October 5th, 2006, 01:40 PM
Canada should not waste military resources on defending the Arctic, but should sign on to the U.S. ballistic missile defence program and double the amount of money it gives for foreign aid, a Senate defence committee report released Thursday says.
More...
Canada should not waste military resources on defending the Arctic, but should sign on to the U.S. ballistic missile defence program and double the amount of money it gives for foreign aid, a Senate defence committee report released Thursday says.
More...
Electoral Member
Posts: 107 
Location: WATERLOO
Location: WATERLOO
October 6th, 2006, 12:15 AM
us will use added defence to become bolder, is that posible...
really though as long as canada has a say in the long term, it is part of norad anyway.. as long as the sites become canadian in the event of a norad breakup (hahahahhahahahhahahhaha)
both us and canada are NATO anyway
etc..
althogh i don't support the war
colloborateive defence as oppose to collaborative invasion might be a good thing.
I'm not in support of war, but if it is US dollars who cares, as long as it is approved on environmental issues and local concerns whateveer.. a deterent to war is generally a good thing...
of course there is the issue of US invasions on the sco's doorstep but really where is the threat to the artic?
oddlyon this issue I supported US missle defence as long as it was under canadian command locally and norad command (us command) in a wider scale.
although i did read many things on it. really what is the reason for it not occuring. unless you plan on opting out of canus defence cooperation which seems opposite of the canusmex collective security agreements on border and disaster response.
it makes no sense NoT to collaborate on missle defence (and with the US footing the bill ... .. why exactly arn't you doing it. the only valid response I know is that supporting weapons of war and war are in general bad and we should free the world from oppressive extortion and domination by the militant powers that exist by boycotting all froms of the military from the "government" government by definition is oppression under consenus of the militant as guided by the mechanism that support the best posible mechanism.
us will use added defence to become bolder, is that posible...
really though as long as canada has a say in the long term, it is part of norad anyway.. as long as the sites become canadian in the event of a norad breakup (hahahahhahahahhahahhaha)
both us and canada are NATO anyway
etc..
althogh i don't support the war
colloborateive defence as oppose to collaborative invasion might be a good thing.
I'm not in support of war, but if it is US dollars who cares, as long as it is approved on environmental issues and local concerns whateveer.. a deterent to war is generally a good thing...
of course there is the issue of US invasions on the sco's doorstep but really where is the threat to the artic?
oddlyon this issue I supported US missle defence as long as it was under canadian command locally and norad command (us command) in a wider scale.
although i did read many things on it. really what is the reason for it not occuring. unless you plan on opting out of canus defence cooperation which seems opposite of the canusmex collective security agreements on border and disaster response.
it makes no sense NoT to collaborate on missle defence (and with the US footing the bill ... .. why exactly arn't you doing it. the only valid response I know is that supporting weapons of war and war are in general bad and we should free the world from oppressive extortion and domination by the militant powers that exist by boycotting all froms of the military from the "government" government by definition is oppression under consenus of the militant as guided by the mechanism that support the best posible mechanism.
