in Canadian airspace quite literally requires US defenses to invade the sovereign airspace of Canada; thus, unfortunately, what he said is literally correct. Still, it's strange (and unfortunate) he used such harsh wording.
Edited for typographical retardation
Last edited by KSig RC; 03-01-2005 at 11:57 AM.
|

02-26-2005, 03:09 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: "...maybe tomorrow I'm gonna settle down. Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on."
Posts: 5,713
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
Context, people - it's 'sovereignity' not "Sovereignity" in this
|
It's actually S-O-V-E-R-E-I-G-N-T-Y
|

02-27-2005, 10:06 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: somewhere in richmond
Posts: 6,906
|
|
I am so confused....didn't we (the federation known as the U.S.) give them (the federation known as Canada) a bunch of nuclear weapons and stuff to shoot down missles during the cold war. I'm pretty sure that Canada would shoot any missle that was aimed at them, or us if it was over their airspace. I think this agreement is just needless paperwork and a last ditch by the right wing extremists in this country.
|

02-27-2005, 10:12 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta - Canada
Posts: 3,190
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Optimist Prime
I am so confused....didn't we (the federation known as the U.S.) give them (the federation known as Canada) a bunch of nuclear weapons and stuff to shoot down missles during the cold war. I'm pretty sure that Canada would shoot any missle that was aimed at them, or us if it was over their airspace. I think this agreement is just needless paperwork and a last ditch by the right wing extremists in this country.
|
The Bomarc missle was nuclear tipped - it was actually the program that killed the Avro Arrow (big issue up here)... the last warhead was removed in 1997 and taken back to the US for disposal - mind you it was 50s technology so it's not to useful... it was designed to intercept bombers by blowing up close-enough to them with a nuke.
Canadian defense has switched back and forth between adovcating a ground based defense and an air based defense - the current arguement is for developing air based interception missle technology as cheaper and easier to deploy across Canada.
__________________
Λ Χ Α
University of Toronto Alum
EE755
"Cave ab homine unius libri"
Last edited by RACooper; 02-27-2005 at 10:17 PM.
|

03-01-2005, 02:44 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: somewhere in richmond
Posts: 6,906
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
The Bomarc missle was nuclear tipped - it was actually the program that killed the Avro Arrow (big issue up here)... the last warhead was removed in 1997 and taken back to the US for disposal - mind you it was 50s technology so it's not to useful... it was designed to intercept bombers by blowing up close-enough to them with a nuke.
Canadian defense has switched back and forth between adovcating a ground based defense and an air based defense - the current arguement is for developing air based interception missle technology as cheaper and easier to deploy across Canada.
|
that makes since...how would you feel about a Union of our two Soveriegn Nations? [i learned a new word on greek chat]
|

03-01-2005, 03:38 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 797
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Optimist Prime
that makes since...how would you feel about a Union of our two Soveriegn Nations? [i learned a new word on greek chat]
|
why don't you do us a favor and learn how to spell it then...
|

03-01-2005, 05:49 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary, Alberta - Canada
Posts: 3,190
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Optimist Prime
that makes since...how would you feel about a Union of our two Soveriegn Nations? [i learned a new word on greek chat]
|
you mean other than shooting any "Brother" who dared utter such an abomination?
__________________
Λ Χ Α
University of Toronto Alum
EE755
"Cave ab homine unius libri"
|

03-01-2005, 11:58 AM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Who you calling "boy"? The name's Hand Banana . . .
Posts: 6,984
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
It's actually S-O-V-E-R-E-I-G-N-T-Y
|
Good catch; typos now fixed . . . any response to the meat of the post?
|

03-01-2005, 12:18 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: "...maybe tomorrow I'm gonna settle down. Until tomorrow, I'll just keep moving on."
Posts: 5,713
|
|
Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
Good catch; typos now fixed . . . any response to the meat of the post?
|
LOL,
Yes.
I don't see how the US can enter Canadian airspace without our permission? If we wanted to defend ourselves (granted with our highly underfunded and underequipped military), we would.
I think Mr. Celucci ran his mouth. I think the Canadian government exercised its sovereignty by saying, yes, we'll sit down an discuss this with you, and then by saying, no, we don't want to be a part of it.
|
 |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|