Canadian Politics

Dook · 2004-08-27 01:01:51

Have to try and keep emotion out of this topic or Josh will put a lock on it like the 'European Cowards' post.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ...defence

This ugly cow went to an anti-missile defence rally and said "We are not joining the coalition of the idiots (meaning USA). We are joining the coalition of the wise."

Building a reliable anti-missile defence system is about as tough as it gets. Some of the smartest people in the world are working on solving the problems associated with it so she's surely not talking about them. I doubt she's even in their league.

She is probably just complaining about the US President who thinks it's a prudent protection for the future. Maybe she thinks it's not necessary but then she has no reason to worry because Canada has never been attacked. I don't think it will ever be used but I didn't think 9/11 would happen either.

What if the President of Pakistan gets assassinated? Al Qaeda has tried a number of times. And a muslim hardliner comes to power there. Osama bin Laden is likely hiding somewhere in the north of Pakistan, he could even start calling the shots behind the scenes in a country armed with nuclear weapons.

Wouldn't you like to be able to shoot down a missile then?

Euler · 2004-08-27 01:36:51

What if the President of Pakistan gets assassinated? Al Qaeda has tried a number of times. And a muslim hardliner comes to power there. Osama bin Laden is likely hiding somewhere in the north of Pakistan, he could even start calling the shots behind the scenes in a country armed with nuclear weapons.
Wouldn't you like to be able to shoot down a missile then?

It would not make any difference. Pakistan does not have missiles capable of attacking the western hemisphere, nor is it working to get them. In any case, it would make much more sense to smuggle the weapons into the US rather than trying to launch them at the US. However, only a government full of completely insane and suicidal people would attempt to launch any sort of nuclear attack on the US.

Dook · 2004-08-27 01:55:03

Yeah, that's probably true. But I don't think it's too much to guess that they would try to launch them at Israel (not sure about the range), India, Australia, or the American/British base at Diego Garcia.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-27 05:16:39

However, only a government full of completely insane and suicidal people would attempt to launch any sort of nuclear attack on the US.

Well, that isn't too far from an accurate description of what we're dealing with.

The thing about missile defense is that it's technolgy that didn't really work until after its day had passed. If we build it now it will probably never be used, in effect wasting billions, and it only has a 50-70 percent accuracy rate anyway.

But then if we don't build it and someone fires off a missile we have no chance of stopping it. It's a risk. Given that any missile attack we're likely to face will be on the order of one or two, rather than hundreds, it's even conceivable (from a political point of view) to sit back and take the hit. Deal with the source after the fact.

Not that I advocate such a stance, I'm the 'invade 'em if they look at us funny' guy, remember?

As for the Canadian MP in question, she's placed herself firmly in the "looney" column, along with everyone else who's big point is that "George Bush is an idiot." There's a cogent argument.

Oh, and speaking of Canada and the Looney, I'm forced to the conclusion that it was a scheme to make American tourists leave bigger tips. Who wants to carry a big jingling pocket full of Canada tokens around? Canadians and border dwellers know of what I speak.

Palomar · 2004-08-27 05:32:13

This ugly cow went to an anti-missile defence rally and said "We are not joining the coalition of the idiots (meaning USA). We are joining the coalition of the wise."

*I don't trust that a lot of nations -- and in particular, persons of those nations who are in the spotlight somehow (media-wise especially) -- *aren't* anti-U.S. simply because it's fashionable and where the majority is.

That's not to say that U.S. policies are always right, because some aren't. However, I've seen enough of it in real life and on everyday levels -- people tend toward consensus thinking and right now the U.S. is the ultimate "Odd Man Out." Some folks genuinely believe we're wrong about this and that...but I suspect (and would lay $ on) many others simply going along with majority consensus; trying to make themselves look/feel morally superior, on and on.

The U.S. really is in a predicament, though. This level of hatred against us has the potential for some very unpleasant consequences which has the potential to spiral further out of control. I think it'd be wise for policy makers and power brokers to be a bit more careful in next steps. We're being ostracized -- and that's never a good position to be in.

We've done our wrongs, we've done good things. The next time we get hit by terrorism, though, I won't believe condolence messages from foreign nations. I'll chalk it up to crocodile tears on their part.

