I DON'T WANT TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!

[JomZ]

Yep, we are certainly working around the clock to perfect the missile defense program, EagleSmack. The Liberal government in Canada did not see it fit to join us on this program. This leaves us with less resource (manpower) to complete the program. There is some behind the scenes support from Canada but very little.

I wonder if the officials in Canada would change their tune if terrorists launch a nuclear missle at Canada and we are not able to shoot it down before it hits Canadian soil. This hypothetical unfortunate event would be a direct result of Canada's lack of support on this program.

In using rational judgement, one fact is clear ... if terrorists had an opportunity (God forbid) to launch a nuclear missile aimed either at Canada or the US, they would very likely pick Canada. They know their chances of a successful hit is much greater if aiming for Canada vs the US.

In using rational judgement I would put the chances of terrorists firing ballistic missles at Canada right up there with invading alien tripods coming to earth from outerspace. Its not likely to happen.

The more probable reason this BMD is being put into place is more likely by military designers who are predicting the rise of powerful nuclear nations in the next couple of decades, and are planning ahead (India, China, Russia, etc). Be honest would you spend billions on a highly unrealistic probability.

So i pose this question to the forum: Why do Canadians not want to be like or be called American? Why do we care?

Reverse the role, would Americans like being called Canadian, probably not. Would Chinese people like to be called Japanese, probably not. Canadians have pride in themselves too, we have built and are continuing to build a great nation. Ask the majority of Canadians are they proud to be Canadian and they will answer yes (not all but a clear majority). Ask the majority of Americans are they proud to be American and they will answer yes (not all but a clear majority).

We are similar culturally too Americans, but we also differ greatly. We are both formally British colonies, and built by an immigrant influx. Canadians have a stronger French influence then Americans, we are not as material or capitalistic as Americans but we are somewhat.

 

[Shiva]

I think if we didn't have a minority government in Ottawa, we'd already be a part of the ballistic missile defence programme. I'm pretty sure that this issue will come up again, and once politics in Ottawa stabilize with a party in a majority position, we'll end up joining it. It's a given for a Liberal gov't or a Conservative gov't. The Liberals wanted to join, they just didn't have the necessary backing in Parliament...otherwise, why did they prevaricate and wait so long to tell the Americans no?

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: I DON'T WANT TO BE AN

The Liberals very much wanted to join BMD, Shiva. Martin spent months trying to sell it even as the Association of Canadian Physicists was telling them that the plan wouldn't work and the Russians and Chinese were saying that they would have to build systems that could defeat BMD.

Martin and his buddies cited trade as the reason for throwing our reputation out the window.

Canadian sentiment was so against it that the Liberals were forced to back down. Even the Conservatives softened their position for a time, saying they would "study" it. When that didn't help them in the polls, Harper spent a few minutes talking to Georgie and flip-flopped back to fully supporting BMD.

 

[MMMike]

I think if we didn't have a minority government in Ottawa, we'd already be a part of the ballistic missile defence programme. I'm pretty sure that this issue will come up again, and once politics in Ottawa stabilize with a party in a majority position, we'll end up joining it. It's a given for a Liberal gov't or a Conservative gov't. The Liberals wanted to join, they just didn't have the necessary backing in Parliament...otherwise, why did they prevaricate and wait so long to tell the Americans no?

Well, they didn't really tell them no... they already agreed to use NORAD radar installations for targetting. Beyond that, the US was only looking for a symbolic commitment - no land, no $$. What does Martins so-called refusal mean? Not a damn thing.

 

[Reverend Blair]

What does Martins so-called refusal mean?

What Bush was looking for was some legitimacy on the world stage. Since Canada has a reputation for supporting disarmament, it was strongly felt that we could supply that legitimacy by signing on.

What Martin's forced refusal means is that Bush cannot point to BMD and tell the lie that it is meant to be a defensive weapon only. It is clear from what the US has said that BMD is designed to give them first strike capability.

 

[MMMike]

Its so much hypocrisy! Of course Martin wanted to support it... he even agreed to the necessary practical agreements. He simply bent with the winds of public opinion instead of trying to make the case for BMD. The man is completely gutless. And Canadians still cluck and say, boy we showed those guys, huh!? If the anti-BMD sentiment is as strong as you think, where is the outrage that Martin largely gave them what they needed by agreeing to let them use the NORAD systems? Nobody knows... nobody cares.

 

[Nascar_James]

I think if we didn't have a minority government in Ottawa, we'd already be a part of the ballistic missile defence programme. The Liberals wanted to join, they just didn't have the necessary backing in Parliament...otherwise, why did they prevaricate and wait so long to tell the Americans no?

Didn't the Conservative Party support the BMD program? If not, what kind of conservatives are they ... might as well disband the party.

 

[Reverend Blair]

He simply bent with the winds of public opinion instead of trying to make the case for BMD.

He tried very hard for a very long time to make the case. The problem is that there wasn't much of a case to make. It's a system that doesn't work, has never had a successful test, and is laughed at by most physicists. The White House has stated clearly that they intend to put weapons in space and BMD is the first step. Bush backed out of longstanding treaties that have kept the world safe for decades. Bush and his administration have talked openly about having a first strike capability. There is no legitimate threat of either terrorists or a rogue nation launching a first strike with an ICBM. Terrorists would use a suitcase bomb and rogue nations know that the retaliation for a first strike would levae them as nothing more than a smoking hole in the ground.

How do you make a case for that? You can't. It's a system that has managed to make the world a more dangerous place even without having a realisitc chance of working.

