Oh and Helix: nice.
I like honesty no matter the horrendous flavor.

A majority of Canadians are against the missile defense program. Our PM leads a fragile minority government and is a notorious ass-kisser. I think that's why the gov't didn't support it.

In one sense supporting MD is win-win; it costs us nothing, and while it may be a dud it may well save our ass some day. In another sense, it's even more win-win to *not* support it: since the yanks are going to do what they want anyway, the PM might as well save his own ass and take the popular position.

Anyhoo, I'm sure the USA will take the wishes of our gay Foreign Minister (Bill Graham) and gay Defense Minister (Pierre Pettigrew) into consideration

David St. Hubbins

Ya gotta love Canadian attitudes on this one....wonder if a nuke goes off will they send the mounties? they always get their man....

Enough bashing of a weakass nation like Canada....as to M.D., it is an evolving defense system...some of the problems were simple failures in areas where technology isnt the issue.....one failed test was due not to the missle itself but a simple case of dead batteries I believe inside the silo itself....another part of the problem goes back to Pres. Clinton...while he didnt scrap the program he did cut some of its budget..most importantly specificly from the test end of the budget....thus curtailing the number of live fire tests that would have worked out many of the problems we are seeing now....

As to whom the M.D. program is geared to defend against....it is designed to defend against rouge elements within China, Russia, former soviet bloc nations with leftover nukes, who may initiate a firing of an ICBM or sub launched weapon at this nation...and while today the possibility of a terrorist group/rouge nation attaining control and launch codes for a nuke are low today(bit higher now than before 9-11) the possibility of a future unauthorized launch is not decreasing but increasing (hell russian nuclear forces still have yet to be paid on a regular basis).

"International Law" is a joke.

Laws are only effective when they are backed by force.

Right now, the only entity that had demonstrated any real ability to enforce "International Law" is the U.S. The EU is too busy getting lapped economically and militarily by the entire rest of the world. China is sensibly focusing on its own internal transitions and maturations. Russia is lost to us, or will be soon, for a generation or more. Central and South America still seem to be getting their post-Colonial shit together. Africa? Africa is tragically still the world's pesthole.

So it's up to the U.S. to enforce International Law. Sadly, the rest of the world can't come up with a single compelling reason why the U.S. should do so.

And no, "because if the U.S. weakens itself on purpose, the rest of us will feel better" isn't a compelling reason.

You know what would make Canada feel better? If they had a missile defense system of their own, so they didn't have to play the part of the U.S.'s Passive-Aggressive Useless Gay Uncle all the time.

(Nothing against gays or uncles; the phrase just has better flow this way.)

Canada's problem is that it wants to be considered a world player, but it doesn't have the wang or the will to actually play. (See also: Belgium.)

And a side note for all those of you who're waiting for China to step up and counterbalance the U.S.: One, dream on. Two, all regimes are flawed, but try living in each country for a year, speaking out as much as you like about their government's mistakes and misdeeds. Then tell me who you'd rather have running the world. (And for those of you holding out for an EU counterbalance: One, the combined wisdom and skill of France and Germany will make the world a better place? How? Two, bwaaahahaha!)

You know what would make Canada feel better? If they had a missile defense system of their own

notta problem. all they need is a missile, a base and a sign that says 'open' and they'll be on an equal footing with us.

It's amazing how a background in - what is it exactly, landscaping? - can grant someone like Dabe the knowledge in, for lack of better term, rocket science and gives her insight into the innermost practices of defense industries. Here's a clue, Dabe. When you don't know what the hell you're talking about, don't comment.

Oh, and the rest of you opinionated fuckers have doctorates in politial science? I don't think so.