--Cindy

dicktice · 2004-08-27 11:38:52

Your "ugly cow" reference is just as unhelpful as our MP's statement was. How revealing.
But that scheme really IS "idiotic" in the light of today's global transportation and communication systems. A stupid, irresponsible waste of time (and rocket engineers), in fact.
Any organization, Enron for example, becomes a "coalition of idiots," or more properly "uninformed followers," when the administrators of essentially unlimited funds are allowed to have free rein.
Then we pay the price. Don't fall for it.

Palomar · 2004-08-27 12:11:17

Your "ugly cow" reference is just as unhelpful as our MP's statement was.

*Yes, I agree. What's her physical appearance got to do with it? I mean besides
-nothing-?

I can think of plenty of male politicians I dislike (even immensely), but I don't take physical appearance into consideration.

It's the ideas which matter.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2004-08-27 12:13:21

Cobra writes:

The thing about missile defense is that it's technolgy that didn't really work until after its day had passed. If we build it now it will probably never be used, in effect wasting billions, and it only has a 50-70 percent accuracy rate anyway.

Uh oh - - we agree again.

Are my ideas rubbing off on you, or the reverse?

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-27 12:18:01

Are my ideas rubbing off on you, or the reverse?

:laugh:

I'm pretty sure "take the hit" was mine. Until it happens, then it's all you.

Politics, eh.

John Creighton · 2004-08-27 14:36:32

Oh, and speaking of Canada and the Looney, I'm forced to the conclusion that it was a scheme to make American tourists leave bigger tips. Who wants to carry a big jingling pocket full of Canada tokens around? Canadians and border dwellers know of what I speak.

I had to laugh when I read that one.

Anyway, I am Canadian, I believe if the US wanted us to be under their missile umbrella we shouldn’t stop them. Jack Laton says, this is a step towards the weoponization of space. Well, I am for the weaponization of space. However we get to space I am for it and Jack Layton can shut up.

On another Canadian issue, I am for more privet health care services. If people what to spend their own money on health care why should we stop them. That would be very anti freedom. In short the Canadian NDP have their priorities all wrong and all though I was once hoping that the Liberals and NDP would have enough seats combined to control the house I am glad they didn’t. Paul Martin should screw the NDP and work with the “evil Steven Harper”. Provide Seven Harper doesn’t start ranting on a bunch of issues like, “get tough on crime”, “traditional definition of marriage” and other right wing anti freedom B.S.

Anyway, I am just ranting. Don’t take me too seriously. It is all good fun.

BTW what is with so many priemers wanting the feds to pay for eveyones drugs. Don't they know that is cost prohibative.

Dook · 2004-08-27 16:34:50

What's her physical appearance got to do with it? I mean besides
-nothing-?

Her argument was that those (scientists or politicians) pursuing anti-missile defense are idiots. I'm sure no one really believes the scientists are idiots (the cow might, but then again, she's a cow, mooo!) so she is simply throwing insults at the USA leadership. Certainly it's politically motivated, probably by a disagreement with the war in Iraq. Maybe she can marry ol' Saddam and visit him in his cell?

Now if she is going to enter in that type of argument then she leaves herself open to the same kind of treatment. What great things has she invented or discovered? None! Just like a cow.

50-70% success rate is darn good. If we send up five missiles for every one of theirs then the chances are pretty good that none of theirs will get through. Millions of Americans will be saved. What President is willing to go before the country and say "I consider a few cities lost to a surprise nuclear attack as acceptable losses."

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-27 17:17:35

50-70% success rate is darn good. If we send up five missiles for every one of theirs then the chances are pretty good that none of theirs will get through. Millions of Americans will be saved. What President is willing to go before the country and say "I consider a few cities lost to a surprise nuclear attack as acceptable losses."

Precisely. An imperfect missile defense shield is better than no missile defense shield, if someone launches missiles at us. All things being equal it would be a good thing to have.

Enter realpolitik. It's expensive. Not all that expensive, considering all the money we blow in much greater quantities on things that are arguably entirely without merit. But you can't very well go out and attack the trillions we've spent on the "War on Poverty" for example, which incidentally has had nowhere near a 50-70% success rate, :;): so a big, complicated missile shooter-downer thing is an easy target for people trying to make a name for themselves. On both sides of the issue.

So we're left with these calculations, how much political capital spent versus gains, likelihood that we'll be hit with missiles versus other threats, on and on. No President would come out and say "we believe that the North Koreans have the capability to hit just one American city, so we're gonna wait it out and see what happens." But I'll bet the thought's crossed more minds than mine. From a purely political perspective it has some big advantages; you lose nothing now, and if we get hit you can blame the lack of defenses on the opposition while rallying support for a response. Win-win, except for the poor bastards under the mushroom cloud. Ain't democracy great?

