| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Thu Feb 24, 2005 6:23 pm Canada won't join missile defense shield |
|
| Quote: |
CNN.com
Powered by
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Canada won't join missile defense shield
TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- Prime Minister Paul Martin said Thursday that Canada would opt out of the contentious U.S. missile defense program, a move that will further strain brittle relations between the neighbors but please Canadians who fear it could lead to an international arms race.
Martin, ending nearly two years of debate over whether Canada should participate in the development or operation of the multibillion-dollar program, said Ottawa would remain a close ally of Washington in the fight against global terrorism and continental security.
He said he intended to talk to President Bush later Thursday and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been informed of the decision earlier this week.
A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States had been informed beforehand of the decision, adding that Washington expects that cooperation with Canada will continue on a wide variety of issues.
Talking to reporters several minutes after his foreign minister first announced the move in the House of Commons, Martin said Canada would instead focus on strengthening its own military and defense in proposals laid out Wednesday in the federal budget.
"Canada recognizes the enormous burden that the United States shoulders, when it comes to international peace and security," Martin said. "The substantial increases made yesterday to our defense budget are a tangible indication that Canada intends to carry its full share of that responsibility."
The federal budget presented to the House of Commons calls for $10.5 billion in the next five years to increase the country's beleaguered armed forces -- including an additional 5,000 soldiers and 3,000 reservists -- the largest commitment to defense in two decades. It also called for another $807,950 to improve Canada's anti-terrorism efforts and security along the unarmed, 4,000-mile border with the United States.
When Bush visited Canada in December, he surprised Ottawa by making several unsolicited pitches for support of the defense shield, which is in the midst of testing interceptors capable of destroying incoming missiles targeted at North America.
Martin, who leads a tenuous minority government, has said Ottawa would not support what he called the "weaponization of space." Though he initially supported joining the program when he was a candidate for the Liberal leadership, Martin has retreated, since polls indicate that a majority of Canadians oppose it. Many believe that the umbrella, when fully implemented, could lead to an international arms race.
The Bush administration has tried to make a public show of understanding that Martin heads up a minority government that could fall over such a contentious debate.
But U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci told reporters Wednesday that he was perplexed over Canada's apparent decision to allow Washington to make the decision if a missile was headed toward its territory.
"Why would you want to give up sovereignty?" he said. "We don't get it. We think Canada would want to be in the room deciding what to do about an incoming missile that might be heading toward Canada."
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/02/24/canada.us.missile.defense.ap/index.html
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
|
I would have liked to have Canada in on this, and I am somewhat surprised that they would not want to be on this, considering what it has to offfer. At the sime time, although I would not have made that choice, I understand if he would like to put the money towards something that will have results in the more immediate future such as building an army and upping anti-terrorist stuff/
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 6:51 pm |
|
I would like them in on it, too, but I'm not surprised about this.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 6:55 pm |
|
Actually, the budget did include something around $12.8 billion (Canadian of course) for the military. Let's put it this way . . . Stephen Harper liked the budget . . . which is okay, I guess, because it won't mean another election soon.
I don't see the effectiveness of shooting missiles out of the sky with other missiles.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 6:58 pm |
|
Umm...usually people would be glad to have a defense against nukes....
shooting missiles out of the sky with other missiles....you don't see the effectiveness that you would be protected against a nuke attack....I am hoping I am missing something here
Last edited by Puck on Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:00 pm |
|
Shoot down a nuke over a vastly unpopulated area, or let it hit downtown Montreal... Yeah, I can see where the confusion comes from.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:02 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | Umm...usually people would be glad to have a defense against nukes....
shooting missiles out of the sky with other missiles....you don't see the effectiveness that you would be protected against a nuke attack....I am hoping I am missing something here |
I know. Tach, what's your reasoning for this? I see no logic whatsoever that comes with this position.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:17 pm |
|
I don't think the system is going to work. Already I see in the news, "A test of the missile defence system failed when an interceptor missile failed to launch." I realize that the system still has bugs, but I don't think the method warrants further money put into it. I don't mind being defended (who doesn't) but I don't think that the missile defence plan will work.
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:27 pm |
|
Didn't this missile shield fail a test recently?
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:33 pm |
|
^Yes.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:36 pm |
|
Didn't the Wright Brothers fail a few times, too...? So nothing is perfect, but working toward something that has a chance of success isn't a bad idea, IMO.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:39 pm |
|
Martin also said that he was against the defence plan if it involved the "weaponization of space." Personally I don't see the link between missile defence and space, unless it's that one would put interceptor missile launchers in low-earth orbit . . . which I still don't get. Nonetheless, the idea of bringing weapons into space also doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:00 pm |
|
Well it is going to happen sooner or later. And I would much rather of the United States on the leading edge of it then some other countries.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:09 am Defense Missile Shoots Down Target |
|
| Quote: |
Defense Missile Shoots Down Target
Thursday, February 24, 2005
WASHINGTON � An experimental naval interceptor shot down a short-range ballistic missile target during a test over the Pacific Ocean on Thursday, missile defense officials said.
