Now that Canada is officially 'out' of the Ballistic Missile defense system, the Prime Minister has demanded that Canada be consulted before the Americans shoot down any incoming Ballistic missles over Canada. With virtually the same breath that he then claimed that Canada was still commited to Continental Defense and Norad.
???
Ding Ding Ding Ding!!! Whooop Whooop Whooop!!!
Moonbat alert!
How can you be both for and against continental defense at the same time?
As for demanding the Americans consult with Ottawa before shooting down a missile... What if it's a Sunday? Or the middle of the night? Or Canada day? Or after 4:30pm on a weekday? All the government offices will be closed.
Stockwell Day, the Conservative Party's Foreign Affairs Critic, laughed it off too...
"These missiles are coming in at 4 kilometers ( 2.5 miles) a second, and if the president calls the 1-800 line and gets: `Press 1 if you want English, press 2 if you want French, press 0 if nobody's there ...' I mean, it's crazy."
5 comments:
The nerve of Martin, not ignoring the vast majority of Canadian opinion. Democracy can't work under those conditions.
I'm willing to bet Prime Ministers have pagers, just like Presidents.
LOL. I'll bet ol' George Bush doesn't even have Paul's pager number handy. Up until now, Why should he?
As for 'vast majority,' anonymous must get his/her information from the CBC.
I've discussed this issue with many people from varied walks of life. Most, when pressed for their reasons why they oppose a ballistic missile defense have little more than a vague anti-american sentiment or an active dislike of President Bush as their reason.
I have yet to find a single reasoned debate on the subject in Canada's media.
Well, if you've discussed the issues with many people from varied walks of like, I'm sure that's more accurate than any polls the CBC or any other organization might have.
And I concede your point. You are correct. It is not a 'vast majority'. It is 54% opposed vs 36% in favour. And the polling source is not the CBC.
As for no reasoned debate, how about thinking the money can be better spent increasing security at the border and monitoring sea and airports, where threats from terrorists will come from, unless, of course, someone decides to launch an all out ICBM attack on North America. Which scenario do you think most likely?
The Liberal Government, of which Mr. Dithers current leadership is merely the current flavor of the day, has consistently acted beyond it's mandate in pursuit of their agenda.
ABM defense wasn't in their mandate.
They also didn't run for election on Gay marriage. They didn't run for election on a 2 Billion dollar gun registry, and with the willing collaboration of our so-called mainstream media, they succesfully kept the billions lost to HRDC, Grand Sur Mere, and the Sponsorship program from becoming election issues.
I read about your poll. An Ekos poll for the Liberal Booster 'Toronto Star.'
This present stance against the ABM system is one that the Liberals think will cost them nothing. Whether we support them or not the the Americans will go ahead, and fiscal cost will be borne by the USA anyway. Paul Martin affirmed the government's comittment to NORAD. And he has also admitted that there can't be any but an American finger on the launch button if there were any incoming ballistic missile.
Martin knows Bush holds them in contempt, so he feels free to insult the Americans by making meaningless symbolic gestures he hopes will buck up his support at home.
As for which is more likely, you've missed the point. Supporting a U.S. anti ballistic missile system will cost us nothing, and take nothing away from defense of our borders from those sneaky terrorists. You're talking apples and oranges.
BTW, don't forget the propaganda images from PyongYang glorifying a nuclear rain of Korean Ballistic missiles on the United States?
I'm not sure what gay marriage and gun control has to do with missile defense so I'll leave that be.
Nope, not Ekos and whether or not it was published by the 'Liberal booster' Toronto Star I have no idea. Althought that would seem to imply that there is more than one poll with similar results from different sources. Is any poll which doesn't support your position or those of the many people from varied walks of life with whom you've come in contact automatically biased because the results do not coincide with your views? Could it be that the majority don't want Canada to participate and it doesn't really matter who reports it?
I don't think I've missed the point. Given that each country has X amount of dollars to spend and so must allocate it where it can do the most good, I'm wondering if in the long run the money spent on strengthening our borders is really better spent developing an experimental missile defense system. ABM technology didn't prevent 9/11, better immigration controls and port screening might have.
Are you quite certain there is no cost to Canada for participating in the missile defense system?
Post a Comment