Canada Refuses Missile Defense [Archive]

americanson

02-23-2005, 06:38 AM

zydeco

02-23-2005, 06:59 AM

I think it's the right decision AT THIS TIME. However, don't count us out in the future. There's no doubt in my mind that under different circumstances - like a different government(or status of government)here at home, a different government Stateside, or some real indication that the system actually works - Canada will eventually sign on.

Guy Lafleuer

02-23-2005, 07:36 AM

I really don't believe it's about missile defense. It sounds like a first strike capability to me. Kind of reminds me of the 80's when Reagan and his rats were promoting the Neutron bomb. It kills people but leave the buildings in tact. Sure sounds like chemical weapons to me. Maybe I'm just cynic.

Guy

Cardinal Fang

02-23-2005, 07:43 AM

According to the National Post P.M. Paul Martin is expected to formally announce tomorrow that "Canada will not be involved in the missile defense program." He calls it a threat to Canadian Soverignty (sic) In other words anti-americanism which is the platform for the liberal party.

HUH?

Because the leader of the government decides not to participate in this it's indicative on anti-Americanism within the government? The PM does not have the support within his party as well as in the public for this to go forward. He made a decision (although I disagree with it) that reflects the popular view at this moment. There's nothing that says that cannot change given a new political landscape.

As far as the actual program goes. 1) Yes it has failed on at last two previous test runs and this I beleeive is a way out for Caanda. Just becuase it has failed though in the early stages doesn't mean that it can't be made to work in the future.

The missile tests thus far have provided a 50% pass rate or a 50% failure rate depending on your point of view. Any system can be made to work given the right amount of resources. At the moment Canada has decided that Health Care is far more important given that we WILL all be required to use it while the Defense Shield may never be used.

Be that as it may we are still involved in it in other ways. NORAD monitors incoming missile threats for the defense shield and we are sitting side by side with Americans watching the video monitors. So as in Iraq, we are not involved but we are.

2) Is it necessary? Debatable. I myself am torn but having said that would like a bit of support from our "allies."

3) Outgoing U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci apparently caused quite a stir a few weeks ago when he said something to the effect of "Canada punching above it's weight" In other words quit hiding behind the U.S. military for protection. And what exactly did he say that wasn't true?

Canada has always done what it can based on the resources it has. I would love to see Canada put more emphasis on a strong Military but by the same token Canada's influence on the world stage, if any, is as a peacekeeper. Canadians have come to define themselves that way and subsequent governments have supported this path.

The American government will always be the first to criticize when other countries don't agree with their policy. They are either a "haven for terrorists," or not "pulling it's weight." The fact of the matter is you cannot expect foreign countries to automatically become a partner in your "global endeavors" when:

a) they don't agree with you or it and
b) participating in them would put the country in more danger

Before you decide to lecture Canadians on "pulling their weight" you may want to get your government to pay it's outstanding dues to the U.N. You know, the organization that you go to when it suits your government's political mood.

americanson

02-23-2005, 07:45 AM

americanson

02-23-2005, 07:50 AM

Missed your post Fang. The U.N.? Please. They even got under Clinton's skin. Yeah and they are doing one hell of a job in Sudan to say nothing of North Korea. Okay enough sarcasm because if anything it's the other way around: The U.N. comes running to U.S. whenever there's trouble, be it Gulf War 1, Somalia, Rwanda (Which Clinton takes heat for not getting involved go figure) Milosivic etc etc. Yes we cut off the U.N.'s funding and it's damn long overdue
and why exactly their headquarters are in Manhattan well I don't know but a parking lot would serve a better purpose.

P.S. It's only appropraite that that traitor bastard Alger Hiss played a key role in the U.N.'s developmentmay he rot in hell. Thanks again Chambers/Nixon

Cardinal Fang

02-23-2005, 08:01 AM

Missed your post Fang.

It's ok. Nobody really pays any attention to me anyways.

The U.N.? Please. They even got under Clinton's skin. Yeah and they are doing one hell of a job in Sudan to say nothing of North Korea. Okay enough sarcasm because if anything it's the other way around: The U.N. comes running to U.S. whenever there's trouble, be it Gulf War 1, Somalia, Rwanda (Which Clinton takes heat for not getting involved go figure) Milosivic etc etc. Yes we cut off the U.N.'s funding and it's damn long overdue and why exactly their headquarters are in Manhattan well I don't know but a parking lot would serve a better purpose.

1. You still missed my point. You get angry with us (Canada) on pulling our weight despite the fact that you don't in other ventures. You can't suck and blow at the same time Americanson.
2. The American Government only uses the U.N. when it suits them.
3. You take heat at the U.N. because when you set the standards by which you become involved in another countries affairs but refuse to apply them fairly in all situations. It's called hypocracy.
4. If you so hate the U.N. then why don't you just kick them out of your country and leave the organization?

P.S. It's only appropraite that that traitor bastard Alger Hiss played a key role in the U.N.'s development may he rot in hell. Thanks again Chambers/Nixon

Yes Americanson, the U.N. was such a bad idea.

*Rolls his eyes*

happygrump

02-23-2005, 08:12 AM

Choosing not to become involved in missile defence does not by any stretch equate to a rabid anti-Americanism in Ottawa. It simply means that, at this time, for reasons both political and global, the powers-that-be in Ottawa have made the decision (a correct one, in my opinion) that involving Canada in missile defence is not in our best interests.

Some time ago I saw an interview with Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian Lt. Gen. who was on UN point in Rwanda, his hands tied by UN bureaucracy and member-state intransigence when the massacre was underway. He made a very interesting point: Even if Canada does not support missile defence, it should get involved anyway to be assured a seat at the table and a voice in the decisions.

Is he right? Beats me.

Lloyd Axworthy's heavyweight tome, Navigating a New World: Canada's Global Future, provides a very detailed and well-documented insight into why decisions like this are made from time to time. Axworthy's tone is a bit ponderous but he makes clear arguments.

(BTW... {small hijack here} if you haven't read Dallaire's book, Shake Hands With the Devil, I humbly suggest you do. It's a brilliant, but chilling, read. Apparently there's also a documentary soon to be released on DVD by the same title.)

onthebottom

02-23-2005, 08:16 AM

americanson,

Don't fret, we don't need much softwood, infected beef or water to make it go anyway. Now the problem becomes simpler, don't destroy them just make them drop short.

OTB

n_v

02-23-2005, 08:29 AM

According to the National Post P.M. Paul Martin is expected to formally announce tomorrow that "Canada will not be involved in the missile defense program." He calls it a threat to Canadian Soverignty (sic) In other words anti-americanism ...
Typical american BS response to anyone who doesn't agree with them. :rolleyes: Hey Americans, get over yourselves!

peteeey

02-23-2005, 08:43 AM

[QUOTE=americanson]According to the National Post P.M. Paul Martin is expected to formally announce tomorrow that "Canada will not be involved in the missile defense program." He calls it a threat to Canadian Soverignty (sic) In other words anti-americanism which is the platform for the liberal party. Incoming Canada ambassador Frank Mckenna apparently disagrees with the decision but will go along with it.

Any country that doesn't kiss Bush's ass is anti-American?

2) Is it necessary? Debatable. I myself am torn but having said that would like a bit of support from our "allies."

Any country that doesn't kiss Bush's ass isn't an ally?

langeweile

02-23-2005, 08:46 AM

I am afraid to say, that most of you are wrong in your assumptions about the missile defense.
I believe the USA got what it wanted, namely the use of NORAD for it's advanced warning capability.
The new ambassador of Canada to the USA has spelled it out clearly, like it or not Canada is involved already. Paul is just trying to save face.

I am not an expert on weapons, but common sense tells me, that Norad will do the scanning and the missiles will be fired from US soil. So you could argue, that there is no missile defense in Canada.
Stationing the missiles in Canada wouldn't make any sense anyway, since there will be time passing from the detection of a missile, until the time the counter missile can be deployed.

The only bad part is, that the shot down missile will land most likely on Canadian soil.

onthebottom

02-23-2005, 08:59 AM

.....

The only bad part is, that the shot down missile will land most likely on Canadian soil.

Didn't you mean the good part?

OTB

red

02-23-2005, 09:14 AM

americanson,

Don't fret, we don't need much softwood, infected beef or water to make it go anyway. Now the problem becomes simpler, don't destroy them just make them drop short.

OTB

is this not a childish retort? I disagree with the decision, if in fact the newpaper is right, but I think Mr. Fang stated it correctly- that there is zero political capital to be gained by supporting the measure - so like any politician he is likely to not go along with the program. Decisions of a sovereign nation are just that- their decision. It does not necessarily have anything to do with anti-americanism

red

02-23-2005, 09:15 AM

Didn't you mean the good part?

OTB

another anti-canadian remark.

happygrump

02-23-2005, 09:27 AM

The only bad part is, that the shot down missile will land most likely on Canadian soil.

Probably not, actually. If the missiles are high enough there's a better than even chance that they'll burn up as they fall back into the atmosphere. Depends on the trajectory, of course.

langeweile

02-23-2005, 09:31 AM

Didn't you mean the good part?

OTB

Hey..I still live here........ :D

belgiumcdn

02-23-2005, 09:43 AM

You know we should develope our own military nukes (for defensive purpose only of course) and see how fast the american cheer our military build up on

langeweile

02-23-2005, 10:05 AM

You know we should develope our own military nukes (for defensive purpose only of course) and see how fast the american cheer our military build up on

Looks like you get your wish. Paul just has put forward the largest increase in military spending in a while. $12 Billion over the next five years.
Good move Paul... :D

slowpoke

02-23-2005, 10:25 AM

onthebottom

02-23-2005, 11:04 AM

is this not a childish retort? I disagree with the decision, if in fact the newpaper is right, but I think Mr. Fang stated it correctly- that there is zero political capital to be gained by supporting the measure - so like any politician he is likely to not go along with the program. Decisions of a sovereign nation are just that- their decision. It does not necessarily have anything to do with anti-americanism

Yes it was childish, was just having a bit of fun.

Good point on political capital, no reason you'd want the PM to lead on an issue......

Like I said, you can't be much help anyway - although all the explosions will be in your airspace so you'd think you'd take an active interest.

OTB

onthebottom

02-23-2005, 11:05 AM

You know we should develope our own military nukes (for defensive purpose only of course) and see how fast the american cheer our military build up on

Would be a good move, the real question is would the Russians rent you the planes so you could deliver them.

OTB

Cardinal Fang

02-23-2005, 11:14 AM

Don't need to. As part of the new military spending we plan o recruiting 3000 flying squirrels to do this for us.

red

02-23-2005, 11:17 AM

Yes it was childish, was just having a bit of fun.

Good point on political capital, no reason you'd want the PM to lead on an issue......

Like I said, you can't be much help anyway - although all the explosions will be in your airspace so you'd think you'd take an active interest.

OTB

Well if we wouldn't be much help - why do you asking for our support?

What we really need based on your comments is anti-anti-ballistic missile system to knock down the US anti-ballistic missiles, so anyone attacking the US doesn't hit canada by mistake. Just kidding

someone

02-23-2005, 11:25 AM

Like I said, you can't be much help anyway - although all the explosions will be in your airspace so you'd think you'd take an active interest.

OTB

Assuming that it would work, why are you assuming that the Russians would be the most likely country to launch an attack (or launch a counter attack, as the case may be)? I agree that countries like NK and Iran are unlikely to use ICBMs for their weapons. However, in the future China would seem to be just as likely (I’m using likely as a relative term here as I don’t think either case is that likely) as Russia to enter into such a confrontation. Moreover, I would think that the logical response for either country to Star Wars should be to devote more resources to submarine based weapons. Thus, even if the attack came from a future Russia, Canadian, airspace may not be a factor.

onthebottom

02-23-2005, 11:53 AM

Well if we wouldn't be much help - why do you asking for our support?

What we really need based on your comments is anti-anti-ballistic missile system to knock down the US anti-ballistic missiles, so anyone attacking the US doesn't hit canada by mistake. Just kidding

Yeah, for a country who can't afford transport aircraft or can't manage to float the used subs over without a fire I think hitting moving targets might be a bit beyond you.....

OTB

onthebottom

02-23-2005, 11:55 AM

Guy Lafleuer

02-23-2005, 12:41 PM

A first strike against what or whom exactly guy? This program is being designed to intercept missles that may be heading our way. Also, I'm appalled by some (not you) caandians who have written that: "What or whom does America protect Canada from?" or "The only coiuntry we have to defend ourselves from is the U.S." That's severe brainwashing at it's best. I'm not gonna even bother to acknowledge the first question but if Canada really fears America then why don't you have any counter-strike capabilities of your own? Furthermore, why is Ottawa going out of it's way to irk the Bush administration if they're so fearful of how Washington will react? And please no 1812 B.S. That was was vs. the Brits as Caanda didn't become it's own nation until 1867.

Americanson,

I just don't believe the premise that the system is designed for defense. I believe it's designed as an offensive, first strike weapon. Once it's deployed, if it can hit an ICBM from space travelling at the speed of sound, then it can easily hit any target anywhere on earth at anytime. Therefore the gov't may say it's for intercepting missiles on it's way to the US, but I don't believe that's the intent.

A military strike against the US would be nuclear sucide on the country that deployed it upon the US. No, this system is for first strike capability. Spending billions on a weapon for defense when you could nuke the crap out of any country in the world at anytime doesn't make sense. And when both our countries are carrying the amount of debt that we're carrying, I'd rather see the money spent elsewhere. No offense.

Guy

slowpoke

02-23-2005, 12:53 PM

Assuming that it would work, why are you assuming that the Russians would be the most likely country to launch an attack (or launch a counter attack, as the case may be)? I agree that countries like NK and Iran are unlikely to use ICBMs for their weapons. However, in the future China would seem to be just as likely (I’m using likely as a relative term here as I don’t think either case is that likely) as Russia to enter into such a confrontation. Moreover, I would think that the logical response for either country to Star Wars should be to devote more resources to submarine based weapons. Thus, even if the attack came from a future Russia, Canadian, airspace may not be a factor.

This BBC News site seems to answer a few of the questions surrounding the rationale behind ABM. It is interesting that the Russians have successfully tested an ABM system in November so, if we wanted an ABM shield to defend against an extremely unlikely attack from Iran or NK, why wouldn't we just use their system?