It is the fifth kill in six tries for the interceptor, called a Standard Missile-3 (search), said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency (search).
During the test, a target ballistic missile, similar to a Scud (search), was launched from the island of Kauai at 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The USS Lake Erie, a cruiser equipped with the Aegis radar system and stationed 100 miles offshore, tracked the ballistic missile and then fired the interceptor to shoot it down. Two minutes later, the missiles collided.
The SM-3 interceptor will be deployed on ships later this year, Lehner said.
Also involved in the test was the Aegis destroyer USS Russell, which tested some of its missile-tracking systems.
The SM-3 doesn't have the range of the experimental land-based national missile defenses located in Alaska and California, and it is envisioned for use in protecting allies or U.S. forces from short-range ballistic missiles launched over a body of water. Potential scenarios where it could see action include missiles fired by North Korea at Japan, or by China at Taiwan.
However, the tracking system on some naval vessels is designed to assist in hunting intercontinental ballistic missiles.
SEARCH
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (Summer internship deadline March 1, 2005).
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected]; For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
� Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright � 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:32 pm |
|
What's happened to the star wars system? That involved shooting down ICBMs with lasers from space stations. A lot of the technology had been rearched and I think built. There has also been sucessful tests of planes carrying laser turrets.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:50 pm |
|
Very limited success. The entire missile defense program is still in its infant stages. It doesn't work. That's not to say it can't, or that we shouldn't build it, but don't fall into the trap of believing that it'll be up anytime soon, or that it won't eat up more money than you could ever dream of having in the meantime. My problem with these programs is I always end up thinking how many starving people we could feed or sick people we could heal with that much money. In my opinion the United States spends so much defending itself that it hurts everything else in the process. Sure, defense is important; but it isn't everything. Just look at nations like North Korea. We need to spend less on arms and focus on making our own society better. A missile defense shield won't save us in the event of a nuclear war anyway. Even if we can get it to work, the sheer number of missiles that would be in the air would overwhelm nearly any defense. Well, that's my idealistic monologue for the day.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:04 am |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | What's happened to the star wars system? That involved shooting down ICBMs with lasers from space stations. A lot of the technology had been rearched and I think built. There has also been sucessful tests of planes carrying laser turrets. |
It never really began, as it was too extensive, but it was good. I want it implemented. And cool!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:03 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | Very limited success. The entire missile defense program is still in its infant stages. It doesn't work. That's not to say it can't, or that we shouldn't build it, but don't fall into the trap of believing that it'll be up anytime soon, or that it won't eat up more money than you could ever dream of having in the meantime. My problem with these programs is I always end up thinking how many starving people we could feed or sick people we could heal with that much money. In my opinion the United States spends so much defending itself that it hurts everything else in the process. Sure, defense is important; but it isn't everything. Just look at nations like North Korea. We need to spend less on arms and focus on making our own society better. A missile defense shield won't save us in the event of a nuclear war anyway. Even if we can get it to work, the sheer number of missiles that would be in the air would overwhelm nearly any defense. Well, that's my idealistic monologue for the day. |
Well, if we could just make friends with a few nations, we could spend more money on things at home, and on our troops. Then once we have a little better stance, we could focus on things like this, and we'd probably get a lot more support, for taking initative to help the people in our country who need it, instead of using it on things we feel necessary. And come to think of it, if we just all made friends, we wouldn't NEED things like this, because we wouldn't go around nuking eachother.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:19 pm |
|
When you can maintain a good relationship with Kim Jong-il or the leader of Iran, please inform us what the secret is so that we can alert some of the higher authorities  .
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:28 pm |
|
Maybe we shouldn't be racist pigs for a start.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:23 pm |
|
| 4evajaneway wrote: | | Maybe we shouldn't be racist pigs for a start. |
Yeah thats it. They don't like us because the Americans are racist pigs. You got us there.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:45 pm |
|
| 4evajaneway wrote: | | Maybe we shouldn't be racist pigs for a start. |
Yeah because or differences with these two countries is based on racial issues.... Grasping for straws eh?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:10 pm |
|
| 4evajaneway wrote: | | Maybe we shouldn't be racist pigs for a start. |
Yep, everyone in the US is a racist pig. So much for unity
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:15 pm |
|
let me rephrase that, maybe we should better choose our leader because he is a racist pig.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:21 pm |
|
| 4evajaneway wrote: | | let me rephrase that, maybe we should better choose our leader because he is a racist pig. |
Our President is a RACIST PIG? HOW SO? EXPLAIN this to me.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:24 pm |
|
He has spend TWO HOURS IN HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY with the NAACP. Yet he has spent SOOOOOOOOO much more time with the Christian Coelition....
|
|
|
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
