see?

Canadians are smart. Canada has officially declined the US's "invitation" to participate in the enormous waste of money erroneously called missile defense.

There's some confusion, however: "The news came just hours after ambassador-designate to the U.S., Frank McKenna, said Canada had effectively signed on to the U.S.-proposed missile shield when it amended the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) agreement last summer."

But a Canadian official said, "It is a firm 'no.' I am not sure it is an indefinite 'no.'" If you can figure out all those negatives, you're a better reader of politspeak than I.

Comments

  1. I think we have already signed on in a limited way to the continental missile defense program with the integration of NORAD into the program. The government is just posturing in an effort to save face. Truth be told, I don't think this a big issue for most Canadians. If pressed, most would say they are opposed, but few can clearly articulate why.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think we have already signed on in a limited way to the continental missile defense program with the integration of NORAD into the program. The government is just posturing in an effort to save face. Truth be told, I don't think this a big issue for most Canadians. If pressed, most would say they are opposed, but few can clearly articulate why.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No matter that it's not a big issue. What matters (to me) is that the Canadian government resists the pressure and doesn't help fund this ridiculous program.

    I don't think that's correct about NORAD.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No matter that it's not a big issue. What matters (to me) is that the Canadian government resists the pressure and doesn't help fund this ridiculous program.

    I don't think that's correct about NORAD.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The problem is no one has told the Canadian public what the US government wants from us. I don't know and I certainly think I'm more informed than the average Canadian. I don't think we're expected to pay part of the cost and I haven't heard anyone say that missiles would be deployed on Canadian soil. I can't make up my own mind on the issue until I know what is expected of us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The problem is no one has told the Canadian public what the US government wants from us. I don't know and I certainly think I'm more informed than the average Canadian. I don't think we're expected to pay part of the cost and I haven't heard anyone say that missiles would be deployed on Canadian soil. I can't make up my own mind on the issue until I know what is expected of us.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good point (and I'm sure you are more informed than most). I think the US government wants your blank check to support Star Wars wherever it goes. That's got to include both money and land, I would think. Agree now, ask questions later.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good point (and I'm sure you are more informed than most). I think the US government wants your blank check to support Star Wars wherever it goes. That's got to include both money and land, I would think. Agree now, ask questions later.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The NORAD relation to all this was simply an agreement to share intercept information for the NORAD early warning system with the BMD program. This saves some duplication of radar sites. It doesn't really have the implication that we are participating.

    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  10. The NORAD relation to all this was simply an agreement to share intercept information for the NORAD early warning system with the BMD program. This saves some duplication of radar sites. It doesn't really have the implication that we are participating.

    Peter

    ReplyDelete
  11. They can decide for themselves what direction they feel the country should take and what agreements it should or shouldn't make. It seems disingenuous for you to take your cue from politicans, all of whom are out for political gain.

    ReplyDelete
  12. They can decide for themselves what direction they feel the country should take and what agreements it should or shouldn't make. It seems disingenuous for you to take your cue from politicans, all of whom are out for political gain.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is some truth to that, but we expect our elected officials to inform us what it is we're supposed to be deciding on. That's what they've been hired to do. We went through a very similar process over the Free Trade agreement. Everyone had an opinion on something they knew nothing about. I remember my own thinking at the time, as a student. I was dead set against it and yet, I couldn't tell you why except for some vague belief that we were selling out to the Americans.

    My point is, are the people who disagree with it actually opposed to missile defense, or is it just an anti-Bush thing? I suspect if Clinton had come to us 6 or 7 years ago with the same proposal, it would have been a done deal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There is some truth to that, but we expect our elected officials to inform us what it is we're supposed to be deciding on. That's what they've been hired to do. We went through a very similar process over the Free Trade agreement. Everyone had an opinion on something they knew nothing about. I remember my own thinking at the time, as a student. I was dead set against it and yet, I couldn't tell you why except for some vague belief that we were selling out to the Americans.

    My point is, are the people who disagree with it actually opposed to missile defense, or is it just an anti-Bush thing? I suspect if Clinton had come to us 6 or 7 years ago with the same proposal, it would have been a done deal.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I see your point. However, this proposal could only come from a president deeply beholden to the industries that will profit from so-called missile defense.

    I think in this case being anti-Bush is enough, because the proposal falls squarely within his MO: anything for corporate interests, no matter the cost or the debt, no matter if it works (makes us safer) or in fact is just an incredibly expensive diversion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I see your point. However, this proposal could only come from a president deeply beholden to the industries that will profit from so-called missile defense.

    I think in this case being anti-Bush is enough, because the proposal falls squarely within his MO: anything for corporate interests, no matter the cost or the debt, no matter if it works (makes us safer) or in fact is just an incredibly expensive diversion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, now we've officially been punished. Condi isn't going to come and visit us now. I'm so hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well, now we've officially been punished. Condi isn't going to come and visit us now. I'm so hurt.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

not so fast

dipstick