angry Bush ignores Martin's phone call

[shockwave203]

A day before he announced that Canada would have nothing to do with U.S. missile defence, Prime Minister Paul Martin placed a call to the American president to tell him of his decision, senior American officials told CTV News.

But the leaders never actually spoke that day. And almost a week later, President George W. Bush has yet to return Martin's call.

This is further evidence of Washington's deep displeasure with Canada's decision to opt out of the U.S. ballistic missile defence program (BMD).

CTV News reported Monday that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice deferred a visit to Ottawa in mid-April over her anger with Canada's decision.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109731186628_30/?hub=TopStories

I think someone's a little upset :rofl

[Daneel Olivaw]

When most of our scientists agree that this missile defense is not the most efficient defense system, to say the least. I hope that Martin holds his own. Man I preferred Chrétien's way of dealing with the US. (though Clinton also made a big difference in that Canada-US relationship).

Anyway, Condo knows there'd be huge manifestations if she came to Canada. Maybe she's not in the mood for canadian anti-war protests.

[Rakeesh]

*shrug* I say we just build our own, and don't install any SAM batteries in canadian territory, rather just keep it at our border. If a missile should target canada, let them deal with it. It's a win-win.

[Daneel Olivaw]

What you don't know is that we're involved in the system, whatever anyone says, last time I checked, a Canadian was heading Nato.
edit: damn I know I read that somewhere... any1 got info?

[shockwave203]

When most of our scientists agree that this missile defense is not the most efficient defense system, to say the least. I hope that Martin holds his own. Man I preferred Chrétien way of dealing with the US.

indeed. chretien didn't care what bush thought of him.

*shrug* I say we just build our own, and don't install any SAM batteries in canadian territory, rather just keep it at our border. If a missile should target canada, let them deal with it.

first of all, it was "your own" system in the first place. there was never going to be anything constructed on Canadian territory anyway. it's all politics, but i'm glad martin chose not to support a system that will never work, and can't even shoot down a single test missile.

and we needn't worry about some country firing off a missile to Canada. they'd have an easier time smuggling it into the US through the mexican border and detonating it in an american city. this missile defence gives you guys a false sense of security.

[shockwave203]

What you don't know is that we're involved in the system, whatever anyone says, last time I checked, a Canadian was heading Nato.
edit: damn I know I read that somewhere... any1 got info?

i heard it on tv. it's a canadian who will be in charge of the system if his american counter-part is absent.

[retsam]

*shrug* I say we just build our own, and don't install any SAM batteries in canadian territory, rather just keep it at our border. If a missile should target canada, let them deal with it. It's a win-win ya its funny you should say that .... the second someone points a missle at canada i bet our missle system wouldnt look so bad

with iran building missles like this

here (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-6.htm)

and knowing how much they hate america they will sign up really fast once iran field that missle.

[Daneel Olivaw]

Canada is a major financial supporter and contributor of personnel to the NATO Airborne Early Warning System (AWACS), a type of aircraft that provides all-weather surveillance, command, control and communications to NATO air defence forces. AWACS are modified commercial planes with rotating radar domes. AWACS provide NATO with early warning to significantly enhance the Alliance's air defence capability. Air-borne radar allows NATO the ability to detect and track enemy aircraft operating at low altitudes over all terrain, and to identify and give directions to friendly aircraft operating in the same area. In addition, its mobility allows it to be deployed rapidly where it is most needed, and makes it far less vulnerable to attack than ground-based radar.

Following the September 11 attack, five NATO AWACS aircraft and one cargo aircraft were dispatched as part of Operation Eagle Assist to patrol the skies over the United States and help prevent further terrorist attacks. Some 22 Canadian Forces personnel participated in the operation, which lasted from October 9, 2001, to May 16, 2002.

AWACS have also been used to provide surveillance operations for public events in order to deter potential terrorist attacks. Recently, NATO approved AWACS support for the Royal Wedding in Spain and the Euro 2004 Portuguese Football Championship. AWACS will also be used to provide security to the Greek 2004 Olympics.
There's a whole list of canadian contributions to the defense of North America and world peacekeeping. This refusal to back the US missile defence is simply due to the fact that the US wants Canada to funnel money in a project that most knowledgable people say is useless. We're not talking radars and SAM... we're talking plane-based lasers... *ahem* and that Star Wars project that scared the crap out of everyone...

[shockwave203]

ya its funny you should say that .... the second someone points a missle at canada i bet our missle system wouldnt look so bad

oh yes it would. current technology, with all the satellites and laser guided weapons, still misses stationary targets on the ground by miles at a time. yet this system is supposed to intercept moving missiles that no one knows about? if you think a country is going to send ONE missile, all by itself, across the ocean instead of sending multiple targets that the missile shield would miss anyway, you have another thing coming.