"And a side note for all those of you who're waiting for China to step up and counterbalance the U.S.: One, dream on. Two, all regimes are flawed, but try living in each country for a year, speaking out as much as you like about their government's mistakes and misdeeds. Then tell me who you'd rather have running the world. (And for those of you holding out for an EU counterbalance: One, the combined wisdom and skill of France and Germany will make the world a better place? How? Two, bwaaahahaha!)"
Now that's scary stuff. Sometimes it sucks to have to remember the fact that I have to live in a world with these types of delusional thinkers. First off he should have realized that this is a serious debate and macho-gorilla-headed thinking is not needed. On the important topic of China's role in the future his first reasoning, because first is always the most important one, is one of fantasy. "Dream on". I imagine you sitting there with a US flag carefully drapped above your bed and a copy of Bush's face all around you. So tough and macho (yet not in Iraq I have to assume). Then the first response over the EU's future is another GRADE FUCKING FIVE gay juvenile taunt on more allies of the US's. All because you're pissed Germany and France never sent any damned troops to Iraq, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE NOT GOING TO IRAQ EITHER. People between the ages of 16 and 45 should shut the fuck up about their defending what their country is doing unless they talk the talk. Couch warriors all over the place. Some people are so busy-bodied and overweight and too ugly to make it in the real public so they jack off on the computer flexing their so-called muscles about the illegal occupations. I say if you want to defend your country's actions then you should, if you're of age, be there to defend it as well. Otherwise you're a pussy-ass cheerleader. Yeah that's right. A cheerleader. The kinds that wear fruity outfits and look like overall fags. Except you cheer on an Army. An army, by the way, that doesn't give two shits about you or your opinions in light of your having NOT JOINED UP TO FIGHT FOR YOUR NATION TO EXPORT DEMOCRACY (TO DO LIST: BRING BOMBS AND GUNS) AND TO SHARE IN THEIR TOUGH PLIGHT. You types are quite useless to your leaders and you're idiots to think you're beyond harm with that army you stand behind chanting. And that's fucking hilarious too! All the couchHawk losers whine and bitch about Canada for not having participated in an internally condemned military action or not wanting the US to violate their airspace over this unworkable missile project. Spouting off about how Canada hides behind the US and depends on them. Well tell you what pussyslaughtersupporterhawks, while you sit safely in front of your computers lashing out at Canada, you're being the exact same way. All nice and safe in the world's most powerful nation. While your REAL MEN troops are dying in Iraq, you loserhawks cheer them on and taunt your allies. No, the men of age who talk tough and aren't in line to get to Iraq, they are grade "A" pussyish sacs of fright and bravery-the-opposite-of. Peace.

notta problem. all they need is a missile, a base and a sign that says 'open' and they'll be on an equal footing with us.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....and so on and so forth.

All the couchHawk losers whine and bitch about Canada for not having participated in an internally condemned military action or not wanting the US to violate their airspace over this unworkable missile project.

I'm not gonna touch your internationally condemned war comment cuz I don't really care if Canada went or not. However, I do not care how sovereign a nation you are, we do not ask your permission to shoot down a missile flying towards us. Allow me to apologize in advance, although I think it's absurd I even have to.

If the missile is coming, we're taking it out. Sorry.

So, Canada doesn't object to us shooting a missle over their airspace because out of concern for debris killing their citizens, but because they just don't want the US to "violate" their airspace?

Mais non, mon cheri....

That is Ma Cheri you idiot.

Oh, and the rest of you opinionated fuckers have doctorates in politial science? I don't think so.

Nice use of obscenity.  Guess the poster hit your raw spot.  But I think he meant a rocket science degree, and as far as I can tell no one was speaking on an authoritarian level on the MD program like you were. 

Guess that makes him more of a rocket scientist than you.

Wouldn't their air space be more violated by radioactive fallout?  There are a lot of Silos in North and South Dakota, and they would be targeted and hit first, and that would cause contamination of their air space.  I guess they just dont have the capacity to think beyond their own pettiness.

That is Ma Cheri you idiot.

Actually, it’s Ma chérie, you moron

True Draginol. But that leaves bare the used-to-be-embarassing fact: Breaking international laws has become America's forte. They break them over invasions of 3rd world nations, over torture, over illegal weapons, over illegal war killings, over everything to do with military terrorism and death. The missile defence system of the US doesn't even work yet. One things though is to think of what countries would need their missile to pass over Canada to get to the US in the forst place. Check it out. Why can't people see the sham behind it all? The use of fear as a motivator for the populations to remain sheep. The fact of an overwhelming mutual annihilation is what prevents a missile strike on the US. It's the basis behind the so-called Cold War. To think some bogus "terrorist" group is going to nuke the US with a missile makes it seem most likely that he was chewing his finger nails waiting for the scary day when Ho Chi Mihn was going to land on the shores of California. The threat of an overwhelming annihilation response will keep missiles from being fired on the US. Just like it did in the 'cold war'. And whatever happened to the Patriot missile? I knew at the time that it wasn't working out very well at all (compared to glowing US media reports), but how anyone could believe the 31/32(ish) shootdown number makes the sheep analogy all the more attractive. To sum it up, no nation will fire missiles at the US since they know they'd be destroyed in kind if they did. No incentive at all to do so. We know terrorists don't have the kind of extreme capabilities to shoot missiles at US soil. We know the nations who would need to go through Canada to reach the US are not enemies of the US.

There is no such thing as "international law". There are only treaties that nations agree to.

Koffi Anan or some other UN official claiming that the invasion of Iraq was "illegal" is just a sad example of the delusion that there's some sort of international legal framework that countries are somehow bound to.

Arguing that shooting down an incoming nuclear missile heading towards the United States is "illegal" because shooting it down would violate Canadian airspace is precisely the kind of nonsense that causes US administrations to not really care too much about "international opinion".  It is like arguing that it is illegal to shoot a man who comes running at you with an axe.

Actually, it’s Ma chérie, you moron

I was correct a serious grammar error, not his spelling, or his accent.  I did not feel like adding the French layout to my kb. Jerk