"...The system is not designed to defend the US from an attack on the scale that Russia would have the ability to mount.

It is designed to be effective against attack from countries with limited missile programmes, such as North Korea and Iran.

These and other countries formerly referred to by US officials as "rogue states" are not only developing missiles with increasing range, but could also be developing chemical or nuclear warheads.

The US says Moscow should recognise that it also faces the threat of nuclear attack from nuclear states.

However, Russia is vehemently opposed to the US plan - even though it successfully tested a modernised anti-ballistic missile of its own in November"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/696028.stm

If you run the animated guide (see the above BBC site) showing how the shield works, it really does appear like they explode the incoming missile directly overhead. For those of us with a limited understanding of nuclear fallout etc., this looks about as reassuring as another Chernobyl eruption. I know this animation isn't an exact representation of how the system is supposed to work but it is definitely not helping sales.

happygrump

02-23-2005, 12:59 PM

$12 Billion over the next five years.
Good move Paul... :D

I gotta admit, I'm with lang on this. Our military spending has been cut well into the bone and it's time that Canadians took a look at the fact that our military presence, in its many forms (including, for instance, the Canadian sniper team that kept American soldiers from getting shot up in Afghanistan, and the DART team as examples), is in dire need of new equipment.

Now, the argument will be: more people or better technology? Can we afford both? And that argument is probably going to continue for some time.

americanson

02-23-2005, 01:35 PM

Gents the point of this topic was to show my disdain for Canada's non-involvement in the war on terror. We are either brainwashed by Bush's scare tactics, paranoid, sheep etc. Do you ever stop back and ask an obvious question: Was 9-11 an isolated act? Hell no. That's why we have to take all measures necessary to try and prevent such horrible atrocities from re-occurring.

Now back to the Ballisitc Missile Defence. The libs in Canada say one thing but do another. Hell I even saw Mckenna telling Bush "Canada is involved" AFTER Martin made it clear Canada wouldn't be. Am I missing something? First off it would cost Canada nothing. Secondly it would create more jobs. Thirdly
it allows Canada to reamin protected. Fourthly by getting involved it WON'T entice the terrorists but rather DETER them. Whew. Okay having said all that this incident aside I still feel that yes Canada's liberal party is anti-american and further base their entire platform on it. I think the two countries relations would improve drastically with Harper and the cons in power but hey that's up to you.

slowpoke

02-23-2005, 02:06 PM

...Do you ever stop back and ask an obvious question: Was 9-11 an isolated act? Hell no...

....Am I missing something? First off it would cost Canada nothing. Secondly it would create more jobs. Thirdly
it allows Canada to reamin protected. Fourthly by getting involved it WON'T entice the terrorists but rather DETER them...

Regarding 9/11, how would ABM have prevented it? Isn't it a bit of a stretch to suggest that ABM would have a preventive role against the terrorist threat from the likes of Al Qaeda?

I wasn't aware that the US was asking our permission to donate ABM at no cost to us. Forgive my ignorance but when did this become a freebie?

Cardinal Fang

02-23-2005, 02:10 PM

Gents the point of this topic was to show my disdain for Canada's non-involvement in the war on terror.

I thought the point of this thread was to once again illustrate how masterful you have become at sweeping generalizations and ignoring other peoples opinions because it doesn't fit into your perspective of the world.

We are either brainwashed by Bush's scare tactics, paranoid, sheep etc. Do you ever stop back and ask an obvious question: Was 9-11 an isolated act? Hell no. That's why we have to take all measures necessary to try and prevent such horrible atrocities from re-occurring.

Brainwashed? Hardly, but asking a few tough questions of your leader and it's adminstration to prevent further invasions of countries that have nothing to do with 9-11 is the least you could do.

First off it would cost Canada nothing.

Canada unlike TERB's moderators would accept a Freebie.

Secondly it would create more jobs.

Improving our Health Care System would add more jobs.

Thirdly, it allows Canada to reamin protected.

Huh?

Fourthly by getting involved it WON'T entice the terrorists but rather DETER them.

I see. Just like the terrorists have been detered since the U.S. has invaded Iraq?

Whew. Okay having said all that this incident aside I still feel that yes Canada's liberal party is anti-american and further base their entire platform on it.

Interesting. If I had said that George Bush and the Republican Platform is based on the advancement of the Christian Right then I'd be branded as anti-American and ignorant.

Nice.

I think the two countries relations would improve drastically with Harper and the cons in power but hey that's up to you.

As Canadians we all thank God that it's up to us Americanson and not people like you.

papasmerf

02-23-2005, 02:11 PM

I just can not se a reason why Canada should be involved. After all it is in the USA's best interest to protect Canada. Thus making it a moot point for Canada to stand up and get involved.

happygrump

02-23-2005, 02:26 PM

The libs in Canada say one thing but do another.
Fact of political life. Read Machiavelli.

I even saw Mckenna telling Bush "Canada is involved" AFTER Martin made it clear Canada wouldn't be.
See above.

...it would cost Canada nothing.
That's how it's being sold by pro-nmd forces on both sides of the border, but does not everything come with a price? Like you and most everyone else on this board, I have a difficult time taking the word of politicians.

Secondly it would create more jobs.
Yes, at huge cost to the taxpayer. If this is "supply side" economics, then it would then follow that any government program that creates jobs will stimulate the economy, regardless of how much the program costs. Sorry, but whether we like it or not, the North American economy is driven by demand, not supply.

Thirdly it allows Canada to reamin protected.
IF it works, and IF missiles are on an over-the-pole trajectory and IF they don't fall short and IF the remains don't end up falling on Canadian soil (not likely, actually), then we MAY be protected. But Canada certainly will not be protected from a suitcase bomb, a dirty bomb, a chemical or biological attack, a data attack (siezing up the computers through the internet, sometimes referred to as cyber-warfare), a conventional attack or something akin to a 9/11 attack. Seems like a lot of "if's", if you ask me.

Fourthly by getting involved it WON'T entice the terrorists but rather DETER them.
Probably incorrect. It's more likely to light a fire under groups and rogue states with such a capability to plan and carry out an attack before the system becomes operational. And NMD is not likely to become a working system for probably about a decade.

I think the two countries relations would improve drastically with Harper and the cons in power but hey that's up to you.
That's right, it is up to us. Not to the Christian Coalition and the Focus on the Family groups from the US that are now setting up shop in Canada. If you don't want Canadians to mess around in your politics - which, I grant you, is out of line - we sure don't want US groups stirring the pot here.

onthebottom

02-23-2005, 02:37 PM

Looks like you get your wish. Paul just has put forward the largest increase in military spending in a while. $12 Billion over the next five years.
Good move Paul... :D

It's a nice start, may even get up to Australian spending levels:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

Pathetic.

OTB

langeweile

02-23-2005, 02:40 PM

Americanson,

I just don't believe the premise that the system is designed for defense. I believe it's designed as an offensive, first strike weapon. Once it's deployed, if it can hit an ICBM from space travelling at the speed of sound, then it can easily hit any target anywhere on earth at anytime. Therefore the gov't may say it's for intercepting missiles on it's way to the US, but I don't believe that's the intent.

A military strike against the US would be nuclear sucide on the country that deployed it upon the US. No, this system is for first strike capability. Spending billions on a weapon for defense when you could nuke the crap out of any country in the world at anytime doesn't make sense. And when both our countries are carrying the amount of debt that we're carrying, I'd rather see the money spent elsewhere. No offense.

Guy

You kind of dissproved for your first assumption in the second paragraph of your own post.
A new "offensive system " doesn't make any sense, unless it would be more sophisticated that the old one.
I disagree that this system is not necessary. Money spent elsewhere? Where?On another useless goverment entitlement program..like national daycare?

slowpoke

02-23-2005, 03:09 PM

IF it works, and IF missiles are on an over-the-pole trajectory and IF they don't fall short and IF the remains don't end up falling on Canadian soil (not likely, actually), then we MAY be protected. But Canada certainly will not be protected from a suitcase bomb, a dirty bomb, a chemical or biological attack, a data attack (siezing up the computers through the internet, sometimes referred to as cyber-warfare), a conventional attack or something akin to a 9/11 attack. Seems like a lot of "if's", if you ask me.

I agree with almost all you've said but why is it unlikely that the fallout or nuclear debris from the intercepted over-the-pole missile wouldn't fall on Canada? Especially if you include our high Arctic as part of Canada. I hope you're 100% correct but I can't see where else this debris would go.

This is probably a very different thing but the fallout from Chernobyl is still contaminating many farms in the UK. Wouldn't something similar happen to us in the case of an intercepted nuclear missile?

British farms still contaminated
"...Several days after the accident, a vast radioactive cloud drifted across parts of the UK, leaving a blanket of poisonous caesium-137 over England, Wales and the south and west of Scotland. In 1986 and 1987, restrictions were imposed on approximately 10,000 farms, of which 2,144 were in Scotland alone. Restrictions in June 1986 covered 5,100 farms in North Wales, about 120 in Northern Ireland and 1,670 in Cumbria in England..."

http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/nuclear/28808.html

someone

02-23-2005, 03:32 PM

Except for subs (and those can be sunk) all missile paths to the US run through Canada (buy a globe). I can't think of many countires that can launch a ICBM from a sub.....

OTB

Once again you turn things into personal attacks. The fact is that the only two countries that are likely to be able to launch ICBMs on the U.S. can both launch them from subs. The idea of Iran launching a missile and reaching the U.S. is not realist in the foreseeable future. If they wanted to use a nuclear device on the U.S. it is far more likely that they would smuggle them into the country. The main outcome of this will simply be to drive the U.S. further into debt. In the short term, that will increase Canada's trade surplus with the U.S. but in the long run the U.S. will have to pay off their debts and the situation will reverse. Increased U.S. indebtedness is in no one’s long term interest.

n_v

02-23-2005, 04:18 PM

onthebottom

02-23-2005, 07:26 PM

Once again you turn things into personal attacks. The fact is that the only two countries that are likely to be able to launch ICBMs on the U.S. can both launch them from subs. The idea of Iran launching a missile and reaching the U.S. is not realist in the foreseeable future. If they wanted to use a nuclear device on the U.S. it is far more likely that they would smuggle them into the country. The main outcome of this will simply be to drive the U.S. further into debt. In the short term, that will increase Canada's trade surplus with the U.S. but in the long run the U.S. will have to pay off their debts and the situation will reverse. Increased U.S. indebtedness is in no one’s long term interest.

If you were offended by the "buy a globe" comment I'm sorry and you're a bit thin skinned.

While I don't know that I'd spend a lot of money on this (think the budget for it got trimmed for next year) I'd keep the research going. Hitting a moving target is valuable technology.

As for US debt, I'd worry about yours if I were you: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

OTB

onthebottom

02-23-2005, 07:28 PM

I got an idea to prevent 911's. Try being nice to others and not mess in their business, impose your ideals on them and not bully them.

In other words, be Canadian.

OTB

someone

02-23-2005, 08:01 PM

If you were offended by the "buy a globe" comment I'm sorry and you're a bit thin skinned.

While I don't know that I'd spend a lot of money on this (think the budget for it got trimmed for next year) I'd keep the research going. Hitting a moving target is valuable technology.

As for US debt, I'd worry about yours if I were you: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

OTB

I'm being to see why Bush may have thought their were WDMs in Iraq given how stongly these numbers disagree with the OECD numbers. I'm guessing that the CIA is not taking into account the fact that American raw numbers include substantial (current) surpluses in the Social Security system while Canadian numbers don't include CPP and QPP surpluses. I could be wrong about the reasons for the substancial difference but to be honest, I don't have time to check to see what the CIA numbers are based on and I have never had much reason to question OECD numbers.

Nonetheless, the comparison that is more important is the direction and rate of change. Currently there is not a big need to worry about Canadian debt as it is shrinking as a percentage of GDP every year. Moreover, the mathematics of compound interest that cause deficits to grow as a function of GDP also cause surpluses to decrease (assuming governments are not too tempted to spend them).

When it comes to trade deficits (a flow) it is the government deficit (another flow), as well as private savings, that is more important. Thus, as long as the U.S. continues to run every large deficits and Canada runs surpluses, the simple arithmetic of national income accounting insures that the U.S will run trade deficits and Canada will run trade surpluses. Structural imbalances like that are not good for either country in the long run.

For the good of both countries, the U.S. will have to eventually cut their defence expenditures sharply.

n_v

02-23-2005, 08:21 PM

In other words, be Canadian.OTB
Haven't seen a foreign terrorist attack here have you?

onthebottom

02-23-2005, 08:29 PM

Haven't seen a foreign terrorist attack here have you?

They don't know where Canada is.

OTB

onthebottom

02-23-2005, 08:30 PM

I'm being to see why Bush may have thought their were WDMs in Iraq given how stongly these numbers disagree with the OECD numbers. I'm guessing that the CIA is not taking into account the fact that American raw numbers include substantial (current) surpluses in the Social Security system while Canadian numbers don't include CPP and QPP surpluses. I could be wrong about the reasons for the substancial difference but to be honest, I don't have time to check to see what the CIA numbers are based on and I have never had much reason to question OECD numbers.

Nonetheless, the comparison that is more important is the direction and rate of change. Currently there is not a big need to worry about Canadian debt as it is shrinking as a percentage of GDP every year. Moreover, the mathematics of compound interest that cause deficits to grow as a function of GDP also cause surpluses to decrease (assuming governments are not too tempted to spend them).

When it comes to trade deficits (a flow) it is the government deficit (another flow), as well as private savings, that is more important. Thus, as long as the U.S. continues to run every large deficits and Canada runs surpluses, the simple arithmetic of national income accounting insures that the U.S will run trade deficits and Canada will run trade surpluses. Structural imbalances like that are not good for either country in the long run.

For the good of both countries, the U.S. will have to eventually cut their defence expenditures sharply.

We've been spending 3-4 % of GDP for quite a while now, I doubt that will change.

OTB

iam0234

02-23-2005, 09:47 PM

I have a very naïve question. Lets say the US has successfully developed a flawless anti-ballistic-missile system, what is there to stop its “enemy” from sneaking a commercial plane through with a nuclear / chemical bomb into US territory?