[Daneel Olivaw]

Instead of having your government act all childish on us when we say no, why not recognize the great partners we are in everything else? Who's got troops in Afganistan keeping the peace? There are many other contributions, military or otherwise, we're just not dumping money on wars we don't approve or in types of defense we don't believe in.

[intercede007]

and we needn't worry about some country firing off a missile to Canada. they'd have an easier time smuggling it into the US through the mexican border and detonating it in an american city. this missile defence gives you guys a false sense of security.

Are you kidding me?

The boarder between the United States and Canada has less than 1/20th of the manpower and protection on it than our border with Mexico. And it's twice as large!!!

If anything bad is getting smuggled in from anywhere, it would probably be from Canada!

A military has to modernize or it gets beaten. That's a fact. If it doesn't work, keep trying. The idea is sound enough; to prevent missile from hitting the ground, shoot it out of the air.

We just have to make it work. And when we make it work, be it two years or twenty years from now, we will still probably be the only ones that have it. So just because it can't shoot down a missile now, should we stop, completely disregarding that we might be able to with more time?

Research and development is a pain in the ass. It's a massive string of failures with the intention of finding a success that works. Right now our missle defense is in R&D.

There is a reason that the United States came up with the SR-71 and no one else did. There is a reason the United States came up with the U-2 and nobody else did. There is a reason the United States came up with the F-117 and nobody else did.

It's because we had the foresight and the gumption to try. The best aeronautical engineers in the world said the Have Blue would never fly. But Skunkworks made it happen and it turned the entire Russian air defense system on it's ear.

We will keep trying to make the missle defense system work because it needs to be done.

[shockwave203]

Are you kidding me?

The boarder between the United States and Canada has less than 1/20th of the manpower and protection on it than our border with Mexico. And it's twice as large!!!

If anything bad is getting smuggled in from anywhere, it would probably be from Canada!

the border between the US and Canada doesn't see ~1 million people sneak by illegally every single year. the mexican border does. hell, the mexican government even offers flyers that give people TIPS on how to illegally cross the border successfully.

A military has to modernize or it gets beaten. That's a fact. If it doesn't work, keep trying. The idea is sound enough; to prevent missile from hitting the ground, shoot it out of the air.

We just have to make it work. And when we make it work, be it two years or twenty years from now, we will still probably be the only ones that have it. So just because it can't shoot down a missile now, should we stop, completely disregarding that we might be able to with more time?

building this system will motivate other countries to research new missiles that can beat the system. this whole BMD is just silliness. what country is going to fire off a missile across the ocean, allow the US to track it, and then not expect to have the crap beaten out of them once that missile arrives in the US? the selling point of this missile shield is to "protect us from rogue nations". if a nation wanted to attack the US, they would not leave such a clear connection between them and the attack by having their nuke tracked back to them.

Research and development is a pain in the ass. It's a massive string of failures with the intention of finding a success that works. Right now our missle defense is in R&D.

There is a reason that the United States came up with the SR-71 and no one else did. There is a reason the United States came up with the U-2 and nobody else did. There is a reason the United States came up with the F-117 and nobody else did.

It's because we had the foresight and the gumption to try. The best aeronautical engineers in the world said the Have Blue would never fly. But Skunkworks made it happen and it turned the entire Russian air defense system on it's ear.

We will keep trying to make the missle defense system work because it needs to be done.

no, it doesn't need to be done. fixing the open borders so someone can't easily smuggle in nukes needs to be done, before you bother spending countless billions on a system that will never have a use and expect other countries to buy into it.

[intercede007]

..or in types of defense we don't believe in.

Thinking like that almost cost the United States the most advanced tactical fighter in existance, the F-22. It nearly cut the funding out from underneath Skunkworks twice. Once while developing the SR-71, the other while developing the Have Blue (F-117) project.

Just because it doesn't work today, doesn't mean it won't work tomorrow. You don't quite trying because it's hard, or because some arm chair generals think it won't ever work.

Those same people tried to tell Ben Rich in 1977 that his plane would never fly. It did, and he developed the avionics to make it happen. It now gracefully floats through enemy airspace with impunity.

Good ideas can work. They just need time and the right minds.

[intercede007]

the border between the US and Canada doesn't see ~1 million people sneak by illegally every single year. the mexican border does. hell, the mexican government even offers flyers that give people TIPS on how to illegally cross the border successfully.

building this system will motivate other countries to research new missiles that can beat the system. this whole BMD is just silliness. what country is going to fire off a missile across the ocean, allow the US to track it, and then not expect to have the crap beaten out of them once that missile arrives in the US? the selling point of this missile shield is to "protect us from rogue nations". if a nation wanted to attack the US, they would not leave such a clear connection between them and the attack by having their nuke tracked back to them.

no, it doesn't need to be done. fixing the open borders so someone can't easily smuggle in nukes needs to be done, before you bother spending countless billions on a system that will never have a use and expect other countries to buy into it.

