Bully?

[CDN_Merlin]

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

"(Bush) leaned across the table and said: 'I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, Why are we paying to defend Canada?' " the official was quoted as saying.

I understand the reason as to why the US wants us to agree with the missile defence system but I don't like the way he's going about it.

What would you think if you were on the receiving end of this? Meaning, if you were living here?

[DCrazy]

Oh you gotta love fair reporting. The fricken first sentence of the article says: "President George W. Bush tried to bully Canadian officials on missile defence..."

I hereby tell the authors of the article to shove it and come back when they've shed their partisanship.

[roid]

it didn't seem like bullying to me.
it sounded like a honest (and uncharacteristically(?) pointed) question. perhaps it caught them offguard.

i wish the article explained more of this "politics" that Mr Bush was said to be "waving away". without those details the article doesn't make much sense of the issues.

assuming the initial "bullying" accusation should be ignored (as i believe it is), what are your thoughts on what Bush was actually saying DC?

i believe he was just asking a no-bull★■◆● question. no?

[woodchip]

" The newspaper quoted an unidentified Canadian official who was in the room as saying Bush waved off their attempts to explain how contentious the issue is for Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government."

So it is O.K. for Martins govt. to be worried about such a program, yet Bush is to suppose the american public thinks differently and everyone is 100% behind
him...to the point of bearing the extra cost to defend Canada because the Canadians do not want to help out?
I'd say Bush was right on target.

[Ferno]

Canada would help out if the technology actually does what it's supposed to do. Kinda like making sure a car works before buying it.

[Will Robinson]

Canada would help out if the technology actually does what it's supposed to do. Kinda like making sure a car works before buying it.

"If man were meant to fly he'd have wings."

Which is my smartass way of saying it's a work in progress and it will never "do what it's supposed to" until we build it and deploy it in its infant stages. That is how these things are developed.
Plus you have the deterent factor where your enemy doesn't know just how effective it is and wastes time and resources trying to counter it....

[DCrazy]

My actual thoughts? Missile defense is an important part of Bush's policy, and in order to protect the great trade agreements we have with Canada, Bush wants to make sure Canada is officially behind the missile defense system so as not to sour already tense relations.

Bush isn't going to budge on the missile defense issue. The Canadian press interprets Bush's unwillingness to concede (defense of his position) as an attack against Canadian values (offense against Canada's position). Now who's playing "with us or against us"?

[Ferno]

uh, no DC. all that's going on is Canada is taking a 'wait and see' approach. nothing wrong with that.

[DCrazy]

I did say "Canadian press" right? I definitely don't think the Canadian government is nearly as offended as that article would like to have readers believe.

[Ferno]

I did say "Canadian press" right? I definitely don't think the Canadian government is nearly as offended as that article would like to have readers believe.

no, you didn't say canadian press, but that's just a minor detail. Also, I doubt they would be offended since they're going for gay marriage. But I digress...

[DCrazy]

The Canadian press interprets Bush's unwillingness to concede (defense of his position) as an attack against Canadian values (offense against Canada's position).

Maybe you're misunderstanding me. I'm complaining about the slant of the article. It comes out swinging in the first sentence, calling Bush a "bully" for defending America's position at the table, namely, "We want you to participate in the missile defense program." Hard sell? Probably. Hard politics? Probably. A threat? Definitely not. America has nothing to gain and a lot to lose from pissing off the Canadian government any more. The article is written to portray Bush as an arm-twisting overlord trying to exert influence over Canada, a picture I don't think is proper.

When you say "going for", which sense do you mean it in? Are you referring to CP being in favor of gay marriage or against it?