Josh Cryer · 2004-08-28 01:39:22

An imperfect missile defense shield is better than no missile defense shield, if someone launches missiles at us.

Not when you can build a cruise missile for.... say... $5000. http://www.interestingprojects.com/crui … semissile/

Send ten salvos of cruise missiles, then send your nuke. Or send ten salvos of WMDs (anthrax or whatever). It's not hard to circumvent most defensive measures, it's always been whether or not one could afford it. And certainly in this case it's not all that expensive (really, in the case of a nuke, the material to build it is the most expensive part).

I've always considered "Star Wars" a vast waste of money, like 80% of all military government projects. The deterrant for nuclear holocaust was, always has been, and always will be, nuclear holocaust.

Grypd · 2004-08-28 03:31:54

In the 70s and 80s both the USA and USSR created a first strike weapon this was the suitcase sized atomic bomb. With the fall of the USSR the new russian goverment can only acount for about half of these weapons that where made. Where are the other 42 or so is a good question.

It would not take much for a person to walk to the top of a skyscraper and detonate one of these weapons. There explosive yield will only measure in the Kilotons but they would still pretty much destroy a city and kill thousands. This weapon cannot be defended against by any missile shield.

dicktice · 2004-08-28 11:02:40

Well, hell--you asked for it:
Grypd comes closest to describing why the Missile Defence System is futile, but he neglected to mention multi-warheads including blendings of dummies as well as live ones headed every-which-way.
Josh is next, with cruise missles: Not possible for the MDS to "shoot down"--from space say with a plutonium powder warhead from making some city uninhabitable.
Cobra just doesn't get it. I remember the hopelessness we felt, trying to figure out how antimissle-missle systems could cope with multiwarheads. Hopelessness lead to the present agreement--which Bush et al think (?) to squelch. Prevention is the best defence, and that requires smarts--not idiocy
Dook takes the cake: The administration, which is answerable to no one (tell me if I'm wrong, please) is able to promote and fund any crazy scheme it wants these days, no matter how unfeasible, under wraps of secrecy. Scientists' and engineers' jobs are at stake here. I know because I was one in the bad old days of ballistic missle warhead development, and we were running scared--for the sake of our livelihoods as well as fear of being nuked--until Sputnik brought us to our senses, but that's another story.
Creighton, your Canadian references are bound to go over the heads south of the border, but I for one dispute most of what you say about our politics. Suffice it to say that I believe good sense will prevail up here, because speaking out is what we do best in Canada.
As for me, It's only fair to put up a few straw men to be shot down: What we need to protect our ports is anticontainer-containers. What we need to prevent our airliners from being blown out of the sky by passengers wearing plastic-explosive girdles (the latest obscenity, to someone who dearly loves and grieves for commercial aviation) is antisuicidal pills. And what we need to prevent jihad/crusade agression is worldwide anti state-religion legislation.

Palomar · 2004-08-28 11:28:22

Creighton, your Canadian references are bound to go over the heads south of the border

*Well, I'm not familiar enough with Canadian politics to comment on that precisely, but:

"Question Authority" seems rather dead in America these days. That, in a nation which consistently brags on a non-conformist/rebellious image. It is to laugh. There are pockets of outrage here and there, and folks questioning things...pockets, not widespread.

If Bush does get re-elected (which wouldn't surprise me in the least) I know what the reaction will be abroad. And the next 4 years -- as international relations go -- will be very interesting to watch indeed.

I am disappointed and continually amazed at how so many Americans are allowing themselves to be led around by the nose by Sir Smirksalot (Bush).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-28 11:41:04

Cobra just doesn't get it. I remember the hopelessness we felt, trying to figure out how antimissle-missle systems could cope with multiwarheads. Hopelessness lead to the present agreement--which Bush et al think (?) to squelch. Prevention is the best defence, and that requires smarts--not idiocy

I really don't think I've come across as a strong supporter of a missile shield. All I've said is that if someone launched the sort of attack that it was designed to thwart having it would be better than not having it, while implying that such an attack is unlikely given all the other avenues we're aware of.

Of course a missile shield is powerless to stop some Islamo-thug with a bomb in his suitcase, missile launch from a port or any number of other things. But it's designed to stop ICBM's fired from other countries, and that it can do as well as can be expected. Not the most likely avenue of attack, but one of many possible. We have to determine likelihood and prepare accordingly, and everytime we make a decision we alter the equation.