I agree completely. Lets close the Canadian boarder.

You are right though. There are far too many illegal aliens sneaking into my country every night. But it's still dangerous. The area is littered with motion trackers, thermal cameras and assault rifle equipped police officers.

The Canadian border, however, is not. And a person trying to sneak in from the north would have a much easier time of it than a person trying to sneak in from the south.

But really, it's a silly argument you pose. Of course other countries will try to defeat a new weapon! That's how these things work!

When the Russians caught wind of the U-2 and it's capabilities, they modified their SAM batteries with missles that could reach higher and go faster. They were successful.

It's a game of one-uping your opponent. If you make it more difficult for your enemy to attack you, you've bought yourself a little breathing room. It's not security, not by any means. But it is a tool.

Low-observable aircraft were developed to defeat air defense networks. Are you saying that we should have continued to build aircraft that were trackable and put our airmen in danger because it might cause the Russians to build a better mouse trap?

Of course you aren't. Because that would be reckless and stupid. Why leave your men exposed when you can give them a tool to help their odds of survival?

So why are you trying to play that card with the civilian population?

[retsam]

still misses stationary targets on the ground by miles at a time.
you have no idea what you are talking about

here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20050225/sc_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc)

building this system will motivate other countries to research new missiles that can beat the system you dont get it do you they are already developing those said systems. you didnt even read the link i posted did you..

[shockwave203]

I agree completely. Lets close the Canadian boarder.

what a realistic idea!

You are right though. There are far too many illegal aliens sneaking into my country every night. But it's still dangerous. The area is littered with motion trackers, thermal cameras and assault rifle equipped police officers.

The Canadian border, however, is not. And a person trying to sneak in from the north would have a much easier time of it than a person trying to sneak in from the south.

that is true, but with so many people successfully crossing in the south, it certainly can't be written off as a possibility.

But really, it's a silly argument you pose. Of course other countries will try to defeat a new weapon! That's how these things work!

When the Russians caught wind of the U-2 and it's capabilities, they modified their SAM batteries with missles that could reach higher and go faster. They were successful.

It's a game of one-uping your opponent. If you make it more difficult for your enemy to attack you, you've bought yourself a little breathing room. It's not security, not by any means. But it is a tool.

Low-observable aircraft were developed to defeat air defense networks. Are you saying that we should have continued to build aircraft that were trackable and put our airmen in danger because it might cause the Russians to build a better mouse trap?

Of course you aren't. Because that would be reckless and stupid. Why leave your men exposed when you can give them a tool to help their odds of survival?

So why are you trying to play that card with the civilian population?

it's not a silly argument, if you understand what the missile system is going to do. it will encourage other countries to build better missiles, all stemming from the fact that there is no risk of the US being attacked that way in the first place. a country won't link itself to that sort of attack, because it would be suicide. it would be much easier for terrorists to sneak a weapon inside, rather than firing it off on the other side of the ocean and crossing their fingers that it hits it's target. so when all is said and done, we have countries developing more advanced weapons, in response to a defensive american system that has no use in the first place.

[Rakeesh]

first of all, it was "your own" system in the first place.

Exactly my point.

[shockwave203]

you have no idea what you are talking about

here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20050225/sc_nm/arms_missile_usa_dc)

you dont get it do you they are already developing those said systems. you didnt even read the link i posted did you..

you have no idea what you're talking about if you think a single test missile is the same thing as a ton of unkown missiles heading towards a target.

if you were kimmy boy and wanted to have some fun with the US, would you fire off a single missile and hope it hits? or would you fire off 40 of them, 3 of which contain nukes?

[retsam]

Instead of having your government act all childish on us when we say no, why not recognize the great partners we are in everything else? Who's got troops in Afganistan keeping the peace? There are many other contributions, military or otherwise, we're just not dumping money on wars we don't approve or in types of defense we don't believe in.
your government sees the same threat assemments we do. do you think the president is doing this just to payback favores to his freinds in the military!! you do think we are doing this just to piss you people off this has everthing to do with OUR protection. if we dont start this now. later is way too late. in the next 2 years iran is gonna be able to field a nuclear based missle system able to reach.. yes... our people in the united states and cananda. remember when a nukclear bomb hits, the radiation cloud doesnt discrimnate between canada and america.

[intercede007]

it's not a silly argument, if you understand what the missile system is going to do. it will encourage other countries to build better missiles, all stemming from the fact that there is no risk of the US being attacked that way in the first place. a country won't link itself to that sort of attack, because it would be suicide. it would be much easier for terrorists to sneak a weapon inside, rather than firing it off on the other side of the ocean and crossing their fingers that it hits it's target. so when all is said and done, we have countries developing more advanced weapons, in response to a defensive american system that has no use in the first place.