The US is relying on airport securities around the world to safeguard this from happening. But if Iran, hypothetically, really wants to pull the trick, don’t you think it could bribe a few security officials at the London airport, with a couple of millions each, to sneak one through a British Airway?

I’m ignorant on military (if not all) matters. So please help me with the answer.

Peeping Tom

02-23-2005, 10:35 PM

This action, once uncovered, would compel England to deliver a nuclear armageddon in addition to the one furnished by America. For this reason third tier players entertain ballistic missile development en lieu of terrorism.

But if Iran, hypothetically, really wants to pull the trick, don’t you think it could bribe a few security officials at the London airport, with a couple of millions each, to sneak one through a British Airway?

I’m ignorant on military (if not all) matters. So please help me with the answer.

Peeping Tom

02-23-2005, 10:45 PM

yychobbyist

02-23-2005, 11:30 PM

I would generally think that the hordes who next attack us will not be ravenous but will, instead, be rather well fed.

Hard Idle

02-24-2005, 01:40 AM

I too believe "Missle Defense" is really an offensive weapon. But not in the sense that the system would actually deliver offensive strikes (exept maybe on satelites). Rather it is meant to take away the ability to retaliate with missles against US attacks. In would greatly reduce the risk of a regime change adventure in North Korea, and facilitate bullying of emerging powers like India and China in future decades.

Anyone with hundreds of ICBM's could still overwhelm the system. But those with only a handful or two would loose their only worst-case scenario deterrent. If the system was ever operable here, it would only be a matter of time before the US could make it mobile enough to use against shorter range weapons, making it harder to threaten regional US clients who might otherwise moderate American actions.

The idea that this is protection from terrorism is absurd. If terrorist strike US soil with nukes, they will be smuggled in and delivered by low tech methods. If it were about preventing terrorism, that would require thousands of extra border and costal patrols - which would still be less money than defense companies got for developing missle defense.

langeweile

02-24-2005, 06:09 AM

I got an idea to prevent 911's. Try being nice to others and not mess in their business, impose your ideals on them and not bully them.

Ward is it you?
To imply that 9/11 was somehow our own fault, shows a complete ignorance of history.
Come on buddy, even you can't believe this nonsense.

langeweile

02-24-2005, 06:15 AM

Haven't seen a foreign terrorist attack here have you?
Before you glee to much..be careful you might be next.
It is exactly this attitude by your goverment that will be your downfall. I hope it never happens, for all our sake, but i think I am wrong on this one.

Diode

02-24-2005, 06:46 AM

First:Fang, yes "improving Health-care" MAY increase jobs in Canada.
But, you can't deny, big Scientific/engineering/political programs ( Moon landing, Manhatten Project) not only create new industries, but also provide people with the new technology that drives the first world, can yo?

How, is Strategic Missile defense any different than a rampart at an old castle, or better yet like the great wall of China.\? I see them as identical.

Yes the US could Nuke the world into submission, but, I doubt that has any political, or economic capital. The Americans, are , I think, looking for a Big Technological Project, that may jump start the economy, and , also Looking to "feel safe" by erecting a virtual rampart around their country.(Canadians like to "feel safe" by throwing money at Health care)
Buy a globe? If you look at N. America, like I do, we are really one communal land mass, right? Seems, to me, a N. American solution would make for an added sense of security for our American friends.
I can't see how Canada would not benifit, if we participate.

Cardinal Fang

02-24-2005, 07:07 AM

First:Fang, yes "improving Health-care" MAY increase jobs in Canada.
But, you can't deny, big Scientific/engineering/political programs ( Moon landing, Manhatten Project) not only create new industries, but also provide people with the new technology that drives the first world, can yo?

No I can't deny that but to think that this missile defense system is on par with the projects you just mentioned is silly. The technology comes from the U.S. along with the expertise. Our role would be a very minor one in my opinion. Personally I think they just ant to park the missiles on our soil.

In order for projects of that size to generate a payback there has to be the political will do it and furthermore it must be driven by outside sources (international events). Both the Manhattan Project and Moon Landings were a race and because of that huge resources were pushed there for national interests.

I don't think Canada has a national interest or the political will to do this yet. In which case, I and the majority of Canadians believe that the money, however the amount, could be better spent elsewhere where a difference could be made. Just don't leave it in the hands of the Liberal Government.

Ok, I just wanted to get my jab in there.

langeweile

02-24-2005, 07:46 AM

I said it earlier and I have to say it again, maybe a bit more clearer.

IT IS OVER. You guys are in, like it or not. You have agreed for NORAD to be used as an early detection system. Paul Martin is trying to do some damage control now, by saying Canada will not participate in the shield. Yes, techically he is right, there will be no actual missile shield on Canadian soil. However NORAD will be used as part.IT IS OVER.
Is that clear now? :mad:

onthebottom

02-24-2005, 07:52 AM

I would generally think that the hordes who next attack us will not be ravenous but will, instead, be rather well fed.

You don't need a defense (the only country that could attack you you could never stop, or even slow down for that matter) you need an offence that can deliver aid and protect people who can't protect themselves.

OTB

Cardinal Fang

02-24-2005, 08:00 AM

IT IS OVER. You guys are in, like it or not.

If we were already in then why ask us to participate?

You have agreed for NORAD to be used as an early detection system. Paul Martin is trying to do some damage control now, by saying Canada will not participate in the shield. Yes, techically he is right, there will be no actual missile shield on Canadian soil.However NORAD will be used as part.IT IS OVER.

I agree. As I stated in my earlier post Paul Martin was always for the missile sheild when the Liberals were in a majority government positioni. When he was re-elected with a minority status it was obvious he couldn't put this through without risking the possibility of bringing down the government. So in public he puts on one face and in private it's another. I could be wrong but that sounds like a politician to me.

We ARE involved in NORAD and by default, involved in the missile sheild system. Although, I'm sure the American's could care less one way or another whether we become involved further. And that's what I think peoplehere are trying to debate. The extent of further involvement.

onthebottom

02-24-2005, 08:21 AM

If we were already in then why ask us to participate?

I agree. As I stated in my earlier post Paul Martin was always for the missile sheild when the Liberals were in a majority government positioni. When he was re-elected with a minority status it was obvious he couldn't put this through without risking the possibility of bringing down the government. So in public he puts on one face and in private it's another. I could be wrong but that sounds like a politician to me.

We ARE involved in NORAD and by default, involved in the missile sheild system. Although, I'm sure the American's could care less one way or another whether we become involved further. And that's what I think peoplehere are trying to debate. The extent of further involvement.

I'm confused insert joke here, would not the Conservatives be pro missile defense? If that were true why would Martin supporting it bring the government down?

OTB

Cardinal Fang

02-24-2005, 08:24 AM

The majority of Liberals are against it (in my opinion), the Bloc would vote against it and the NDP as well. That would leave Martin alone with a few Liberals and the Conservative Party to vote for it.

Diode

02-24-2005, 09:03 AM

Silly? Fang what are you talking about. Many of the founding NASA engineers were Canadian. Yes they moved to the States, but the spin-offs sure as hell benifited Canada.
There is more to missle defence than "Parked Missles"
How about if Canadians actively competed for the Contracts to design and build the evolving technology.
Why sit and Dither? Oh I know, Let's just call ourselves a nuclear free zone. That will fix it. :rolleyes:

jwmorrice

02-24-2005, 09:36 AM

I'd like to see GTA strip clubs declared and maintained as Diode-free zones.

jwm

Cardinal Fang

02-24-2005, 09:50 AM

Silly? Fang what are you talking about. Many of the founding NASA engineers were Canadian. Yes they moved to the States, but the spin-offs sure as hell benifited Canada.

The spin offs benefited many countries not just Canada. The prime beneficiary is still and was the U.S. I'm not denying that the missle sheild would not create jobs. My point is that it is not the "mega" project on the scale of the Manhattan Project or the Moon Landing that really kicked an industry into high gear. And therefore will not have the spinoff jobs on the same scale.

How about if Canadians actively competed for the Contracts to design and build the evolving technology.

Who says we already don't. I don't have a problem with this. This issue becomes more complicated when there is public money at play. People have the right to an opinion when it comes to seeing how their money is spent. They want to see value and many do not see any value in having the government become involved in this program.

Now private corporations on the other hand can do what ever they want. We barely have enough to field a military for peace keeping duties and you want to spend money on something like this?

Why sit and Dither? Oh I know, Let's just call ourselves a nuclear free zone. That will fix it. :rolleyes:

I see so the flip side to this would be to get our asses off the sidlines and start spending millions on another form of an "arms race." Great idea! While we're at it lets help the American's weaponize space.

Nope sorry. Don't like where this is heading.

someone

02-24-2005, 09:50 AM

For the good of our interests alone: if this would happen, who would defend us, when the ravenous hordes attack? A very unwise statement of yours. Even with today's military budget increase, we will be hard pressed to deploy more than a shovel here or hammer there, let alone a comprehensive package capable of projecting force anywhere.

The U.S. is spending more than enough on their military to defend North America and play a positive role in the world. The problem right now is that they gotten involved in unnecessary operations, like the Iraq invasion, that are harmful to their own interests. That being said, they can’t just abandon Iraq after creating a mess so they are going to have to maintain expenditures there. What they can do is cut back/delay new high tech weapons systems that they can’t afford and that they don’t have an immediate need for. Canada should be spending more on defence for its own interests but the fact that Canada is under spending on defence does not change the fact that the U.S. is spending more then they can afford.

someone

02-24-2005, 10:13 AM

We've been spending 3-4 % of GDP for quite a while now, I doubt that will change.

OTB

Actually, from 1998-2001, the U.S. was running surpluses (see
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table13 ) It looked as though the U.S. had finally straighten out their financial house with most economists predicting the surpluses would continue.

onthebottom

02-24-2005, 10:15 AM

Actually, from 1998-2001, the U.S. was running surpluses (see
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table13 ) It looked as though the U.S. had finally straighten out their financial house with most economists predicting the surpluses would continue.

Yeah, and then the unsustainable bubble burst. In fact go back and look at 90, 91, 92, 93, looks like now doesn't it - of course you will remember the dramatic economic growth that followed, that growth (95-2000) that resulted in the US accounting for 60% of WORLD growth. Year in, year out we spend 3-4% on defense.

OTB

someone

02-24-2005, 10:19 AM

I don't think Canada has a national interest or the political will to do this yet. In which case, I and the majority of Canadians believe that the money, however the amount, could be better spent elsewhere where a difference could be made. Just don't leave it in the hands of the Liberal Government.

Ok, I just wanted to get my jab in there.

I really don't see the down side of Canada taking part. It is something the U.S. is going to do anyway and they are paying almost the whole cost. Taking part seems like it would produce benefits in terms of giving Canadian companies a better chance to bid on the contracts, with very little cost.

Diode

02-24-2005, 10:44 AM

Ok Fang, I strongly disagree, but your point is well made.
However, as active particpants, I think we would have a BETTER opportunity to earn Government Contracts.
Two, I agree we should get off our collective asses and start protecting ourselves. Weaponization of space MAY be part of that process.
And three, JW is a big hairy pest! :cool:
I would suggest that the Defence Shield could become a "mega" project, perhaps not on the order of the moon shot, but big enough!

someone

02-24-2005, 11:10 AM

Yeah, and then the unsustainable bubble burst. In fact go back and look at 90, 91, 92, 93, looks like now doesn't it - of course you will remember the dramatic economic growth that followed, that growth (95-2000) that resulted in the US accounting for 60% of WORLD growth. Year in, year out we spend 3-4% on defense.

OTB

I didn't realize that the 3-5% you referred to was meant to refer to defence spending specifically. As far as early 90s are concerned, that was around the time (a bit later) that the U.S. went from being the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world. Thus, I'm not sure if you really want to use that example.

What the U.S. is really going to need are tax increases. Right now, none of their politicians have the courage to tell people that. When the time comes (and it will), the public will insist on major spending reductions in the government sector before they will accept the tax increases. In the U.S. any significant cuts to the government budget will have to involve defence.

Cardinal Fang

02-24-2005, 11:27 AM

Ok Fang, I strongly disagree, but your point is well made.
However, as active particpants, I think we would have a BETTER opportunity to earn Government Contracts.

I agree.

Two, I agree we should get off our collective asses and start protecting ourselves. Weaponization of space MAY be part of that process.

Agree with the first part but the second part is a bit of a stretch for me.

And three, JW is a big hairy pest!

I agree.

Diode

02-24-2005, 01:51 PM

I agree.

Agree with the first part but the second part is a bit of a stretch for me.

I agree.
[SIZE=5]So, as usual, I was right!? :D

Diode

02-24-2005, 01:53 PM

I agree.

Agree with the first part but the second part is a bit of a stretch for me.

I agree.
[So, as usual, I was right!? :D

yychobbyist

02-24-2005, 02:02 PM

Well, you were right. But with a stretch.

red

02-24-2005, 02:04 PM

Yeah, for a country who can't afford transport aircraft or can't manage to float the used subs over without a fire I think hitting moving targets might be a bit beyond you.....

OTB

well we can do it as well as you guys and it hasn't cost us a cent

red

02-24-2005, 02:23 PM

It's a nice start, may even get up to Australian spending levels:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

Pathetic.

OTB

maybe or maybe not. No invasions or foreign terrorist attacks since 1812. may be its just knowing where to spend the money

red

02-24-2005, 02:24 PM

In other words, be Canadian.

OTB
thank you

red

02-24-2005, 02:32 PM

We've been spending 3-4 % of GDP for quite a while now, I doubt that will change.

OTB

thats too bad.

someone

02-24-2005, 02:36 PM

maybe or maybe not. No invasions or foreign terrorist attacks since 1812. may be its just knowing where to spend the money

A minor point (clearly, I’m looking for a distraction from what I should be doing :D ). I would say that the Fenian raids were both a foreign terrorist attack and an attempted invasion.