I'm not the one seeing only black and white here.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-28 11:51:28

If Bush does get re-elected (which wouldn't surprise me in the least) I know what the reaction will be abroad. And the next 4 years -- as international relations go -- will be very interesting to watch indeed.

It won't be much different either way. But with Bush it will be made to look like a personality issue rather than conflicting national interests.

That's the price of the Soviet collapse, all the alliances formed against it are shifting as the landscape changes.

Palomar · 2004-08-28 12:12:50

If Bush does get re-elected (which wouldn't surprise me in the least) I know what the reaction will be abroad. And the next 4 years -- as international relations go -- will be very interesting to watch indeed.
It won't be much different either way. But with Bush it will be made to look like a personality issue rather than conflicting national interests.

*Cobra:

To a very strong degree it is a personality issue. Whether or not that's fair is beside the point. Most of our European allies and some Americans don't like Bush's attitude.

That aside, his policies stink. There's been little noticeable job recovery despite the economy seeming to recuperate a bit. There are more Americans without health insurance now than ever before. We've got over 800 dead soldiers, more wounded, and *the* pretext for the Iraqi war wasn't simply to oust Saddam & Sons.

It's 3 years post-9/11. What's his excuse for the lame, dragging economy NOW?

He bit off more than he could chew, especially as Iraq goes. (Again, he should have stayed the course with Afghanistan and continued on bin Laden's tail).

Have discussed these issues before and I don't mean to be repetitious.

But whether or not you like it, quite a bit of the antipathy towards Bush -IS- because of his personality (which also drives his attitudes and decision-making).

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-28 12:28:31

No need to rehash this stuff again, but to briefly address your points:

To a very strong degree it is a personality issue. Whether or not that's fair is beside the point. Most of our European allies and some Americans don't like Bush's attitude.

No, it isn't. It's being presented that way, but it just isn't true. The countries that are expressing objections to our policies and trying to undermine our efforts will continue to do so if Kerry is elected. They'll just spin it differently. This is about the political balance on the planet, not George Bush's attitude.

That aside, his policies stink. There's been little noticeable job recovery despite the economy seeming to recuperate a bit. There are more Americans without health insurance now than ever before. We've got over 800 dead soldiers, more wounded, and *the* pretext for the Iraqi war wasn't simply to oust Saddam & Sons.

We don't know what was or wasn't in Iraq for sure yet for reasons I've covered before, and as for the economy; there's very little that a sitting President can do. He certainly can't create jobs. Not to mention that a shifting economy isn't necessarily a bad one, the job loss numbers are exagerrated. The way they figure it works essentially like this, If I work for one company and they lay me off, then I find another job but quit after six months and start my own business, that's counted as two lost jobs. Kinda screwy. Yes, there are people hurting out there, but the real numbers are being inflated for political purposes.

He bit off more than he could chew, especially as Iraq goes. (Again, he should have stayed the course with Afghanistan and continued on bin Laden's tail).

That's another thing, We're the United States of America, by far the most powerful military force in the history of mankind. We can stay the course in Afghanistan and still do other things. Making Afghanistan a free nation is something the Afghanis must do in large part for themselves, and bin Laden is in all likelihood on the Pakistan side of the border, so we aren't degrading our efforts at all. Other limitations are in play.

But whether or not you like it, quite a bit of the antipathy towards Bush -IS- because of his personality (which also drives his attitudes and decision-making).

Yes, the antipathy towards Bush is because of Bush, but the antipathy toward America stems from more significant causes.

Euler · 2004-08-28 13:19:25

Not to mention that a shifting economy isn't necessarily a bad one, the job loss numbers are exagerrated. The way they figure it works essentially like this, If I work for one company and they lay me off, then I find another job but quit after six months and start my own business, that's counted as two lost jobs. Kinda screwy. Yes, there are people hurting out there, but the real numbers are being inflated for political purposes.

No, there has been a net job loss so far in Bush's term. The last president to have a net job loss throughout his term was Herbert Hoover...

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-28 13:27:46

No, there has been a net job loss so far in Bush's term. The last president to have a net job loss throughout his term was Herbert Hoover...

A small net job loss, for basic economic reasons. Not the millions we're led to believe. Presidents don't dictate economic conditions, it's not their fault when it's bad and it's not because of them when it's good.