Martin's biggest problem selling BMD to Canadians is that Canadians were informed about the issue. The better informed they were, the more public sentiment turned against BMD.

Martin went with public opinion because he was in a minority government. By the time there is a majority government (hopefully we get PR and there is never another majority government), let's hope we have a leader who will base decisions on science and reason instead of wanting to hang out with the neighbourhood bully.

 

[EagleSmack]

The BMD is a defense weapon only. End of discussion. It is to prevent a rouge nation like Korea or Iran from hitting the US with a nuke. I am sure it would never stop a full scale nuclear strike from Russia but it would stop the NK and Iranians from launching their few missles at us.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: I DON'T WANT TO BE AN

There is no such thing as a weapon that is only defensive. There is also no real threat of a rogue nation firing an ICBM at the USA. Not only would such a country be completely annihilated, but they don't have the resources to fire such a missile.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons at present, despite all of the rhetoric. They also lack the capability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the United States.

North Korea has perhaps as many as six nukes. One, possibly two, of those could be fired at the United States, but it is doubtful that they would reach their target due the highly technical requirements of accurately firing such a missile.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: RE: I DON'T WANT TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!

Its so much hypocrisy! Of course Martin wanted to support it... he even agreed to the necessary practical agreements. He simply bent with the winds of public opinion instead of trying to make the case for BMD.

:lol: I remember that time. This was one of my Favourite Toons on the Topic:

 

[LeftCoast]

RE: I DON'T WANT TO BE AN

Reasons to support basing the proposed BMD system in Canada.

• Canada is a part of NORAD. The US, the dominant partner in NORAD is transitioning a fighter/interceptor based air defense to include BMD in the mix. As a partner in NORAD, Canada would presumably have some say in the use or deployment of the missiles.[/*]
  
• It's the Americans money to waste, possibly some of it would trickle down to the Candian Forces [/*]

Reasons not to support BMD.

• It (so far) doesn't work very well. [/*]
• It breaks several international treaties and potentially destabilizes US/Russian/Chinese relations. Basing missiles in Canada would make us a party to US unilateralism. [/*]
• The last threat to North American airspace was committed with commercial airliners and box cutters. [/*]
• Most Canadians don't want them.[/*]
• Canadian Forces are stretched tight enough without devoting any resources to such as collosal waste of time as Balistic Missile Defense.[/*]
• We've been here before. The reason the Avro Arrow was cancelled is because the Russians tested an H-Bomb and shot down a U2. As a result many US military planners felt high speed interceptors would be obsolete so proposed to base Bowmark missiles in Canada and asked that Canada rethink the Arrow program.[/*]

I think Martin considered participation in the BMD system as a way to improve US Canadian relations that had been strained under Cretien. His Cabinet, Caucus and the Canadian public however were against it.

 

[sammyhusk]

Clearly my question has transformed from why we don't want to be American to such discussions on Ballistic Missile Defence. So here's a new one: Clearly every nation and its people and/or governments are not perfect. Be it Canada, America, or wherever else. But what is it that makes us proud to be Canadian? Why do we feel a need to label ourselves as different from other nations, in particular the U.S.? And why do we care?

 

[Reverend Blair]

But what is it that makes us proud to be Canadian?

That we are a mostly peaceful, multi-cultural nation that believes in helping others at home and abroad.

Why do we feel a need to label ourselves as different from other nations, in particular the U.S.?

Because we are Canadians, not Americans. Our very values are different. We see that in foreign policy, our social programs, and our record of acting multi-laterally.

 

[peapod]

I think your right rev, are social values are different, on abortion and homosexuality. Most of all its different on religion, which is a good thing :wink:

 

[pastafarian]

Why do we feel a need to label ourselves as different from other nations, in particular the U.S?

For the same reason when I ask for a steak at a restaurant and they hand me a turnip, I get annoyed.

The words mean different things.

Canadians are not Turks, Iranians or Samoans. Our histories and geographical locations are different. We have different citizenships.

Unless you have dual citizenship, if you get deported from somewhere as a Canadian, you go to Canada.

You are not entitled to vote in elections other than Canadian elections.

There is, as yet, no Molson Malaysian.

 

[LeftCoast]

RE: I DON'T WANT TO BE AN

One of the things that I have always found interesting is that when you ask a Canadian about what it is to be Canadian, most will start describing how we are not Americans.

Canada has a distinct identity that is not American, but we also share a lot of things with our American cousins. But many Canadians have a huge inferiority complex vis-a-vis the US.

 

[technicalpoet]

THIS IS WHY!!!

U.S. public opinion

:evil: / :lol:

I like that
thanks for the link

 

[Reverend Blair]

One of the things that I have always found interesting is that when you ask a Canadian about what it is to be Canadian, most will start describing how we are not Americans.

A lot of that is because we are often told we are just like Americans and almost always compared to them.

I've seen several people on the internet, usually Americans or wannabe Americans, insist that Canadians are just like Americans...that the only real difference is our tax rate. The response to that can only be, "We are not Americans because..."

 

[Dexter Sinister]

For a good answer to the OP's question...

My daughter is currently on a student exchange program at York St. John in England. There are four Canadian students, a few from other European countries, and about 50 Americans. They've just returned from a weekend trip to Paris. One would assume that students selected for a foreign exchange program would be among the brightest and best. My daughter's been writing a blog while she's away, and here's a fairly typical example of the behaviour of Americans abroad:

http://www.ohthebrits.blogspot.com/

Given that, who in their right mind would want to be identified as an American?