More important, while it is important not to panic over the possibility of a terrorist attack, it is something that we should be prepared for. If it is easier to hijack a Canadian plane and fly it into the Whitehouse, I don't think terrorist will be too fussy.

yychobbyist

02-24-2005, 02:36 PM

Holy Christ, a discussion of the Fenian raids and courier du bois on the same poon site, on the same day. We have reached a level of greatness here people.

red

02-24-2005, 02:37 PM

A minor point (clearly, I’m looking for a distraction from what I should be doing :D ). I would say that the Fenian raids were both a foreign terrorist attack and an attempted invasion.

More important, while it is important not to panic over the possibility of a terrorist attack, it is something that we should be prepared for. If it is easier to hijack a Canadian plane and fly it into the Whitehouse, I don't think terrorist will be too fussy.

I am actually in favour of the missile defence- I just disagree with OTB's comments

*d*

02-24-2005, 06:36 PM

Diode

02-24-2005, 06:54 PM

US missile defense will soon become US missile offense.
Um, *d* can you explain WHY!!!
The US has a nice share of offensive weapons...
How will this "weapon" change the US offensive position?

Peeping Tom

02-24-2005, 06:56 PM

Its something they learned while Reagan was in charge, like bad acid the flashbacks never stop.

Um, *d* can you explain WHY!!!
The US has a nice share of offensive weapons...
How will this "weapon" change the US offensive position?

Diode

02-24-2005, 07:12 PM

Its something they learned while Reagan was in charge, like bad acid the flashbacks never stop.

Great, You don't, or did not like Ronnie.
Now, what the heck do you mean?
If you are telling us the arms race didn't work, or at least put us in a net positve position, you are wrong.

So the Acid flashback thing, too bad for you pal.
Further to the real argument...How will missle defence, HURT Canada?

Peeping Tom

02-24-2005, 07:18 PM

How about reading what I wrote, in context of the quoted passage? IMHO Reagan was the best President ever. What I said, if you're old enough to remember, made reference to the squacking of the left about the proposed Star Wars initiative.

Great, You don't, or did not like Ronnie.
Now, what the heck do you mean?
If you are telling us the arms race didn't work, or at least put us in a net positve position, you are wrong.

So the Acid flashback thing, too bad for you pal.
Further to the real argument...How will missle defence, HURT Canada?

Diode

02-24-2005, 07:27 PM

Yes, Yes Yes ,Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maximus Culpa
They....They...shoulda seen it , didn;t
Sorry PT.

americanson

02-25-2005, 06:46 AM

onthebottom

02-25-2005, 06:56 AM

I'm very happy that Canada isn't partaking in yet another US military mistake. US missile defense is the first step towards a new global arms race, imo. US missile defense will soon become US missile offense.

Global arms race with who? Russia has an economy the size of Belgium and China is fighting to import weapons from the disarmed Europeans. There's no one left to have an arms race with.

We already have offensive missiles that can obliterate any country on Earth along with tactical nukes and cruse missiles that can hit any grid location - what more would we need?

This post was just some old talking points from the Raygun 80's

OTB

langeweile

02-25-2005, 07:53 AM

If we were already in then why ask us to participate?.

It is called poltitcs. An attempt to make Paul look good. :rolleyes:

red

02-25-2005, 08:08 AM

You ask: Why should Canada be involved? Well guys like it or not playing nice (see appeasement) simply does not work with psychos. Do you really think North Korea would hesitate to launch a missile towards Canada because Canada "minds it's own business." Uh no.

Also, I'm a bit disturbed by someone's earlier remark that "It's in America's best interests to protect Canada." Isn't it in Canada's best interests to protect themselves instead of mooching off the U.S.? Well at least you can admit it but your remarks are simply another way of saying "Yeah we're freeloading off your military but so what we'll take it." Well, I for one am glad that Cellucci boldly put his foot down yesterday when he said that they would use the airspace whether Ottawa likes it or not. Or would you prefer that a missile headed to say Seattle is diverted and explodes over Vancouver instead?

the questions was more - if you don't need us or we are already involved- why are your shorts in a knot? who cares what paul martin says about the issue. will it stop the US from developing the missile defence - nope. won't delay you more than a week and a half. so why do you care. as for North Korea- they don't have the capability of launching a missile from North korea to North America. so not much of an issue. and if they could, with only a few nukes why waste one on us? (no I don't want them firing at the US. again- I am in favour of canada being part of missile defence system)

slowpoke

02-25-2005, 08:43 AM

Well, I for one am glad that Cellucci boldly put his foot down yesterday when he said that they would use the airspace whether Ottawa likes it or not. Or would you prefer that a missile headed to say Seattle is diverted and explodes over Vancouver instead?

Martin bailed on missile defence because over two thirds of Canadians are against it. In a minority gov't situation, that means he had little choice. Up until now, Martin has always said Canada should be at the table with the Americans so I strongly suspect he would have joined the project if it was possible for him to do so.

As I said earlier, most Canadians are probably suspicious of the technology itself, the repeated failures, the perceived high cost, the possible safety repercussions for Canada etc. And many of us mistrust Bush so deeply that the thought of any military involvement with him seems completely insane. In other words, many of us would rather take our chances with the North Koreans than to be caught dead in the same ten acre field as Dubya. And statements like americanson's above, threatening to let Vancouver get nuked, do little to inspire the kind of trust necessary for us to buy into a partnership supposedly dedicated to our mutual salvation.

islandboy

02-25-2005, 02:54 PM

Politics, pure and simple. A no brainer gets shot down by those without.

onthebottom

02-25-2005, 03:15 PM

Thought this was an interesting perspective, bold is mine:

OTB

Americans stunned at missile defence decision; critical of Martin's delay

Thu Feb 24, 7:20 PM ET
BETH GORHAM

(CP) - For Americans, Canada's role in the massive U.S. missile defence shield was a no-brainer.

So they were incredulous and bemused that Prime Minister Paul Martin turned down a chance Thursday to sit at the helm of the project on Canada's terms - without footing any of the multibillion-dollar bill or providing launch sites.

But they were hardly surprised. Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) at the NATO (news - web sites) meeting this week in Brussels.

Martin told U.S. envoy Paul Cellucci and said he expected to talk about it soon with President George W. Bush (news - web sites), who pushed the issue hard on his visit to Canada in December.

Official reaction in Washington was muted, with one spokesman emphasizing continued co-operation with Canada on a wide array of issues.

The State Department was so carefully considering what language to use officials didn't expect a formal reaction to be ready Thursday.

It fell to Cellucci to express his shock that Canada was rejecting a key decision-making role in defending itself.

"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."

No one was expecting any kind of blatant retaliation or forecasting a repeat of the serious rift that followed Canada's decision to stay out of Iraq (news - web sites).

And Americans are clearly pleased about this week's boost to Canada's military budget, something Cellucci has long been pushing.

Behind the scenes, though, talk turned from the decision itself to the torturous process that led to it, Martin's reputation for endless delays and how reliable Canada might be on future projects.

There's concern Martin isn't turning out to be the antidote officials were hoping for after Prime Minister Jean Chretien's biting relations with Bush.

U.S. observers were quick to criticize Martin's whole approach to missile defence, noting he supported the project in the early days of his tenure but lost control of the issue with inaction.

"It's really about the failure of leadership leading to this debacle," said top U.S. defence analyst Dwight Mason.

"He lacked the guts of his conviction to argue for it. The government never tried to explain to Canadians why it was a good idea," said Mason, former chairman of the U.S. section on the Permanent Joint Board on Defence.

"This is madness. How many people just abandon their sovereigny like this?"

Chris Sands, an analyst with the Canada project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called the months of confusion and delay a setback for relations.

"It's an echo of the Iraq problem. We were strung along for a long time," said Sands.

"On missile defence, we did everything we could to make Canada feel comfortable. After all that effort, we get a public rebuke."

"We got mixed signals and all this dithering."

That approach is particularly noticeable in Washington. Bush was partly re-elected last fall on his reputation for making tough, fast decisions and sticking to them, right or wrong.

In the end, though, Canada's decision holds few practical implications for the Americans, who will go ahead with the project which relies on interceptor missiles stored in Alaska and California.

They've already got what they need from Canada anyway, an agreement last August to expand the role of Norad - the joint air-warning command - to include tracking incoming missiles.

Despite how it's portrayed north of the border, Americans already view Canada as very much involved in the project. They're just astounded Canadians don't want to be there to launch a missile strike.

While Canadian officials worry any potential fallout from the issue may hit Norad, Mason said he doubts the organization will be undermined.

"The U.S. values Norad. We don't want anything to happen to it."

*d*

02-25-2005, 05:09 PM

Global arms race with who? Russia has an economy the size of Belgium and China is fighting to import weapons from the disarmed Europeans. There's no one left to have an arms race with.

We already have offensive missiles that can obliterate any country on Earth along with tactical nukes and cruse missiles that can hit any grid location - what more would we need?

This post was just some old talking points from the Raygun 80's

OTB
Now wait a minute. You say, "There's no one left to have an arms race with." Then what is this missile defense(offense) system for? Who is the threat? Believe me, when someone develops an threatening arms system, another country will feel the need to protect itself from it. The US has taken the lead and it will only be a matter of time before another country will feel threatened by it and start developing it's own missile defense(offense) system.

slowpoke

02-25-2005, 05:30 PM

Behind the scenes, though, talk turned from the decision itself to the torturous process that led to it, Martin's reputation for endless delays and how reliable Canada might be on future projects.

There's concern Martin isn't turning out to be the antidote officials were hoping for after Prime Minister Jean Chretien's biting relations with Bush.

U.S. observers were quick to criticize Martin's whole approach to missile defence, noting he supported the project in the early days of his tenure but lost control of the issue with inaction.

"It's really about the failure of leadership leading to this debacle," said top U.S. defence analyst Dwight Mason.

"He lacked the guts of his conviction to argue for it. The government never tried to explain to Canadians why it was a good idea," said Mason, former chairman of the U.S. section on the Permanent Joint Board on Defence.

"This is madness. How many people just abandon their sovereigny like this?"

It was going to cost us virtually nothing but Canadians still didn't buy it. Doesn't that tell you anything? OK, ask yourself this: If there was any kind of half-assed opposition in the UK, do you think Tony Blair would ever get elected again? Martin is in a minority gov't situation so he can't afford the kind of "leadership" you'd like. I know it seems illogical to turn down uncle Sam when he's trying to give you something for free but you don't seem to understand that even your best friends don't want to be seen with you. Martin is not totally barking mad. He just doesn't want to hold your hand. Not for anything. Get it?

tolkienreader

02-25-2005, 09:29 PM

Now wait a minute. You say, "There's no one left to have an arms race with." Then what is this missile defense(offense) system for? Who is the threat? Believe me, when someone develops an threatening arms system, another country will feel the need to protect itself from it. The US has taken the lead and it will only be a matter of time before another country will feel threatened by it and start developing it's own missile defense(offense) system.

Why would the US be concerned about another nation building its own missle defense system? First off, no other nation is remotely capable of building a missle defense system. It requires R&D that no one (including China) is capable of at this time. Even if some other nation magically made a missle defense system.. so what? A missle defense system does not amount to any type of defense against conventional weapons nor does it poes an offensive threat to the United States.

The biggest safeguard the missle defense system gives us is against Rogue nations like Korea and Iran when they obtain the capability of launching ICBM's - assuming we (the US), lets them get that far.

Quite frankly - Canada is irrelevant. They can participate or they can stay out, I want the protection afforded by this system and with the agreements already in place, no further Canadian participation is required.

Peeping Tom

02-25-2005, 10:28 PM

And just how is this missile defense system an offensive weaponry? Please tell us ... Is it because it removes from the aspiring petty tyrant the weapon of blackmail?

Then what is this missile defense(offense) system for?

Hockey_MLnut

02-26-2005, 12:05 AM

If i was an American then i wouldnt count China or North Korea or Iran out or Even Russia. They all hold Threats to America. China is the next superpower and they will be able to stand up against America so then the Americans should do their "Star Wars" if they want Canada as its own country doesnt have to do everything or anything that America wants us to do. Its manifestdestiny all over again just in suddle ways. The American people would love to see the stars and stripes flying over Ottawa. But just remember this Canada is older, Bigger and on top if we were in jail America would be our bitch.

americanson

02-26-2005, 08:23 AM

Let me clarify that I never said or implied that I wanted a rocket to hit Vancouver as opposed to Seattle. Rather I was simply using that as an example as to what "might" happen should Canada have no capacity to defend itself against a rogue ambush. Also, I read that Martin said Washington
would first have to consult Canada before shhoting down missiles over Canada's "soverign" airspace. Sorry guys but I had to laugh as I could just see it now.

Bush: Paul we have a missile headed our way is it okay if we intercept it by pointing our missiles to the north?

Martin: Gee. I don't know Jr. the cdn people may not like that too much. Besides my opposition can ditch me seeing that we're in a minority right now.

Bush: Well, damn make up your mind quickly the damn thing is gonna be here literally any second now.

Martin: Well okay. Here's a compromise you can redivert the missile but once it's outsidde the U.S. then it's out of your hands.

Bush: You mean to say that you'd rather have Western Canada destroyed than impunge on your soverignty?

Martin: Yes. That's what our entire platform is based on. Going against anything and everything you guys are for.

Bush: Okay then suit yourself.

Martin. Talk to you later.

I see that even the media is starting to refer to Martin as "Dithers" No surprise as hell even John Kerry could make better decisions than this.

BTW Hockey. Er, I don't think you'd like it all that much if China were the next superpower just ask the people there and/or in Tibet. Also, we don't want the star-spangled banner over Ottawa but rather it would be nice if Canada contributed to it's own defense. As an independent nation (1867) Canada is also not older than the U.S. (1781) do the math. Finally, you quote grade 10 drop-out and sanctimonious America-Hater Rick Mercer in your last line. Well here's some news for you Canada: We're the elephant, you're the mouse and you know what happens if the elephant rolls over on the mouse now don't you? Good.

slowpoke

02-26-2005, 09:56 AM

Do yourself a favour, americanson. Stop referring to missiles being diverted here. Period. Whether you intend this crap as a threat or merely as your idea of "enlightened" repartee is really beside the point. Canadians don't want your system. We love trading with you and we like you at home but we don't want any military involvement. We don't trust Dubya or his neocon friends. Many of us think they're monsters. We don't think NK or Iran present enough of a risk for us to get into bed with you. Thanks anyway.

