Bush and Canada????


clueless
#1
What effects does the re-election of George W. Bush have on Canada? It can be any nation-wide (as in not like just one city) things such as politically, socially, economically, etc.

It would be great if you include reasons if you speculate. Also, I would really like that you include some background information to help me get started on some of the effects or issues happening in Canada.

For example, you may say, "Canada is (will be) experiencing poor trade relations" You can then add "because .... in response to... as a result..." etc. etc. and if you're speculating, state why you think so. Now, background information would be like describing the recent trade relations and how it was before being affected or how it is on average/generally. It doesn't have to be specific; generic information would actually do better.

Sorry if I seem like telling you to write a paper. I just need some facts and that's all. Thank you all whoever tries to answer my question.
 
Reverend Blair
#2
Canada is going to have a major debate about Ballistic Missile Defence.

Martin and some of those on the right of the Liberal are for it because they are afraid of trade repercussions if we do not join the coalition of the idiots. The Liberal party is deeply divided on the issue though.

The only other party that supports BMD is the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives, and Stephen Harper has been working to soften his position on it since it has become apparent that most Canadinas want no part of this.

The government will push it through despite the wishes of Canadians and it will cost both the Liberals and the Conservatives dearly.

The Canadian government is also going to be finding itself in an increasingly tight spot when trying to negotiate anything with the Bush government. The majority of Canadians did not want George Bush to win another term and are increasingly looking toward Europe as a major partner instead of the United States. That is going to start showing up at the polls if Martin continues his policy of appeasement.
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
#3
I'm no big fan of BMD, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. If we can develop the technology to stop missiles, then great! lets stop missiles!

Notwithstanding that it's a wate of time militarily for us, it may be a useful technology for countries who are closer geographically to their enemies, like in the PacRim.

The best contribution of military research has always been the spin-off products in civilian applications. I don't really see any down side in developing BMD systems, it keeps our rocket scientists off the streets and out of trouble!
 
Reverend Blair
#4
Except our rocket scientists say it won't work.http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspac...cists_warn.htm
Even if it did work though, chances are that the missile would land on us if they were shot down because missiles go over they north pole.

Toss in the fact that it's already started a new arms race...both the Chinese and the Russians say they are developing new systems just in case it does work.

And remember that an attack by ballistic missile is extremely remote in the modern world and every cent going into BMD would be better spent making sure that a container ship doesn't bring a nuke into harbour.

[/quote]
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
#5
I remember when I was a teenager reading a story about a new steam locomotive that had just been built. Scientists were trying to have it stopped because they were convinced the human body could not withstand the forces of travelling more than 30 miles per hour.

If we're to get anything out of BMD, it would be what's learned in the process, rather than the ultimate success of the program. Better radar tracking systems, more efficient engines...heck, maybe it will lead to the development of a fossil fuel-free rocket engine.

Anyway, I'm no big proponant of BMD, I think you're absolutely right that the main threats to us will come in commercial transport, not ballistic missiles. However, as long as the US is bent on a BMD program, I don't see any real harm in getting involved. I mean, if it were diverting money from something else useful, like our highly prized submarine fleet then it could be a problem.
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the Facts

I remember when I was a teenager reading a story about a new steam locomotive that had just been built.

I mean it was a historical account that I read when I was a teenager, not that a steam locomotive capable of exceeding 30mph had just been built when I was a teenager!!
 
Reverend Blair
#7
Quote:

I mean it was a historical account that I read when I was a teenager, not that a steam locomotive capable of exceeding 30mph had just been built when I was a teenager!! toothy7

Damn, thought I had you there.

I remember the same account, but it was 60mph when we got it. Makes me wonder if that isn't some sort of urban myth.

The physicists have a lot of scientific data as to why BMD won't work.

It will cost a huge amount of money. That money would be better spent on more realistic things...like foreign aid and rebuilding our military.

The US has clearly stated that they plan to weapons in space and this is just the first step too, so by participating we are violating international treaties that we have signed. Citing a technicality, which is how our government is trying to get around those treaties, is something mob lawyers do. It is not something responsible governments do.
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

I remember the same account, but it was 60mph when we got it. Makes me wonder if that isn't some sort of urban myth.

Probably is just a parable then, but still it's point remains.
 
Gonzago
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Just the Facts

If we're to get anything out of BMD, it would be what's learned in the process, rather than the ultimate success of the program. Better radar tracking systems, more efficient engines...heck, maybe it will lead to the development of a fossil fuel-free rocket engine.

I just wanted to point out that the space shuttle main engines run on liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen and produce water vapour as exhaust. No fossil fuels involved.

As far as BMD is concerned, Canada has better things to do with its money. Any incoming ballistic missiles are going to be targeted at the States anyway. They're creating their own enemies and we shouldn't have to foot the bill to protect them.
 
Reverend Blair
#10
There are far more peaceful means of advancing technology. Traditionally war has advanced technology, but that's really because it's the only way to get governments to cough up money.

If we change the mindset of government, then we do not need war to advance technology.
 
Numure
#11
If we get countries (Including the US) to disarm, forget their thousands of nukes, then we don't need a BMD system. This is just ridiculous. I hope, that Martin has common sense left in him, and that he won't go ahead with this.
 
Reverend Blair
#12
i have a feeling that Martin is going to lose this battle. I just hope he loses before he signs any papers.
 
Numure
#13
If he does go ahead with it, then another election will happen. The cons will be happy to join the Bloc in calling another election, thats for sure.
 
Just the Facts
Free Thinker
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Gonzago

I just wanted to point out that the space shuttle main engines run on liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen and produce water vapour as exhaust. No fossil fuels involved.

See, it's starting already!
 
passpatoo
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Numure

If he does go ahead with it, then another election will happen. The cons will be happy to join the Bloc in calling another election, thats for sure.

I'm not so sure about that. The last polling I heard put the liberals back in majority territorry. I think that was a couple of weeks ago now (can't remember the source) and things may have changed in the interim; however, if they haven't changed I'm sure the conservatives would be squeemish on forcing an election right now.
 
Numure
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by passpatoo

Quote: Originally Posted by Numure

If he does go ahead with it, then another election will happen. The cons will be happy to join the Bloc in calling another election, thats for sure.

I'm not so sure about that. The last polling I heard put the liberals back in majority territorry. I think that was a couple of weeks ago now (can't remember the source) and things may have changed in the interim; however, if they haven't changed I'm sure the conservatives would be squeemish on forcing an election right now.

If they go ahead with BMD, then they loose that majority.
 
Reverend Blair
#17
Do they? At least half of the Liberals are asking some serious questions about not just BMD, but our relationship with the US. They, like Mr. Duceppe, are wondering why anybody is kneeling in front of George Bush.

If we go back to the polls before next x-mas the Liberals will win a majority, but it will have little to do with Paul Martin.
 

Similar Threads

7
Bush and Calderon to Visit Canada
by Jr_J | Jul 25th, 2007
3
Prosecuting Bush in Canada for Torture
by moghrabi | Oct 23rd, 2005
6
Bush praises Canada
by #juan | Sep 10th, 2005
96
Should Canada indict Bush?
by Andem | Dec 22nd, 2004