[bash]

Bush is not noted for his delicate choice of words but when you get finally to the substance he's pretty much speaking the truth. It would really, really be good neighbor policy to join the neighborhood watch program and help with a few funds (like all that money Canada saves by not having a military because it knows we have it covered) to help defray the cost. That said, Canada can take a hard line knowing we will protect them regardless since most of Canada will fall within the shield area whether it wants it or not. In this case it's just simple geometry. To cover all of the US we must cover a good portion of Canada. That doesn't make it a target, however. Missile routes are missile routes. Nor does it make it a source of pride for Canadians that someone else is watching the baby. I'd hate to see what's supposed to be a good thing get mangled into being a bad thing by a few thin-skinned Canadians. That said, again, if Canada really doesn't want to help fund or be protected by the shield, it should demand in writing that if a missile is en route to Canada that the US should refrain from trying to shoot it down. Somehow I doubt Canada will demand such an agreement.

[Ferno]

wierd.. either i missed it or it wasn't there before..

Anyways, more about the missile defense thing. I suppose the Canadian government is looking it like a business deal, essentially saying that if the tech does what they say it does, they'd be on board. A little more refinement, a few details polished off, and we'd probably go the rest of the way.

"I'm complaining about the slant of the article. It comes out swinging in the first sentence, calling Bush a "bully" for defending America's position..."

I caught the slant pretty easily. I was somewhat incenced at the partisian writing myself. First thought in my head was 'oh you have got to be kidding me.'

[KlubMarcus]

What would you think if you were on the receiving end of this? Meaning, if you were living here?

I'd think that it's about time we stopped being sissy Canadians and actually build up the capability to defend ourselves all by ourselves and have the USA as our back-up.

[DCrazy]

Hell Ferno even I wouldn't stoop that low to editing a post like that.

[CDN_Merlin]

The article is written to portray Bush as an arm-twisting overlord trying to exert influence over Canada, a picture I don't think is proper.

What about when we tabled a bill to decriminalize pot upto 30 grams and when the US bitched about it, we dropped it to 15 grams?

What about the softewood lumber deals? You think the US doesn't bully us into things that benefit the you?

I'm sorry but the US does bully other nations into what it wants to do.

[DCrazy]

The place to make such a statement is in an opinion column, NOT a factual news article. "Discussions tense between Bush and PM" is completely different from "Bush bullies Canadian Gov't".

I am well aware that the U.S. has influence in world politics, but to come out and make an unabashed political declaration against Bush is unprofessional.

[KlubMarcus]

I'm sorry but the US does bully other nations into what it wants to do.

I'm sorry the USA has to export our power and influence overseas in order to prevent the importation of inferior ideas and people to our shores.

The better off the rest of the world is, the less pressure there is to sneak into the USA illegally. The better off the rest of the world is, the more stuff the USA can sell. So we are simply removing the barriers to the American Way by removing governments (by force if necessary) so that the people are free to "play ball" with us.

In the home front, Americans are removing politicians who are hindering the American Way. That is why the Democrapic Party is in decline. The Democraps are Socialists and Communists. At least in the home front we simply elect the inferior politicians away and all they can do is sue for a recount. They can't send tanks down the street to hold onto power.

[CDN_Merlin]

I am well aware that the U.S. has influence in world politics, but to come out and make an unabashed political declaration against Bush is unprofessional.

Free country, if you don't like my opinion, well, TFB.

CDN_Merlin wrote:
I'm sorry but the US does bully other nations into what it wants to do.

I'm sorry the USA has to export our power and influence overseas in order to prevent the importation of inferior ideas and people to our shores.

The better off the rest of the world is, the less pressure there is to sneak into the USA illegally. The better off the rest of the world is, the more stuff the USA can sell. So we are simply removing the barriers to the American Way by removing governments (by force if necessary) so that the people are free to "play ball" with us.

In the home front, Americans are removing politicians who are hindering the American Way. That is why the Democrapic Party is in decline. The Democraps are Socialists and Communists. At least in the home front we simply elect the inferior politicians away and all they can do is sue for a recount. They can't send tanks down the street to hold onto power.

You just admitted to what I said.

[KlubMarcus]

You just admitted to what I said.

If you read my previous posts on this Thread and others, I never said we did not use our power to influence others. I actually want the USA to use our power to influence others.