RobertDyck · 2004-08-28 13:57:19

BTW what is with so many priemers wanting the feds to pay for eveyones drugs. Don't they know that is cost prohibative.

I was at a chamber of commerce dinner where the Manitoba premier spoke. He stated that he intended to reduce provincial funding for health care by one dollar for every dollar the federal increased its funding. This is a simple scam to funnel federal money into provincial coffers; it has nothing to do with health care. Provincial governments see the relatively large federal surplus and want it for themselves. They ignore the huge federal debt or the portion of federal revenue spent on interest. I wrote a letter to an MP and told him this, among other things. I said any money the federal government spends on health care won't go to health care, so don't increase spending. After that the senate did their investigation and came up with their detailed plan, including strict means to ensure the money actually goes to health care. So don't worry, the premiers are just whiners using a political hot button to scam money out of the feds.

By the way, that same letter included a a request they replace the GST refund with a reduction of personal income tax equal to the refund plus the administrative cost of running the refund system. Refund is about $86 per quarter, depending on income level, but according to the Fraser Institute the average administrative cost per cheque the fed writes is $75. Administrative cost is almost as high as the cheque itself, so my argument is just reduce personal income tax for those in an income bracket to receive the GST refund. That would be (86+75)*4 = $644 per year. He did start a measure to do this, but it died in parliament. The process did uncover fraud. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is letters to an MP can be effective.

John Creighton · 2004-08-28 15:08:41

Creighton, your Canadian references are bound to go over the heads south of the border, but I for one dispute most of what you say about our politics. Suffice it to say that I believe good sense will prevail up here, because speaking out is what we do best in Canada.

Oh, well, the thread is titled Canadian Politics so I thought it might be cool discuss it for a change. I supose some background might have been usefull though.

John Creighton · 2004-08-28 15:13:24

I was at a chamber of commerce dinner where the Manitoba premier spoke. He stated that he intended to reduce provincial funding for health care by one dollar for every dollar the federal increased its funding. This is a simple scam to funnel federal money into provincial coffers; it has nothing to do with health care. Provincial governments see the relatively large federal surplus and want it for themselves. They ignore the huge federal debt or the portion of federal revenue spent on interest. I wrote a letter to an MP and told him this, among other things. I said any money the federal government spends on health care won't go to health care, so don't increase spending. After that the senate did their investigation and came up with their detailed plan, including strict means to ensure the money actually goes to health care. So don't worry, the premiers are just whiners using a political hot button to scam money out of the feds.

I agree that the provinces are just wining. However some of them are struggling and the provinces could use some help. I actually which they would put more of that money on the provincial debts. BTW I am from Nova Scotia. Despite how much people complain about waiting lists, any time I went to the hospital I never had to wait that long. The provinces may be winners but less the feds want to contribute to health care the less say they should have in how the provinces spend there dollars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-27 01:01:51

Re: Canadian Politics

#2 2004-08-27 01:36:51

Re: Canadian Politics

#3 2004-08-27 01:55:03

Re: Canadian Politics

#4 2004-08-27 05:16:39

Re: Canadian Politics

#5 2004-08-27 05:32:13

Re: Canadian Politics

#6 2004-08-27 11:38:52

Re: Canadian Politics

#7 2004-08-27 12:11:17

Re: Canadian Politics

#8 2004-08-27 12:13:21

Re: Canadian Politics

#9 2004-08-27 12:18:01

Re: Canadian Politics

#10 2004-08-27 14:36:32

Re: Canadian Politics

#11 2004-08-27 16:34:50

Re: Canadian Politics

#12 2004-08-27 17:17:35

Re: Canadian Politics

#13 2004-08-28 01:39:22

Re: Canadian Politics

#14 2004-08-28 03:31:54

Re: Canadian Politics

#15 2004-08-28 11:02:40

Re: Canadian Politics

#16 2004-08-28 11:28:22

Re: Canadian Politics

#17 2004-08-28 11:41:04

Re: Canadian Politics

#18 2004-08-28 11:51:28

Re: Canadian Politics

#19 2004-08-28 12:12:50

Re: Canadian Politics

#20 2004-08-28 12:28:31

Re: Canadian Politics

#21 2004-08-28 13:19:25

Re: Canadian Politics

#22 2004-08-28 13:27:46

Re: Canadian Politics

#23 2004-08-28 13:57:19

Re: Canadian Politics

#24 2004-08-28 15:08:41

Re: Canadian Politics

#25 2004-08-28 15:13:24

Re: Canadian Politics

Board footer