...

Do you work for the CIA? The Canadian equivalent? How do you know there is no risk of the United States being attacked by ICBM's?

Castro was ready to risk his entire nation to take out the United States. Who says Jong Il isn't prepared to do the same? He probably doesn't have them now, but in the future N. Korea might develop or aquire one. Then where will we be?

In the world of military defense systems, you have an advantage, then someone counters that advantage. You are then responsible for adjusting your tactics, or developing your own way around their new toy.

So again, either we stagnate or we find new and inventive ways of doing buisness.

Don't like it? Don't let your country try and build one.

And hey..maybe I'll ask my Congressman to propose legislation taking back all those Superhornets we sold you. God knows that we should *never* have developed a better avionics package so the figher would be able to survive combat! That might make our enemies build better missles!!! :rolleyes:

[shockwave203]

...

Do you work for the CIA? The Canadian equivalent? How do you know there is no risk of the United States being attacked by ICBM's?

Castro was ready to risk his entire nation to take out the United States. Who says Jong Il isn't prepared to do the same? He probably doesn't have them now, but in the future N. Korea might develop or aquire one. Then where will we be?

In the world of military defense systems, you have an advantage, then someone counters that advantage. You are then responsible for adjusting your tactics, or developing your own way around their new toy.

So again, either we stagnate or we find new and inventive ways of doing buisness.

Don't like it? Don't let your country try and build one.

And hey..maybe I'll ask my Congressman to propose legislation taking back all those Superhornets we sold you. God knows that we should *never* have developed a better avionics package so the figher would be able to survive combat! That might make our enemies build better missles!!! :rolleyes:

there is a difference between having a military advantage, and trying to sell a screw-up to another country. if and when we see the system can take down 60 incoming missiles, maybe it will be worth it. no country is going to send a lone missile and hope it gets by.

if NK wants to hit you with a nuke, all they have to do is smuggle it into the country and set it off. i'm simply saying that it would be a better idea for you guys to spend those countless billions on making your borders safer, so the more likely situation of smuggling doesnt happen.

but hey, if you want to spend a few more billion on something that makes you feel safer, you go right ahead.

[intercede007]

there is a difference between having a military advantage, and trying to sell a screw-up to another country. if and when we see the system can take down 60 incoming missiles, maybe it will be worth it. no country is going to send a lone missile and hope it gets by.

if NK wants to hit you with a nuke, all they have to do is smuggle it into the country and set it off. i'm simply saying that it would be a better idea for you guys to spend those countless billions on making your borders safer, so the more likely situation of smuggling doesnt happen.

but hey, if you want to spend a few more billion on something that makes you feel safer, you go right ahead.

We have, and will continue to, spend "billions" on making our borders safer.

We will also continue to spend billions on *thinking up* and *testing* new ways of making our borders safer.

See..we are a superpower. We can, and are, doing both! :)

[retsam]

you have no idea what you're talking about if you think a single test missile is the same thing as a ton of unkown missiles heading towards a target.

if you were kimmy boy and wanted to have some fun with the US, would you fire off a single missile and hope it hits? or would you fire off 40 of them, 3 of which contain nukes? well right now and if you had your way that one missle could be fired and hit the united states and we couldnt do a single thing about it. at least with this system in place they would have to build 40 missles and fire all of them and cordiante the firing of all 40 said missles. not an easy thing todo. and you make an assumtion that this system is a stand alone system. its part of a broader package. in both hot spots were there are potentioal rouge missles pointed at the united states. there are carrier groups parked right out side. they would fire one single missle and by the time they reloaded there would be all sorts of cruise missles and planes ramming missles right down there throats.

[retsam]

if NK wants to hit you with a nuke, all they have to do is smuggle it into the country and set it off. this isnt an easy thing todo this isnt some pipe bomb. there are radiotion issues that tend to break down the electrical components of the nukes. thats why we spend so much on maintaining our stockpiles.

[shockwave203]

this isnt an easy thing todo this isnt some pipe bomb. there are radiotion issues that tend to break down the electrical components of the nukes. thats why we spend so much on maintaining our stockpiles.

what's more likely to happen? where is the greater danger: a country committing suicide by firing off a nuke, or a country smuggling a nuke into the US through unprotected borders? or maybe terrorists getting their hands on one of them, and smuggling it into the US?

Kimmy doesn't want NK to be nuked to bits. that's why he's developing them in the first place- for deterrence. so it stands to reason that he wouldn't want a connection between him and a nuke exploding in the US by allowing it to be tracked from his country.

Bush has his priorities a little mixed