[Mobius]

Missile defence of the USA will NEVER work. Not with the system as it stands. Hell, they can't shoot down a missile unless it has a homing beacon on it - and mostly not even then.

It's the dumbest thing bush has backed. Period.

Scientific American even had 200 scientists fill an entire magazine on the reasons it won't work: technically, logistically and politically.

And, if by some miracle they manage to get it to work, guess what? Enemies will bring bombs in by boat.

[Lothar]

Missile defence of the USA will NEVER work.

Aren't you the guy who's always posting cockamamie ideas about how some random technology is going to have amazing powers?

[fliptw]

I don't think anyone has pointed out to the bush what happens when you shoot down a missile. I get the impression he thinks that the payload won't magically go off.

If anyone has any concerns about ABMD, then that should front and foremost their argument against it.

[Top Gun]

fliptw, if you're talking about a nuclear warhead, intercepting it with an ABMD missile wouldn't set off a nuclear reaction. A nuclear warhead requires precise detonation to create a critical mass of the radioactive material; a hydrogen bomb is even more complex, requiring the detonation of a fission weapon to generate nuclear fusion. In either case, blowing the missile to pieces would simply fling the radioactive sample outward, completely negating any chance of critical mass.

And a hearty ROFL to Lothar's rebuttal of the Mob.

[fliptw]

Unless nuclear warhead technology has changed in the last five years, warheads consists of two major elements:

1. High Explosive
2. Radioactive Materials

Im not concerned about a nuclear reaction; what else can you make with high explosives and radioactive materials.

Im concerned about the envirionmental impact of a sudden neutering of a ballistic weapon, imagine if an intecepted missile contained chemical or biological agents?

[Stryker]

And we're more concerned about the potential ejection of a small radioactive sample than the detonation of a nuclear missile in New York?

True, it'll hurt the environment, but keep it in perspective: which is worse, having the missile blown up over the waters near our country, and dealing with the radioactive material with robots, or having the missile detonate inside the US, causing not only a loss of human life, but killing all wildlife in the area as well with nuclear fallout?

Hopefully, the missile defense system would be able to detonate any missile over the ocean, before it came over US soil. But missiles are designed to be inherently destructive--that is their purpose, and that would be the intent of any missile crossing our border. We'd probably just have to take the hit, reduced though it may be from being detonated over the ocean, evacuate to keep people away from the poisoned areas, and live with it.

[fliptw]

True, it'll hurt the environment, but keep it in perspective: which is worse, having the missile blown up over the waters near our country, and dealing with the radioactive material with robots, or having the missile detonate inside the US...

Or say, shooting down the incoming missile over Russian soil, which is what would happen if the missile originated in China or North Korea, and the ABMD systems has Alaskan sites.

IF the Alaskan site fails to shoot the missiles down, then your stuck shooting down over Canadian lands.

NK and China ARE NOT going to be building missiles that fly over the Pacfic, they are going be flying over the north pole, like most of the remaining Russian and American stockpiles

Unless its a missile from Europe, Africa, or Cenrtal America, you are not going to be shooting any incoming missile over international waters, its either Russian or Canadian soil.

[Stryker]

Most of northern Canada and Russia is uninhabited. It's just too danged cold. It's mostly a matter from there of finding a nice quiet place to detonate the missile over.

[fliptw]

Thats presuming that the payload fall straight down intact, and say, not blow up like a dirty bomb, contanminating the rest of the continet.

[Lothar]

I'd still rather detonate it miles above Canada than inches above New York City. Heck, if Mexico shot a Nuke at Toronto, I'd rather detonate it miles above the US than have Toronto get blown up, and I don't even like Toronto that much...

[woodchip]

I may be mistaken but the amount of radioactive material is so small in a warhead that the potential area contanimated would be minimal. The explosion that knockes the missile out of the sky would not neccessarily cause the material to disperse on the wind. Also realize the reason radioactive fallout happens on a large scale is the mixing of RM with dirt upon a ground based explosion. A air burst atomic weapon actually produces much less contamination than a ground contact explosion.