I can't quite understand why you Americans care what we do. We're irrelevant. You've got what you want with NORAD. You've already indicated that you'll launch missiles over our airspace with or without our permission. You've had your little joke about misdirected missiles. Was there anything else? Is it because we wouldn't go to the prom with you? Get over it.

islandboy

02-26-2005, 12:24 PM

Yes Left out. Not there when the decisions would be made. And the idea if there are missile's flying that anyone would ask permission first....... In fact, the the real use of the system will be for intelligence (and a weak threat to counter attack) for the forseeable future. The PM's decision is little more than political pandering. Getting a bit bemused by this sort of thing as inclusion was a gift. Would have bolstered Canada's image as a smart player - getting something for nothing. Too bad.

guelph

02-26-2005, 01:17 PM

Getting a bit bemused by this sort of thing as inclusion was a gift. Would have bolstered Canada's image as a smart player - getting something for nothing. Too bad.

Ya right we have had experience with your missles and getting something for nothing. Spent a bundle the duds I mean Bomarc - funny no warranty on them.

Why would this be different?

*d*

02-26-2005, 03:16 PM

Why would the US be concerned about another nation building its own missle defense system? First off, no other nation is remotely capable of building a missle defense system. It requires R&D that no one (including China) is capable of at this time. Even if some other nation magically made a missle defense system.. so what? A missle defense system does not amount to any type of defense against conventional weapons nor does it poes an offensive threat to the United States.

The biggest safeguard the missle defense system gives us is against Rogue nations like Korea and Iran when they obtain the capability of launching ICBM's - assuming we (the US), lets them get that far.

Quite frankly - Canada is irrelevant. They can participate or they can stay out, I want the protection afforded by this system and with the agreements already in place, no further Canadian participation is required.
I don't think the US would want a missile defense system in the hands of one of their enemies. Simply because missile defense has the potental to be missile offense -just as any military defense system can be used as an offense system. The US ballistic missile defense system is in time meant to knock down all missiles of any range type and in every phase of flight. That means it could, in theory, knock out a short range test missile in it's early boost phase half away around the world. Now tell me, is that defense or offense? Some nations might see it as offense.

Don

02-27-2005, 01:06 PM

so why do you care. as for North Korea- they don't have the capability of launching a missile from North korea to North America. so not much of an issue. and if they could, with only a few nukes why waste one on us? (no I don't want them firing at the US. again- I am in favour of canada being part of missile defence system)

Of course not. They would fire on Japan which is why Japan is the only other country besides the US developing a missile defense shield.

Canada is not a target. But does that mean we should not participate because we are not a target?

I don't think a missile defense shield for the US is a bad idea. And I don't necessarily disagree that we should be involved. But I am hardly impressed with the success rate of tests done so far. Until I see that such a defense can actually be implemented, I'd stay far away. This has "money pit" written all over it and the only winners at this state would be the profit margins of Lockheed Martin (or whoever is developing this thing).

americanson

02-28-2005, 12:02 PM

islandboy

02-28-2005, 01:11 PM

Ya right we have had experience with your missles and getting something for nothing. Spent a bundle the duds I mean Bomarc - funny no warranty on them.

Why would this be different?

Hey, I agree that the money may not be the best spent. I even agree that there are valid question about abandoning MAD. But it is out money and Canada turned down a free ride on a no brainer from its point of view. If Canada thought it a bad idea and could stop it - which will never happen - that is another thing. But participation itself was a no brainer. The debate over ababdoning MAD has come and gone long ago; if it ever comes again as a non participant Canada will have less voice on that as well.

slowpoke

02-28-2005, 01:27 PM

Slowpoke: I never intended or implied that I want a missile to hit Canada but rather even you and I can agree that Ottawa should be pulling it's own weight no? To be fair the same goes for Mexico as they too are protected by the U.S. military and are just as big a free-loader. Though having said that I am unaware of anything even remotely resembling a cbc, and/or globe and mail, toronto star like filth.

Back to the point at hand: What's apparently lost in all this is that Martin made the decision based largely on the fact that he is in a minority and the majority apprently opposed it. Why? Rogue nations would not hesitate to attack "appeasers" As far as your statement that Canada is small and irrelevant well that's true sadly to an extent but wouldn't you want your country to be more respected on the world stage?

I'd love our country to regain its former level of respect on the world stage but only if we earn it ourselves by pursuing Canadian initiatives such as peacekeeping or disaster relief. If you were to survey a representative sample of foreign citizens, I'm quite sure Canada would get higher marks for not accepting any freebies from Uncle Sam than we would if we accepted the BMD deal. The more Canada is perceived to be distinct and separate from the US, the more we'll be respected abroad. Bush is VERY unpopular on the world stage so we won't get any brownie points from anyone (outside the US) by getting involved in a joint defence intiative with the US military. Bush's unpopularity is also the root cause of Canadians' aversion to joining the BMD project. It is irrational and illogical but the poles don't lie. I don't think many here trust Dubya, they don't have a clear picture of BMD in general, it has been a failure thus far so it looks like a dud anyway and Canadians probably doubt that it will really be free. Nothing is free.

red

02-28-2005, 03:28 PM

Of course not. They would fire on Japan which is why Japan is the only other country besides the US developing a missile defense shield.

Canada is not a target. But does that mean we should not participate because we are not a target?

I don't think a missile defense shield for the US is a bad idea. And I don't necessarily disagree that we should be involved. But I am hardly impressed with the success rate of tests done so far. Until I see that such a defense can actually be implemented, I'd stay far away. This has "money pit" written all over it and the only winners at this state would be the profit margins of Lockheed Martin (or whoever is developing this thing).

the real winner would be canadian business and therefore the people of canada. improved relationships with the US does have benefits. we may or may not get any contracts- it doesn't matter, but having a good relationship with your biggest trading partner is important- its common sense to not piss in your customers drink while buying them dinner.

*d*

02-28-2005, 03:42 PM

Hockey_MLnut

02-28-2005, 05:06 PM

americanson: Why dont you do the math Canada was Founded in the year 1600 by the French and America was founded in 1620 by the Pilgrims awwwww whats that Canada is older. looks like you need some grade 10 history.

Hard Idle

02-28-2005, 11:50 PM

In a few decades when all the facts are declassified or leaked, Canadians will probably find out we were alot deaper into this thing than we knew or wanted. :mad:

americanson

03-01-2005, 06:58 AM

Hockey I was referring to the time in which both countries were granted their independence. Don't worry about our history classes btw we only study IMPORTANT foreign nations. Not insignificant and irrelevant ones.

americanson

03-01-2005, 07:08 AM

Er, Slowpoke what's exactly meant by "peacekeeping"? I can only assume that
is a reference to the U.S. being war-mongers. Also, you said you'd love for Canada to regain "world respect" well getting your hands dirty is one way to do that unfortunately. See sadly "respect" (not fear) comes from the barrel of a gun not appeasement and if anyone thinks Canada will be vulernable because they are aligned with Washington well, they're just not thinking straight are they? Also, who gives a @$#! what foreign citizens think? In the end it's Canada's security and not necessarily theirs that's at risk no? Furthermore, "Not accepting freebies" well I hate to tell you this slowpoke but that is EXACTLY what Ottawa has been doing for at leaset the past forty years or so (and counting) regarding Canada's security.

Finally, you say the polls don't lie: True but they don't exactly tell the entire story either now do they? What if it went to a federal vote then what? Yes we know that many Canadians are using their dislike of Bush as an affront to their hatred of America but as it stands Canada is currently incapable of defending themselves. So the choice is Ottawa's to make: Either help out or at least have the good decency to shut the hell up and quit biting the hand that feeds or in this case protects. This is by NO MEANS a shot at the brave candian soldiers but rather at ottawa for what they have allowed their military to become.

slowpoke

03-01-2005, 09:21 AM

Americanson, how does wanting Canada to be able to engage in peacekeeping translate into calling the US a warmonger nation? I'd like Canada to regain her former capacity for peacekeeping. That's it. This will also improve our ability to defend ourselves and to engage in UN peacemaking operations. Our forces were part of the UN coalition in Desert Storm. We also had troops on the ground in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. I'd like to improve our capacity for those types of activities. Period. If you choose to interpret those hopes for Canada as "a reference to the U.S. being war-mongers", then that is your problem.

BTW, I care very much what the rest of the world thinks of Canada. Canadians are welcome just about everywhere on the planet and I'd like that to continue.

americanson

03-01-2005, 12:20 PM

Hockey_MLnut

03-01-2005, 12:35 PM

Well we could go back in History once more. In 1812 Canada really couldnt defend its self from the Americans. Due to the fact of the Nepolionic wars. But somehow the small under populated Canada beat the Mighty Americans in the war of 1812. and no the Americans didnt win the battle at New Orleans because that couldnt have been a battle since the war had ended 4 months earlier. So dont underestimate the will of a country to defend its self.

Cardinal Fang

03-01-2005, 12:38 PM

Okay fine slowpoke.

Nice of you to concede something americanson. It must have really hurt.

Please though define "peacekeeper" for me.

"Of or relating to the preservation of peace, especially the supervision by international forces of a truce between hostile nations."

"Peacekeeping is a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for sustainable peace. UN peacekeepers—soldiers and military officers, civilian police officers and civilian personnel from many countries—monitor and observe peace processes that emerge in post-conflict situations and assist ex-combatants to implement the peace agreements they have signed. Such assistance comes in many forms, including confidence-building measures, power-sharing arrangements, electoral support, strengthening the rule of law, and economic and social development."

slowpoke

03-01-2005, 01:24 PM

Okay fine slowpoke. Please though define "peacekeeper" for me. Peacemaking on the other hand well often requires violence of sorts and even though I realize you were not calling America warmongers I'd still like a clear and concise definition of peacekeeper. In closing NO Caanda does not have the capacity to defend itself as a nation today. The U.S. military is what deters the sickos from invading and Canadians can't stand the fact that Cellucci and Bush have finally spoken out and said the truth that it's time Canada pulls it's own weight as far as security goes.

Ideally, peacekeeping would be maintaining the peace between two opposing factions who had ceased hostilities. A classic example of Canadian / UN peacekeeping is still taking place on the island of Cyprus:

"..Perhaps nothing illustrates the difficult nature of peacekeeping more than the complex situation in Cyprus. Trying to solve the taxing puzzle of an old conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots has tested the resilience and conciliatory abilities of peacekeepers since 1964 to the present day.

Initially, UN forces policed the tinderbox situation on the island, quelling the bloodshed between the two communities. Although a fragile peace was restored, a coup took place in 1974. This was soon followed by a Turkish invasion that ultimately resulted in the division of the island. These events dramatically altered the role of the UN forces stationed there.

Today peacekeeping troops patrol the buffer along the green line that divides the island, working to prevent skirmishes from breaking out.Although many critics feel that the apparent stalemate prevents any ultimate conclusion to the dispute, the fact remains that many innocent lives have been spared thanks to the presence of the United Nations. The UN Secretary-general is personally active now in trying to mediate a full political settlement in Cyprus.."

http://www.unac.org/en/link_learn/monitoring/peace_peacekeeping_can.asp

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-1290/conflict_war/blue_berets/

But I can see the need to occasionally use military force to impose an end to hostilities in situations such as Rwanda, Kuwait and Sudan / Darfur. A very modest force could have intervened in Rwanda which would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. There's no reason why we couldn't have done that while Clinton and the rest of the UN debated the use of the "G" word and tried their best to do as little as possible.

americanson

03-02-2005, 03:40 PM

B.B. Yes Martin had little support but isn't that what LEADERS do? Make the tough decsions that sometimes aren't the most popular ones? Also, he should have been more upfront with Washington to begin with as Bush and co. had the impression that Ottawa was going to go along with it.

Celluci: Former governor of my home state of Massachusetts. Good man and I'm proud of the way he conducted himself these past few years as America's ambassador to Canada. It probably wasn't always easy given the rabid anti-americanism comnig from the cdn media and many citizens alike. Furthermore I clarified that my words were taken out of context: It's not necessarily anti-americanism per se to not go along with the program but I can't help but feel that contempt for Bush in Ottawa and Canada played a role. Finally, why are canadians so upset that Cellucci spoke the truth that "Canada should punch above it's weight." You know it's true that it's America that protects Canada so why shouldn't Washington demand Canada play a role from tiem to time? Even Martin must realize this as he apparently approved a 12.5 billion military increase to save face after rejecting the missile defense.

Rice: Tough woman. The slightly toned down version of Hillary on the right. I see she cancelled a trip to Ottawa and many are accusing the Bush adminnistration of being childish. Let me ask you this: Would you voluntarily go into hostile territory if it was not necessary?

canadad

03-02-2005, 04:01 PM

Here we go again pissing off our neighbours by saying we aren't participating BUT in fact doing the work anyways.

1. Canadian firms are already working on contracts associated with the project
2. Canada has already allowed limited testing of unarmed missils over our space
3. As part of NORAD we're going to be participating whether we like it or not.

This is just another example of the Liberal government trying to pander to everyone while actually doing F-all.

This ain't new - it's our official policy it seems.

Canada OFFICIALLY isn't part of the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq but meanwhile:
1. We have ships in the Persian gulf providing support to US battlegroups
2. We are training Iraqi police recruits (about 10,000 so far) at training facilities in Jordan.
3. We are donating $300 million to Iraqi reconstruction
4. We are in Afghanistan

In fact, we're already doing MORE than half the friggin' countries that actually signed in to the coalition!

No wonder we're confusing the Yanks - we don't know what we're doing ourselves!

red

03-02-2005, 04:08 PM

damn right

someone

03-02-2005, 04:16 PM

Canada OFFICIALLY isn't part of the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq but meanwhile:
...

4. We are in Afghanistan

In fact, we're already doing MORE than half the friggin' countries that actually signed in to the coalition!

No wonder we're confusing the Yanks - we don't know what we're doing ourselves!

I agree with you on missile defence (and I admit, the other areas are grey). However, I don't think Afghanistan has much to do with "the coalition of the willing". The U.S. was actually justified in attacking Afghanistan.

