Ok. Now Why?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

I read this this A.M.: Canada.Com | Homepage | Canada.Com

Summary: Canada won’t allow missle defense on it’s soil. If I am reading this correctly, allowing the equipment on Canada’s land is THE ONLY cost to be born by Canada. The U.S. builds, deploys, and maintains.

Second, allowing the U.S. deserters unfettered access to immigration.

I’d appreciate some JpBear (Non-Vroom_ comments on this.

I can’t help feeling this is unnecessarily antagonistic. I can’t think of a good reason for these two measures.

Help!!!

JeffR

2

That sucks. Liberal Cosmopolitanism has certainly run amok up there.

Well considering that North Korean Missle accuracy is measured by the tens of miles, it is more likely they will get hit by the enemy missles then the US.

I guess if one is heading towards Toronto the PM shouldn’t expect us to shoot it down.

It is only a matter of time until the technology is perfected to achieve a 100% kill rate on these things.

3

Why yes jeffy, It is infuriating we should lob a few nukes north and any survivors should be marched off to re-education camps. All while chanting KILL, KILL, KILL, the liberals, Democrats, and Canadians!

4

No one would miss Toronto. And the PM lives in Ottawa.

  1. He doesn’t think it will work, he’s not wasting money on it.

  2. He clearly stated (correctly) that we are a nation of immigrants and sees no need to change our policy at this time.

Antagonistic?

5

Brother Elk,

Your response was unneccessary. My post was a sincere request for understanding from my Canadian friends.

You are trying to accuse me of ulterior motives.

Forgive me for saying so, but you seem to have been very emotional lately.

Are your bowels troubling you?

Hedo,

I can certainly understand the frustration inherent in your post.

I would like to hear from the Canadians who do not hate the United States (aka…not Vroom).

JeffR

6

t bone:

He thinks it may not be working right now. But, he goes on to say he thinks it will. My problem is that he has ruled out deployment ALREADY. This after our President has come to his government with his outstretched hand. Bush made his plea on December 1st. It has taken the Canadian PM two short weeks to rebuff him. It strikes me as an unneccessary slap.

Further, why not make no comment at all about immigration? Why give tacit approval to our deserters? If you feel the need to make a comment, why not discourage our deserters publically even if you don’t change any law?

I am sincerely trying to find another motive besides pure antagonism.

JeffR

7

I don’t think he volunteered the information about immigration, he was most likely questioned.

And publicly denouncing ‘defectors’ from the US could be seen as tantamount to supporting the war, which Canada does not.

Perhaps we aren’t seeing eye to eye on what you call defectors and we simply see as immigrants.

8

Well, since I don’t hate the US at all, you’ll get to hear from me anyway…

As far as I’m aware we are leaning towards involvement once we get assurances this won’t lead to the weaponization of space.

I’m also aware that we have some fringe groups making all kinds of wild claims about what involvement will or won’t entail.

My crystal ball isn’t working very well right now, but I did just read that the latest failed test run in the Pacific may give us some extra breathing room to make up our minds.

I’m guessing our PM would like to defer on this since it’s possible he could lose his job by making a decision.

9

Nah Jeffy, the bowels are fine… for the moment! I just couldn’t resist. I don’t think you will be satisfied until the whole world is kneeling at the what did you call it? The George W. Bush Freedom Memorial.

10

t bone wrote:

"I don’t think he volunteered the information about immigration, he was most likely questioned.

And publicly denouncing ‘defectors’ from the US could be seen as tantamount to supporting the war, which Canada does not.

Perhaps we aren’t seeing eye to eye on what you call defectors and we simply see as immigrants."

The point is: they are deserters. We view them that way. Friendly governments usually honor that designation and are sensitive to the difficulty of extradition.

Hard to argue that they are deserters. Regardless of the cause, your government SHOULD NOT encourage that in any way.

Imagine if some of your soldiers deserted because they had to pay your 55-65% percent tax or were mad because they had one of their relatives die in the waiting line for an elective procedure. We do things differently here in the U.S. in both those instances. We think differently.

Wouldn’t you be angry if W. said, “We welcome any immigrant?” Or, “We agree that people shouldn’t have to pay 55-65 percent tax or have people die while waiting for an elective procedure.”

Wouldn’t you want to hear: “We will help Canada stop desertion, regardless of the cause.”

Oh, principle should not be secondary to political expediency. If it were, we’d both still be members of the United Kingdom.

JeffR

11

JeffR,

It isn’t Canada’s job, or place, to hold American citizens accountable to American laws or ideals.

Once they cross the border, we have no choice but to apply our laws to them. It has nothing to do with the attitude of any Canadian citizens per se.

[edited to add “with”]

12

I went to a lecture recently by a Professor that was an authority in Eastern Asian history. His thesis was that North Korea was about 10 years away from having a missle that could reach North America. He said we were more vulnerable to a small scale devise that could be left in a subway or at a stadium. I haven’t checked his information, so take it for what it’s worth. We all know about the problems with bad intelligence.

13

[quote]JeffR wrote:

The point is: they are deserters. We view them that way. Friendly governments usually honor that designation and are sensitive to the difficulty of extradition.

Wouldn’t you be angry if W. said, “We welcome any immigrant?” Or, “We agree that people shouldn’t have to pay 55-65 percent tax or have people die while waiting for an elective procedure.”

Wouldn’t you want to hear: “We will help Canada stop desertion, regardless of the cause.”

JeffR

[/quote]

Actually, no, I wouldn’t be angry. If someone wants to leave Canada, I would let them. Why would I want to force someone to stay when they want to leave? Anyone is FREE to leave Canada if they want to. If they do not agree with the way this country is run and feel that they have to leave - why would I want to make this person stay? How are they beneficial to this country? Are they going to give any positive contribution to this nation?