Your first post on a sex board and it has nothing to do with SPs/MPs/or SCs. Soon people will really be reading this board for the "articles". :D

Don

03-02-2005, 07:33 PM

The more Canada is perceived to be distinct and separate from the US, the more we'll be respected abroad. Bush is VERY unpopular on the world stage so we won't get any brownie points from anyone (outside the US) by getting involved in a joint defence intiative with the US military.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I don't agree with the reasoning of this logic at all. You don't base your judgements on what will make you more popular, even if that is what Chretien once said. That has inferiority written all over it.

That is the same thing as saying all Americans SHOULD support President Bush and the war effort since it was popular in the US (at one point). No, I respect the people who was against the war even when it was UNPOPULAR to do so.

K Douglas

03-02-2005, 08:08 PM

Apparently recent polls have shown that two thirds of Canadians are against participating in the anti-missile defence shield project. Support was lowest in Quebec. It's hard to tell if this is because of anti-Bush sentiment here in Canada or just skepticism because the US hasn't been able to demonstrate that this system will ever function properly.

It might also be that many Canadians mistrust a system designed to intercept missiles as they approach our territory. If the defence shield malfunctions, which it probably will, there seems to be a real possibility that we'll just bring the missile or exploded nuclear material down on our own heads. The US has done very little to explain exactly why it is safe for Canada. They need to work on their sales pitch before they start bitching. It is just too easy to blame someone else for your own ineptitude.
Do we really know what we're against exactly? Has anyone bothered to let the Cdn public know what balistic missile defence really means? Was there a debate in Parliament on the issue? Note if you exclude Quebec from the poll then only 53% of Canadians are against missile defence while something like 37% are in favour of signing on. I think we have to be at least be at the table on any issues that affect our sovereignty and national defence.

slowpoke

03-03-2005, 08:13 AM

I don't agree with the reasoning of this logic at all. You don't base your judgements on what will make you more popular, even if that is what Chretien once said. That has inferiority written all over it.

That is the same thing as saying all Americans SHOULD support President Bush and the war effort since it was popular in the US (at one point). No, I respect the people who was against the war even when it was UNPOPULAR to do so.

When I said:

"The more Canada is perceived to be distinct and separate from the US, the more we'll be respected abroad. Bush is VERY unpopular on the world stage so we won't get any brownie points from anyone (outside the US) by getting involved in a joint defence intiative with the US military."

I was responding to this statement by americanson:

"Rogue nations would not hesitate to attack "appeasers" As far as your statement that Canada is small and irrelevant well that's true sadly to an extent but wouldn't you want your country to be more respected on the world stage?"

So my remark was only intended to refute americanson's contention that we'd be more respected abroad if we accepted Uncle Sam's BMD. Nothing more. Nowhere do I advocate governing a country according to popularity poles. I DID say Martin was constrained by his minority in the house:

"Martin bailed on missile defence because over two thirds of Canadians are against it. In a minority gov't situation, that means he had little choice. Up until now, Martin has always said Canada should be at the table with the Americans so I strongly suspect he would have joined the project if it was possible for him to do so."

I still think the above is probably true but I am less sure than I was a few days ago because of news this morning claiming that Canada might be using BMD as a lever in our ongoing trade dispute over the beef ban and softwood lumber. Pretty hard to know if there is any truth to that one but it seems at least possible.

"...Thursday, March 03, 2005

WASHINGTON - Frank McKenna, Canada's new ambassador to the United States, suggested Ottawa's decision to reject George W. Bush's missile defence shield was a "direct result" of Canadian outrage over lingering trade disputes with America over beef and softwood lumber."

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e049e880-097d-4f69-a083-03d5a1138553

langeweile

03-03-2005, 08:18 AM

slowpoke

03-03-2005, 08:53 AM

Oh please not the the trade card again.
i am so sick and tired having to listen to Canada acussing the USA of unfair trade, when Canada does the same thing. Both parties are guilty when it comes to protect their own special interests. McKenna is full of shit.

Whether you agree with the US or Canada on the softwood and beef ban disputes, you have to admit that BMD makes a helluva bargaining chip. Dubya seems eager to get our political blessing for BMD so why not get something back? As I said earlier, this may not be why Martin rejected BMD but it certainly makes sense that it would be on the table. Everything is negotiable and this would be no exception.

As far as Canada being protectionist is concerned, we must be doing a better job of it than the US because the World Trade Organization's GATT and the dispute resolution panel of the Free Trade Agreement have both sided with us on the softwood issue. I can't recall any major judgements against us lately other than Canada's unfair subsidy of Canadair.

langeweile

03-03-2005, 09:06 AM

Whether you agree with the US or Canada on the softwood and beef ban disputes, you have to admit that BMD makes a helluva bargaining chip. Dubya seems eager to get our political blessing for BMD so why not get something back? As I said earlier, this may not be why Martin rejected BMD but it certainly makes sense that it would be on the table. Everything is negotiable and this would be no exception.

As far as Canada being protectionist is concerned, we must be doing a better job of it than the US because the World Trade Organization's GATT and the dispute resolution panel of the Free Trade Agreement have both sided with us on the softwood issue. I can't recall any major judgements against us lately other than Canada's ufair subsidy of Canadair.

protectionism takes many forms, not all of them are obvious and monitored by the WTO.
In my own experience I know that Canada subsidizes Chicken, Eggs, Mill and cheese it is called quota. If you as a manufacturer use any of these products from the USA and sell them in Canada, you have to pay quota. The quota is determined by the price difference between the US chicken and the market price of the Canadian chicken.

slowpoke

03-03-2005, 09:31 AM

protectionism takes many forms, not all of them are obvious and monitored by the WTO.
In my own experience I know that Canada subsidizes Chicken, Eggs, Mill and cheese it is called quota. If you as a manufacturer use any of these products from the USA and sell them in Canada, you have to pay quota. The quota is determined by the price difference between the US chicken and the market price of the Canadian chicken.

The logic behind those quotas is to guarantee a minimum price for agricultural products and to protect our own producers. If we allowed unbridled competition in agriculture, most of our farmers would be wiped out. Not because they're stupid, lazy or backward. Just because of the economics of farming in Canada. We're not the only country who feels it is in their national interest to be able to feed themselves. It's called national security and it transcends mundane trade considerations. Uncle Sam would never allow himself to depend on foreigners for his basic food supply either.

someone

03-03-2005, 10:06 AM

someone

03-03-2005, 10:18 AM

The logic behind those quotas is to guarantee a minimum price for agricultural products and to protect our own producers. If we allowed unbridled competition in agriculture, most of our farmers would be wiped out. Not because they're stupid, lazy or backward. Just because of the economics of farming in Canada. We're not the only country who feels it is in their national interest to be able to feed themselves. It's called national security and it transcends mundane trade considerations. Uncle Sam would never allow himself to depend on foreigners for his basic food supply either.

The fact is that those quotas hurt Canadians more than they hurt anyone else. They tend to be even more in inefficient than tariffs. Personally, I think that the food security argument is BS (and it tends to be used more by countries like Japan than Canada anyway). However, even if you think there is a noneconomic benefit from having a domestic farm industry that is larger than it should be in terms of pure economic efficiency, trade restrictions are one of the worse ways of handling the problem. Production subsidies are much more efficient. The easiest way to explain this is to say that trade restrictions impose both a consumption and a production distortion while production subsidies only involve a production distortion. However, in the case of production subsidies, the dollar amount would be in the government budget and known to everyone. Although quotas end up costing the taxpayer/consumer more, it is less obvious to him/her because most consumers/taxpayers don’t know what prices would be without quotas. Thus, when politicians try to buy votes from farmers, they get less opposition from general taxpayers when they hid the true cost of the transfer from taxpayers/farmers in the form of the higher prices caused by quotas rather than higher taxes required for production subsidies.

slowpoke

03-03-2005, 10:39 AM

The fact is that those quotas hurt Canadians more than they hurt anyone else. They tend to be even more in inefficient than tariffs. Personally, I think that the food security argument is BS (and it tends to be used more by countries like Japan than Canada anyway). However, even if you think there is a noneconomic benefit from having a domestic farm industry that is larger than it should be in terms of pure economic efficiency, trade restrictions are one of the worse ways of handling the problem. Production subsidies are much more efficient. The easiest way to explain this is to say that trade restrictions impose both a consumption and a production distortion while production subsidies only involve a production distortion. However, in the case of production subsidies, the dollar amount would be in the government budget and known to everyone. Although quotas end up costing the taxpayer/consumer more, it is less obvious to him/her because most consumers/taxpayers don’t know what prices would be without quotas. Thus, when politicians try to buy votes from farmers, they get less opposition from general taxpayers when they hid the true cost of the transfer from taxpayers/farmers in the form of the higher prices caused by quotas rather than higher taxes required for production subsidies.

Would the Free Trade Agreement look favourably on the subsidy model or would we get the "unfair subsidy" crap like we do with softwood lumber? I don't care, myself, which route they take as long as our local producers can survive and not be held hostage because of multiple rule interpretations and loopholes under the Free Trade Agreement. Quotas seem to have been left alone but subsidies have been a nightmare.

langeweile

03-03-2005, 11:04 AM

langeweile

03-03-2005, 11:05 AM

Look Lange - you keep going on and on about Chickens, Eggs and Milk - perhaps your not aware that these issues were negotiated in good faith between both countries when the Free Trade agreement was made. It was designed to protect local industries and similar protections are in place for US border states. So ranting and raving about something that both parties agreed to doesn't fit the soft wood lumber or cattle issue.

bbk

see answer to slowpoke :D

someone

03-03-2005, 11:15 AM

Would the Free Trade Agreement look favourably on the subsidy model or would we get the "unfair subsidy" crap like we do with softwood lumber? I don't care, myself, which route they take as long as our local producers can survive and not be held hostage because of multiple rule interpretations and loopholes under the Free Trade Agreement. Quotas seem to have been left alone but subsidies have been a nightmare.

Personally, I see no reason to lower the standard of living for all Canadians by forcing people to pay higher prices than necessary for food. The most ridiculous situation is when I hear the same people both profess to be concerned about the plight of the poor and support these policies (I am not directing this comment at you as I have not heard you profess such concern). Anyway, if all you care about is the fate of domestic producers, you can’t complain when Americans do the same.

I’m not sure about the FTA as it currently stands. It does allow for the quotas. However, I know that somewhat recently the WTO agreed to convert this type of quotas into their tariff equivalents (the level of tariffs that would produce the same level of imports which in some cases for Canada is very astronomical). The idea as that if everyone used tariffs, the rates could be compared and it would be easier to negotiate reductions in future negotiations. When this happened, the U.S. tried arguing that the FTA does not allow for tariffs so Canada would have to allow in the imports. Unfortunately (for us as well as them) I believe that the U.S. lost their case. In this case (production subsidies), I would see even less problem as the change would benefit both countries (thus, in a worse case scenario, a side agreement could be negotiated). However, that will not happen. These handouts to farmers that earn politicians so many rural votes would be much more difficult if people really new what the cost was. Hence, there is no way that the liberals will change the system until forced by future rounds of WTO negotiations.

slowpoke

03-03-2005, 11:30 AM

So you are saying, it is ok for the USA to protect their own beef supply? Weel than we are in agreement

I obviously agree that each country has an obligation to put its national interests ahead of trade. But try to keep your eye on the ball here. This thread is about BMD. This trade thing is an aside and it only came up when I reported that there was a possibility that Martin was using BMD as a bargaining chip in the trade disputes.

As far as the US protecting its beef supply, I think they should protect it alright but they still have to abide by the rules and use science to ban our beef exports. Our safeguards against mad cow disease are every bit as rigorous as theirs so, now that they've had a chance to assess the security of our beef production, they really don't have a valid reason to block our exports. I don't blame the US gov't for banning our beef at first but it is time they lifted the ban.

langeweile

03-03-2005, 11:53 AM

I obviously agree that each country has an obligation to put its national interests ahead of trade. But try to keep your eye on the ball here. This thread is about BMD. This trade thing is an aside and it only came up when I reported that there was a possibility that Martin was using BMD as a bargaining chip in the trade disputes.

As far as the US protecting its beef supply, I think they should protect it alright but they still have to abide by the rules and use science to ban our beef exports. Our safeguards against mad cow disease are every bit as rigorous as theirs so, now that they've had a chance to assess the security of our beef production, they really don't have a valid reason to block our exports. I don't blame the US gov't for banning our beef at first but it is time they lifted the ban.

Don't believe for a moment that this has to do with BMD or BSE. This whole thing is about $$$. The closure of the border to canadian beef has resulted in a tighter supply of beef within the USA. Tighter supply means higher prices and so more profits for US producers. An opening of the border would swamp the US beef market and prices would go down.
Before the ban commodity prices in the USA including beef had been in the dumpster for about three years in a row. Even defying seasonal swings.
As always if you look for an answer to a problem.....follow the money.

The US goverment is powerless against a judges decision. They will have to go back to the court and fight the issue there.
According to the judges explanation of the verdict, be prepared for a long trial.In his own words he said " It will take us quiet some time to get to the bottom of this", this was the main reason for the temporary injunction.

Love it or hate it, there is a clear division of powers within the system of the USA.
If you remember about 15 month ago the border was almost ready to open. At that time the Cattlemen association got an injunction at a California court. This time..different association and a different court.
I would be curious to know, how long they can play this game. Every day of delay means another day of high profits.

slowpoke

03-03-2005, 12:04 PM

Personally, I see no reason to lower the standard of living for all Canadians by forcing people to pay higher prices than necessary for food. The most ridiculous situation is when I hear the same people both profess to be concerned about the plight of the poor and support these policies (I am not directing this comment at you as I have not heard you profess such concern). Anyway, if all you care about is the fate of domestic producers, you can’t complain when Americans do the same.

I’m not sure about the FTA as it currently stands. It does allow for the quotas. However, I know that somewhat recently the WTO agreed to convert this type of quotas into their tariff equivalents (the level of tariffs that would produce the same level of imports which in some cases for Canada is very astronomical). The idea as that if everyone used tariffs, the rates could be compared and it would be easier to negotiate reductions in future negotiations. When this happened, the U.S. tried arguing that the FTA does not allow for tariffs so Canada would have to allow in the imports. Unfortunately (for us as well as them) I believe that the U.S. lost their case. In this case (production subsidies), I would see even less problem as the change would benefit both countries (thus, in a worse case scenario, a side agreement could be negotiated). However, that will not happen. These handouts to farmers that earn politicians so many rural votes would be much more difficult if people really new what the cost was. Hence, there is no way that the liberals will change the system until forced by future rounds of WTO negotiations.

Let me say first off that economics bores me to tears, I know very little about it so I really can't disagree with what you're saying. My only concern is that our domestic producers don't get wiped out. So if that can be done at lower cost to the taxpayer with subsidies instead of quotas, then I'm a big fan of subsidies. But if subidies lend themselves to endless interpretive trade disputes and we end up getting fucked over like we have with softwood then I don't care how efficient or elegant the subsidy model is - I'd opt to stay with the current quotas. I have no problem with the Americans protecting their food supply either - as long as the system is fair to us both and doesn't lend itself to interference from special interests like the US beef lobby, softwood lobby etc.

someone

03-03-2005, 12:23 PM

Let me say first off that economics bores me to tears, I know very little about it so I really can't disagree with what you're saying. My only concern is that our domestic producers don't get wiped out. So if that can be done at lower cost to the taxpayer with subsidies instead of quotas, then I'm a big fan of subsidies. But if subidies lend themselves to endless interpretive trade disputes and we end up getting fucked over like we have with softwood then I don't care how efficient or elegant the subsidy model is - I'd opt to stay with the current quotas. I have no problem with the Americans protecting their food supply either - as long as the system is fair to us both and doesn't lend itself to interference from special interests like the US beef lobby, softwood lobby etc.

I don't think I understand your reasoning. The fact is that we are the ones getting "fucked over" right now by our own government by having to pay far more than we have to for food. However, that is the fault of our own government and not the Americans. Moreover, as far as softwood is concerned, it is Americans who (through having to pay higher prices than necessary) are getting screwed more than we are. However, hopefully in time the WTO will force the Canadian government to stop screwing us with supply management. It will happen eventually. Nonetheless, as you said before, this thread is getting pretty off topic.

slowpoke

03-03-2005, 12:35 PM

I don't think I understand your reasoning. The fact is that we are the ones getting "fucked over" right now by our own government by having to pay far more than we have to for food. However, that is the fault of our own government and not the Americans. Moreover, as far as softwood is concerned, it is Americans who (through having to pay higher prices than necessary) are getting screwed more than we are. However, hopefully in time the WTO will force the Canadian government to stop screwing us with supply management. It will happen eventually. Nonetheless, as you said before, this thread is getting pretty off topic.

It is a bit of a stretch to interpret my ignorance of economics as "reasoning". My main concern is that our producers don't get wiped out. I would also like us to pay less for food and to not have our producers held hostage by lobby groups. Make it so.

someone

03-03-2005, 12:49 PM

Make it so.

To get things even more off topic, I take it that you're a trekkie :D .

slowpoke

03-03-2005, 01:16 PM

To get things even more off topic, I take it that you're a trekkie :D .

Nope. I was simply a fan of Jean-Luc's "make it so". Synergistically combined with a dismissive wave of the hand.

islandboy

03-03-2005, 01:55 PM

someone

03-03-2005, 02:25 PM

This argricultural stuff goes both ways. sometimes in our favor and sometimes in yours

The real point is that when it comes to food, no country can permit itself to depend on another country to feed its people. Therefore aruguments will always be part of the landscape. Beyond the price issues that consumers see, there is a very real national security issue which every country faces!

What security issue? Only the U.S. closing its border PLUS an Armed navel blockade could ever prevent Canada from buying whatever food it needed to feed itself on the open market.. Do you really believe that it is likely that Canada will face an Armed navel blockade in the foreseeable future? If it did, it would need a lot more than just food.

Guy Lafleuer

03-03-2005, 02:28 PM

You kind of dissproved for your first assumption in the second paragraph of your own post.
A new "offensive system " doesn't make any sense, unless it would be more sophisticated that the old one.
I disagree that this system is not necessary. Money spent elsewhere? Where?On another useless goverment entitlement program..like national daycare?

No. I have no desire to spend my tax dollars on a National Daycare system. And I do believe the Canadian Gov't and people should be spending and supporting our military. But I see this Missile Defense system as an offensive weapon. A defensive weapon for the military is called "retreat". And I guess from what I've seen over the last few years with the Republicans. I just don't trust them. From the first election and that ridiculous recount, to the lies about Iraq, to the border disputes over lumber, and now this. I'm sorry but I can't buy into this. I just don't trust this administration. I'm not crazy about our's and I despised the last asshole ( Johnny Cruton ) but I'd much rather see my tax dollars paying off the debt. Not blindly thrown down the toilet and wasted on programs that I really don't believe will work ( Your SCUD missiles don't even work right ) and where the money can be spent elsewhere ( Not on National Daycare ).

Guy

Hard Idle

03-04-2005, 03:56 AM

Because history will probably show Martin was lying to our faces and we were far more involved than anyone knew. The truth is we have not had full independence from the US for a long time.

But just for argument's sake, to say Canada gets a free ride from the US is to take many things for granted (because they have been granted).

You Americans can boast about owning alot of Canada's resources and you'd be right, but those resources could be nationalized by a real sovereign government, if need be.

The US gets full value for their relationship with Canada. The sweathart deal for water, for one. Then there is relatively cheap access to the north, and to NORAD, just because Canada never put these assets up for bidding during the cold war. Can you imagine what the USSR would have offered to lease a submarine base in BC or the Atlantic, or radar & electronic warfare stations in the Canadian Arctic during the 50s & 60s? The US never paid a true market price for having Canada as an ally, and their contribution to Canada's security is as much about securing their own frontier.

langeweile

03-04-2005, 04:10 AM

So that seems to be the answer of most Americans - the hell with previous treaties our needs right now are more important. You seem to miss the point Lang - Dairy and eggs was negotiated with the free trade. The same restrictions apply to US border States to protect them also. There are many industries that are protected in the free trade agreement, you want to say we scrape the entire treaty each time the US finds themselves in an uncomfortable political position.

The real issue here is that the Canadian Cattle industry has allowed itself to be entirely dependent on the US market. It has stop us from building meat processing plants and looking for other markets. Since last Sept. Canada has been building up it's processing capability and has signed new foriegn deals for meat.

Beacause of the closure of the US border Americans have been paying higher prices in beef especially in the north eastern states, if we find other markets Lang only Americans will feel it in the pocket book over the long term.

BTW, before I hear you go on about how unimportant Canada is to the US economy I only need to point to a Stats Can error that dropped US GDP by nearly .5% growth in the last 4th quarter.

The American action is entirely short sighted.

bbk

I hope i didn't give you the impression that i have supported the ban. I think it is stupid,counterproductive and totally driven by profits.
I am all for free trade, that's why I am so unhappy with the way the current NAFTA works.

BTW the senate has passed a bill by 52 to 48 condeming the goverment for trying to open the border. GWB will veto it. I doubt they can get the 2/3 third majority to over turn his veto.
Let's all remember it is not the goverment that s blocking this. It is a private organization protecting their own profits.

Cardinal Fang

03-04-2005, 07:15 AM

Well put langeweile.

islandboy

03-04-2005, 08:35 AM

What security issue? Only the U.S. closing its border PLUS an Armed navel blockade could ever prevent Canada from buying whatever food it needed to feed itself on the open market.. Do you really believe that it is likely that Canada will face an Armed navel blockade in the foreseeable future? If it did, it would need a lot more than just food.

All work within the same framework when it comes to trading agricultural products In some large measure the biggest driving forces are countries like Germany and France and EU subsidies in general. But in fact you miss the point . You assume Canada will always be able to buy freely if you cannot produce. You neglect that food can be a weapon. True your base reserve is higher, but that is why all countries have subsidy programs - otherwise they would be a waste of money.

someone

03-04-2005, 10:14 AM

All work within the same framework when it comes to trading agricultural products In some large measure the biggest driving forces are countries like Germany and France and EU subsidies in general. But in fact you miss the point . You assume Canada will always be able to buy freely if you cannot produce. You neglect that food can be a weapon. True your base reserve is higher, but that is why all countries have subsidy programs - otherwise they would be a waste of money.
I would say that they are a waste of money and not “otherwise they would be a waste of money". The reason developed countries have these programs is simply because rural voters tend to be over represented in legislatures. As far as food being a weapon, an amazing number of countries, including very long standing allies would have to gang up on Canada. Somehow, I can’t see countries like New Zealand (a big exporter of dairy products), Australia, the United States, Europe (which over really produces), etc. etc. all deciding to boycott Canada. Moreover, if they did, in the short term Canada could substitution food products it imports for those it exports.

Moreover, if one took your argument seriously, the United States should be placing high tariffs on oil, to encourage both domestic production and reduced consumption of oil, as it can more easily be used as a weapon. I don’t see them doing that (Unless they have purposely created unrest in the Middle east in order to increase the prices of oil and have the same effect). Thus, I don’t think that even the American government even believes the food security argument and they have more reason to be paranoid of others attacking them then we do.

slowpoke

03-04-2005, 12:04 PM

Looks like BMD isn't the only bargaining chip in play over our trade disputes with the US. Now the BC Forest Ministry is threatening to hold up approval for the $20B natural gas pipeline if the US doesn't abide by the NAFTA ruling on softwood:

"...Mike de Jong, who was in Washington this week to meet with U.S. politicians about the trade battle, said he warned a group of U.S. senators and congressmen that the future of the massive pipeline could hinge on Washington's attitude to softwood.

On a conference call to media, Mr. de Jong said the lumber issue "took a whole new relevance" when he pointed out "that the attitude in B.C. is such that it would be very difficult to acquire support for an expedited review process."

The project -- one of the biggest ever in North America -- would carry natural gas from reserves in Alaska to the lower 48 states, running for part of the way through British Columbia.

Permission to build the section would require an environmental assessment by the province.

"We can go slow or we can go fast," Mr. de Jong told the Financial Post yesterday. "Right now, based on U.S. behaviour, most British Columbians are telling me we should go very slow."..."

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/financialpost/investing/story.html?id=49da5d0b-de99-4042-8cd0-019f55bfb2a9

Should be interesting to see if BMD, this pipeline and whatever other "incentives" we can dig up will get this softwood lumber dispute resolved.

islandboy

03-04-2005, 12:39 PM

I would say that they are a waste of money and not “otherwise they would be a waste of money". The reason developed countries have these programs is simply because rural voters tend to be over represented in legislatures. As far as food being a weapon, an amazing number of countries, including very long standing allies would have to gang up on Canada. Somehow, I can’t see countries like New Zealand (a big exporter of dairy products), Australia, the United States, Europe (which over really produces), etc. etc. all deciding to boycott Canada. Moreover, if they did, in the short term Canada could substitution food products it imports for those it exports.

Moreover, it one took your argument seriously, the United States should be placing high tariffs on oil, to encourage both domestic production and reduced consumption of oil, as it can more easily be used as a weapon. I don’t see them doing that (Unless they have purposely created unrest in the Middle east in order to increase the prices of oil and have the same effect). Thus, I don’t think that even the American government even believes the food security argument and they have more reason to be paranoid of others attacking them then we do.

As for oil, neither Canada or the US can afford to tax it as much as in European countries as 1) the coutries are so big, 2) the popluation centers and population are so spread out that cheap gas is needed. Rail works would have been a good alternative if proper land use - European style - was used from the get go on this continent as people are not so spread out.
As for food, read more about the economics and come back.

someone

03-04-2005, 01:51 PM

As for food, read more about the economics and come back.
I’m sorry, I only publish in referred economics journals (including international trade journals) and teach graduate and undergraduate courses in economics. Perhaps you could enlighten me by recommending reading material that would be suitable given my limited background in the subject..

onthebottom

03-04-2005, 02:46 PM

Is there an expiration date for NAFTA, does it need to be renewed. There seem to be so many issues that it may be easier just to scrap it and re-negotiate it.

OTB

slowpoke

03-04-2005, 02:48 PM

Is there an expiration date for NAFTA, does it need to be renewed. There seem to be so many issues that it may be easier just to scrap it and re-negotiate it.

OTB

In the meantime, why not just abide by the existing rules?

someone

03-04-2005, 03:09 PM

Is there an expiration date for NAFTA, does it need to be renewed. OTB

The only expiration date is the 6 months noticed either side can give to get out.

papasmerf

03-04-2005, 03:11 PM

The only expiration date is the 6 months noticed either side can give to get out.

Then i would like to exercise that option and onSeptember 4, 2005 withdraw from NAFTA.:D

someone

03-04-2005, 05:55 PM

islandboy

03-05-2005, 07:28 AM

I’m sorry, I only publish in referred economics journals (including international trade journals) and teach graduate and undergraduate courses in economics. Perhaps you could enlighten me by recommending reading material that would be suitable given my limited background in the subject..

Go up to Guelf (? spelling) and look at the materials in ag ecnomics. The considerations for food are quite unique.

someone

03-05-2005, 12:18 PM

Go up to Guelf (? spelling) and look at the materials in ag ecnomics. The considerations for food are quite unique.

That's BS. No one in their right mind argues that Canada should base its trade policy on the extremely unlikely chance that the rest of the world will launch a food boycott of Canada. Furthermore, I suspect that you don't even know what the term comparative advantage refers to. I suggest that you try to learn some of the basics before making foolish statements.

slowpoke

03-06-2005, 05:43 AM

Personally, I think that this sort of thing is dangerous. I think that one reason Canadian-American relations work as well as they do is that each country compartmentalizes the disputes. If they start linking disputes, I think that there is a real danger of the disputes getting completely out of hand.

There are folks in BC who apparently think the softwood dispute is already out of hand. The US lumber lobby is making a mockery out of free trade. The US has so far refused to return the $4B in illegal tariffs they've collected on our softwood and has pretty much ignored both NAFTA and WTO rulings. When the US so flagrantly disregards rulings from regulatory panels they've previously agreed to obey, their word becomes worthless and it becomes necessary to seek other weapons - anywhere you can find them. If you don't use every available means to defend yourself against this kind of bullying, you're always going to get short changed.