And if, someone is leaving a country because they disagree with the politics and are fleeing to save their life (which they may lose if forced to participate in conflict) - aren’t they political refugees???

14

[quote]t bone y2j wrote:
I don’t think he volunteered the information about immigration, he was most likely questioned.
[/quote]

Ha ha… You don’t know who Paul Martin is at all do you?

Our former Prime Minister Jean Chr?tien was a brilliant scumbag. A complete crook, but you could never question the fact that he was always 100% in control. Paul Martin on the other hand, as I stated in an earlier thread, is a complete and utter moron. He is the king of both knee-jerk reactions and willingly stirring up more trouble than he can handle. I’m not saying he wasn’t questioned in this instance, I have no idea if he was or not, but if he was, it was just a mater of the media bringing up something he would have gladly mouthed off about if he had thought of it first.

As for the missile defense comments, I am not one bit surprised. This is not tactical stalling at all. Unless the United States is willing to seriously suck up to Canada, plus give us a prominent executive position in this program, I think you can probably count Canada out, even if it wouldn’t cost us a dime to participate.

What I’ve witnessed in Canada over the past decade is a continual swelling of Anti-American sentiment.

When September 11th happened, it turned out that I had no idea just how deep that hatred ran. At the time I worked in an office with about 50 other people. I was the only person visibly upset that day. Everyone else just seemed excited. Throughout the rest of the day people kept on asking me “why are you crying”, “what’s wrong?” Over the next few days people kept saying “they deserved it” When I watched and listing to the national media over the next few weeks, every time there was a call-in opinion show or a discussion panel, I kept on hearing “they deserved it, they deserved it”.

When the Canadian government refused to participate in Iraq, the move was hugely popular with the general population. I think people here viewed it as Canada finally making its big stand. Paul Martin perfectly represents the majority of Canadians in that respect. He doesn’t understand the issues, and he’s doesn’t care. He just wants international attention, and he wants it at your expense. Also, he is delusional. He is not willing to accept his lot in life. Just look at his proposal to replace the UN with a new international body where Canada will play a more prominent role.

Anyway, I?ll stop ranting now.

15

JPBear,

As always, I trully value your opinion.

Unfortunately, your post was what I was fearing. I wish it wasn’t so.

The idea that any rational human being would say, “They deserved it” makes me furious.

I’ve been to Canada 10-12 times over my lifetime. I’ve probably spent a total of about 3-4 months in your country. There was never the slightest hint of animosity.

I can’t help wondering if people were saying one thing and thinking another. Hell, maybe my physical size deterred them from saying what they felt.

Either way, I’m saddened by these recent events. I appreciate your honesty. I know that there are at least some Canadians who aren’t little inferiority-laden dinks.

I respect you JPBear. I wish physical and emotional suffering on any person who said or thought “they deserved it.”

JeffR

16

[quote]dylan5150 wrote:
I went to a lecture recently by a Professor that was an authority in Eastern Asian history. His thesis was that North Korea was about 10 years away from having a missle that could reach North America. He said we were more vulnerable to a small scale devise that could be left in a subway or at a stadium. I haven’t checked his information, so take it for what it’s worth. We all know about the problems with bad intelligence.[/quote]

I don’t know the precise timing of the estimate, but they don’t have one yet – however, Japan is in far more immediate danger. Thus the recent (yesterday, I believe) treaty between Japan and the U.S. as joint participants in a ballistic missile defense system.

17

JPBear,

Wow, I’m shocked. My experience on that day and following was different than yours.

I’ll admit to being in a state of shock on 9/11 itself, it was too big an event and I didn’t know how to react. I don’t know if that makes sense, I knew it was a human disaster but it was so terrible it was hard to believe or integrate right away.

Anyway, what you described was indeed sad and shameful.

18

One cannot speak for the opinion of our entire nation. There are myriad reasons for our disagreement with military action in Iraq. I am willing to wager my life that to garner ‘international attention’ would not have appeared on many personal lists.
As I remember from the time, all polls taken showed a greater than 70% rating of opposition to sending our troops to Iraq.

Jeff, lets not be too dramatic about your time here. My bet is the average Canadian doesn’t love or hate individual American visitors, they just don’t care. Don’t piss in the street or rough up a nun and we’ll probably let you on your merry way. Thinking people weren’t speaking their opinion of you because of your size is an odd statement, did the people you run into have any stake in you or know you in any way? Did you do anything to a) offend someone and b) identify yourself as an American? If not I wouldn’t expect any confrontations.

And as stated earlier, if people are unhappy with our country and aren’t willing to work toward what they see as a superior option, of course they are free to leave. We realize you do things differently down there. Some folks are more suited to our systems, some to yours.

19

t bone,

I was interested in what you didn’t say.
Let me ask you directly: “Did we deserve 9/11?”

Make sure yes or no is present in your answer.

Thanks,

JeffR

20

[quote]t bone y2j wrote:
And as stated earlier, if people are unhappy with our country and aren’t willing to work toward what they see as a superior option, of course they are free to leave.
[/quote]

tbone,

What makes you assume I am not willing to work towards a better Canada? I already had to defend myself about this on a different thread, so I’m just going say the same thing I said there:

I have been involved in politics since I was 17 years old when I joined my first federal party and served as a director at the riding association level. A couple years later I also became involved in provincial politics and served on their board as fundraising chair. I have also spent two years as a director and vice president of our Chamber of Commerce. I have been to more meetings and conferences and helped organize more events in the hope of turning our country around than you can imagine.

I am not just an armchair critic. You know what else? It takes a lot of effort to follow this stuff and not let oneself get too jaded to care anymore.

And I’m going to keep posting my opinions about Canada whenever I think I can contribute something to the discussion. Try giving me a good rebuttal if you disagree with me.