Since the softwood issue has had such a large impact on BC's economy and the pipeline needs BC's approval before it can be built across any of BC's territory, there is a natural linkage and I think BC would be idiotic to NOT use the pipeline as a lever. I'm sure this tit for tat kind of thing has happened before as well, though it may not have been spelled out so clearly in the media. FWIW, I notice Dubya finally returned Martin's phone call.

someone

03-06-2005, 09:24 AM

There are folks in BC who apparently think the softwood dispute is already out of hand. The US lumber lobby is making a mockery out of free trade. The US has so far refused to return the $4B in illegal tariffs they've collected on our softwood and has pretty much ignored both NAFTA and WTO rulings. When the US so flagrantly disregards rulings from regulatory panels they've previously agreed to obey, their word becomes worthless and it becomes necessary to seek other weapons - anywhere you can find them. If you don't use every available means to defend yourself against this kind of bullying, you're always going to get short changed.

Since the softwood issue has had such a large impact on BC's economy and the pipeline needs BC's approval before it can be built across any of BC's territory, there is a natural linkage and I think BC would be idiotic to NOT use the pipeline as a lever. I'm sure this tit for tat kind of thing has happened before as well, though it may not have been spelled out so clearly in the media. FWIW, I notice Dubya finally returned Martin's phone call.
The problem with seeking "other weapons - anywhere you can find them" is that it has the potential to poison what are otherwise very good economic relations between Canada and the U.S. (the media tends to focus on problem areas as there is not a story if there is not a problem). Moreover, it has only been a few weeks since Canada imposed WTO approved retaliatory tariffs on U.S. wine and beer over the lumber issue (there was even a long thread her on that issue) which would lead to collecting the tariff revenues not being repaid (admittedly, at a cost to Canadian consumers). The whole purpose of WTO retaliatory tariffs is to keep retaliation from getting out of hand. Moreover, you should remember that at the end of the day, if the United States is willing to cut off its noise to spite its face, it has more potential retaliatory action. Thus, I think it would make a lot more sense to work through the WTO rules first, slow as it might be.

islandboy

03-06-2005, 12:54 PM

That's BS. No one in their right mind argues that Canada should base its trade policy on the extremely unlikely chance that the rest of the world will launch a food boycott of Canada. Furthermore, I suspect that you don't even know what the term comparative advantage refers to. I suggest that you try to learn some of the basics before making foolish statements.

Base an entire trade policy on food. No. That is not done now and is counter productive because no one to close to agreeing on food. I think you are basing you thinking in theory without looking at the industry and international playing field.

Being ensured of a food supply is a strategic consideration (fact) that drives food policy around the world. Eust look at the EU. We take it for granted here due to the huge amount of north american production. (The US is loosing farm land faster than the Canadians but in the US while prices have been stable for decades yields in most crops is up - corn in some areas of the country by 4 fold.)
BUT, that said, our ag industries do have to export to stay afloat - so even if we do not think of our supports in terms of safeguarding our food production, this is the field of play and long term if we do not keep the industry relatively intact that would be the situation we could face.

If you look at the EU, the EU budget is 1% of GDP. 40% of that goes to CAP (common agriculural progam). Yet agriculture only accounts for 4% of GDP. As well France (out of CAP) for example gives 3 x the direct subsidies to its farmers than farmers get in some of the new member states. Even if one decimates, say, France's ag industry and suffers more loses due to rationalization of the production change, the number of voters and cost/benefit would be a relatively easy and profitable hit to take if food is simply sseen as a commodity which should be subjected to full market forces. (Canada and the US say they would like it as we are in position to capitalize on such events given the current state of our ag industry and productive capacities.

What does all this mean, you ask. The answer is they same as before, food is seen as having stragtegic importance. Some realize it expressly, some implicitly. The bottom line is that until all change their thinking - and a full solution comes from negotiations such as the Doha rounds - what you seem to see as historic relic is still the name of the game. This is so even between EU members! And one more thing, with the razor thin profits, huge capital investments, and attendant problems which talk about when we talk about our farmer hero's, once anything/everthing you lose in that industry is lost forever! (Fish farms and such things excepted.)

Now if you want to talk about some other aspects of trade we may well agree. ie. - What do you think about Paul Samulson recently opinining that classic thinking abut the salutory effects of freetrade may not hold in the case of China due to its huge size and ability to compete at all levels of trade?

someone

03-06-2005, 01:47 PM

Base an entire trade policy on food. No. That is not done now and is counter productive because no one to close to agreeing on food. I think you are basing you thinking in theory without looking at the industry and international playing field.
Really? You were telling me before that I should read more economics and come back here. Now your saying that I have read to much economics
Personally, I think that you are basing your thinking on some dream world you live in.

Being ensured of a food supply is a strategic consideration (fact) that drives food policy around the world.

Where do you get these silly ideas from? Japan is the only major country I can think of since the fall of the Soviet Union that makes the food security argument and no one takes them seriously.

Eust look at the EU.

The main argument the EU is currently making to the OECD/WTO has nothing to do with food security (I had a colleague who involved in writing Australia/New Zealand’s response to the EU’s argument to theOECD). It has to do with farmers being custodians of land (they are arguing that for some reason returning the land to the natural state would be worse than living it cultivated). I don’t think anyone takes that argument any more seriously than Japan’s food security argument.

Look, I really can’t take someone seriously who thinks that there is a chance that the rest of the world will suddenly decide to launch a food boycott of Canada.

What does all this mean, you ask.

I don’t because I know the answer, somebody has a strange view of the world. As I said before, you should try to get a basic understanding of the issues before you post silly things.

islandboy

03-06-2005, 03:05 PM

And your collegue specializes in agriculture? Security is still an issue in ag economics texts and, I dare say, in peoples minds. Now, if parks/preservation areas take the place of frams there would seen to be a public so to the extend that you question the arguement, I frankly seem to agree. But if its a bad arguement, what is the real concern? That you have not addressed.

Did you know that the typical farm insectacide/herbicide is sprayed at concentrations of 2 to 6 oz per ten US gal per acre. That is about 125,000.00 ppm. The majority are liver and/or lung toxic at 15 - 100 ppm daily over three - four months. The majority kill at 10-100 mg/kg of body weight. In a water sytem as few gallons would wipe out a small city. To some minds - not mine - the argument could be that when one fights for farming, one is fighting for a business with its own WMD widely dispursed in large quantities in just about every farm store and farm.

Enough though. We will never agree though I fear I understand your point better than you do mine as you give mine no merit. You only see food as a weapon if a problem arises overnight and hits like a bomb. In that respect you are almost certainly correct as it is not vary darn likely to happen so quickly unless there is two to three years of world wide drought. How's that?

someone

03-06-2005, 03:38 PM

And your collegue specializes in agriculture?
It was a department created from a merger of an ag econ and a regular econ department. He as from the ag econ half. Working there gave me a low opinion of the work done in ag economics (they're people who can't handle the math of real economics :D ). However, even ag econ people don't take Japan's security arguement seriously

Enough though. We will never agree though I fear I understand your point better than you do mine as you give mine no merit. You only see food as a weapon if a problem arises overnight and hits like a bomb. In that respect you are almost certainly correct as it is not vary darn likely to happen so quickly unless there is two to three years of world wide drought. How's that?
I admit that your comment about reading economics may have caused me to respond to your posts more harshly than I should have responded. I will even go so far as to say that in the case of the old Soviet Union, there was some basis to the argument (e.g. Carter's grain embargo). Nonetheless, Canada is not the old Soviet Union. As we are talking about dairy, chicken, etc (recall that we are talking about goods under Canada's supply management system) the drought effects would be a minor concern compared to the effects it would have on Canada's export industries (beef, wheat, etc.) However, as Slowpoke said, this is getting very off the topic of the thread.

islandboy

03-06-2005, 05:28 PM

QUOTE=someone]It was a department created from a merger of an ag econ and a regular econ department. He as from the ag econ half. Working there gave me a low opinion of the work done in ag economics (they're people who can't handle the math of real economics :D ). However, even ag econ people don't take Japan's security arguement seriously

I admit that your comment about reading economics may have caused me to respond to your posts more harshly than I should have responded. I will even go so far as to say that in the case of the old Soviet Union, there was some basis to the argument (e.g. Carter's grain embargo). Nonetheless, Canada is not the old Soviet Union. As we are talking about dairy, chicken, etc (recall that we are talking about goods under Canada's supply management system) the drought effects would be a minor concern compared to the effects it would have on Canada's export industries (beef, wheat, etc.) However, as Slowpoke said, this is getting very off the topic of the thread.[/QUOTE]

Yes, my remarks were unduly harsh. I am a lawyer with post doc in economics and finance. I have represented and litigated ag issues among other things. While I fully understand you comments about the math, I firmly believe that it does not always boil down to math. Carter is a recent example, but (and this argues for a pure commodity analysis) I personally suspect that some the concern now comes from the increasing ability of some new producing nations who would benefit as well for an end to certain subsidy programs. That said - your side of the argument is important. I just believe that one can fully underestimate the importance of food and irregularity in it production - either by man or nature.

As far as being off topic, while I aplogise to those reading to this thread - as hateful as it had become - the discussion is, actually, something of international merit. Too, there is indeed a relation, in a rather macro sense, to missile defense. Food is one rather important thing that binds us as trading partners. NORAD also is important to both. The more shared perspectives we have the easier it is to deal with one anther on other issues. The morons on this Board - including me at times - that quickly dismiss the other countries views do not understand all the mutual respect that we actually bring to the table. I fully admit and Bush makes it harder to listen when he has good, positive, and correct points to make, but I also know that Canadian reactions and promotions are also sometimes posited as reactions (or imbued with reactions) to a big neighbor. We do expect you to follow along to much but , in recent years, the reaction rather than how you can lead differently (when that is what you decide on) seems to cloud the relationship as well.

With missile defense - make NORAD work. The missiles really are a side issue.

With food - beef for example - we need each other. The US really is wrong to blame you - I think but am not sure that you were a little later in regulating ruminants - but now do not adopt all the measures you have to ensure MCD

slowpoke

03-07-2005, 07:22 AM

The problem with seeking "other weapons - anywhere you can find them" is that it has the potential to poison what are otherwise very good economic relations between Canada and the U.S. (the media tends to focus on problem areas as there is not a story if there is not a problem). Moreover, it has only been a few weeks since Canada imposed WTO approved retaliatory tariffs on U.S. wine and beer over the lumber issue (there was even a long thread her on that issue) which would lead to collecting the tariff revenues not being repaid (admittedly, at a cost to Canadian consumers). The whole purpose of WTO retaliatory tariffs is to keep retaliation from getting out of hand. Moreover, you should remember that at the end of the day, if the United States is willing to cut off its noise to spite its face, it has more potential retaliatory action. Thus, I think it would make a lot more sense to work through the WTO rules first, slow as it might be.

I can't say I'm terribly impressed with those WTO retaliatory tariffs because they force Canadian consumers to pay more. Are the extra tariffs intended as an alternative to the US repaying us the $4B or are we eventually going to get that back? If the tariffs are a substitute for repayment, it really means that Canadian consumers are paying on behalf of the US which isn't much of a repayment if you ask me.

someone

03-07-2005, 07:40 AM

I can't say I'm terribly impressed with those WTO retaliatory tariffs because they force Canadian consumers to pay more.
I can understand that position. One of my responses in the thread on this topic also raised that issue. Nonethless, you could make a similar case in terms of the lost jobs from not allowing the pipeline to be built.

Moreover, history has shown what can happen when retaliation gets out of hand. In the 1930s the U.S. passed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. The rest of the world retaliated. The retaliation got out of control and the depression was much worse than it needed to be. Moreover, many argue that it helped elect Hitler. Thus, I think it is important to try to keep retaliation under control by staying within WTO approved retaliation.

slowpoke

03-07-2005, 08:52 AM

I can understand that position. One of my responses in the thread on this topic also raised that issue. Nonethless, you could make a similar case in terms of the lost jobs from not allowing the pipeline to be built.

Moreover, history has shown what can happen when retaliation gets out of hand. In the 1930s the U.S. passed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. The rest of the world retaliated. The retaliation got out of control and the depression was much worse than it needed to be. Moreover, many argue that it helped elect Hitler. Thus, I think it is important to try to keep retaliation under control by staying within WTO approved retaliation.

So I guess we'll never see the $4B repayment? Instead we'll just stiff Canadians with extra tariffs on US goods to get it back. No wonder they're so consistently eager to screw us on free trade. There are almost no consequences! Maybe this will teach us to find other markets and to sell as little as possible to the Americans. Let them cut down there own trees for a change!

someone

03-07-2005, 12:38 PM

So I guess we'll never see the $4B repayment? Instead we'll just stiff Canadians with extra tariffs on US goods to get it back. No wonder they're so consistently eager to screw us on free trade. There are almost no consequences! Maybe this will teach us to find other markets and to sell as little as possible to the Americans. Let them cut down there own trees for a change!
Given that most trade between Canada and the U.S. is problem free, I think that your making too much of the softwood case. I don’t know what percentage of total U.S.-Canada trade it represents but it has to be very small. However, I do agree with you regarding other markets if you’re suggesting that we should promote free trade through other bilateral and multilateral agreements. Free trade of the Americans and free trade among APEC members would be great but both of those proposals seem to be going nowhere right now.

islandboy

03-07-2005, 06:25 PM

someone

03-08-2005, 02:01 PM

Just a reminder when you talk about trade - and actually an invitation to someone to weigh in - but I feel that permitting canadian companies to price in us dollars - particularly for internal matters is economic suicide. This despite the fact that pricing in our $ has been disasterous in the near short term.
I'm trying to understand where you’re coming from on this. By internal, do you mean internal to the firm (e.g. the transfer pricing question for multinationals) or internal to Canada. If you mean internal to Canada, I'm not sure that they can't price in American dollars (although since the Canadian dollar is legal tender they would likely have to accept payment in the equivalent Canadian dollars). I’m really not sure why they would want to annoy their customers by forcing people who think in terms of Canadian dollars to make mental conversions. I suppose that in some cases like professional sports teams they would reduce some uncertainty between expenditures in U.S. dollars and revenues in Canadian dollars. However, given that financial markers allow them to hedge, I don’t see the big advantage. Maybe you could elaborate?