Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On 24 February 2005, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew announced Canada would not be joining the United States' missile defense program. In Canada, there was some level of debate over participation in the U.S. missile defense program.
Many Canadians felt that the program would do great damage to international peace and security by creating a new arms race among the great powers. This viewpoint was shared by many who feared the increasingly aggressive U.S. foreign policy under George W. Bush, and who resented the suggestion that Canada may not have an independent foreign policy.
Many also opposed the system because of the doubts of some physicists about the effectiveness of the system.
In his first visit to Canada shortly after winning his second U.S. election, President Bush surprised Prime Minister Paul Martin by making a speech calling on Canada to join the program and invoking the memory of former Prime Minister W.L. Mackenzie King's response to Nazi Germany.
The Canadian Department of National Defence had mixed feelings about participation in the program. It wished to retain the current level of Canadian involvement in North American air defence through NORAD, but was reluctant to see scarce military funds spent on a single large research and development project of dubious practical value.
There was a widespread feeling in Canada that failure to participate in the program would mean being shut out of American defense planning, something that would not be in the Canadian national interest. Others feared that rejection of the plan would lead to a cooling of Canada-U.S. relations, and might even lead to reprisals.
Thus, while some Canadians were unsure about the viability of the system, many supported joining for diplomatic reasons. Opponents of involvement replied that Canada must have the courage to oppose the system on moral grounds, even if this decision proved to have negative consequences. They contended that it was important for Canada to reestablish its voice in the international arena by pushing for global disarmament and a revitalization of the United Nations.
Canada was reluctant to see scarce military funds spent on a single large research and development project of dubious practical value. that is why we stayed out since we can't spend $10-$12 Billion on one single project when we need to replace our CF-18's with F-35's and we just spent $35-$40 Billion on building brand new Frigates and Destroyers for theNavy and also are building modren 21st century arctic capable Coast Guard cutters and Polar Class Ice breakers.
we need to spend to get some Nuclear Fast aatck subs (SSN) more than a missile defence sheild..I mean buying up the Los angles class 688I subs from you guys would make more sense and give us the capability to patrol the arctic..
The latest cuts to US Forces in Europe will bring the total US forces in Europe down to around 70,000. At the same time the US is increasing it's contingent in the East Asia/Pacific area, with the first of a force of 2,500 US Marines currently arriving in Australia.
It's now just a question of time before US Forces in East Asia/Pacific area exceed those in Europe, as the power global shift towards the Far East continues to shape 21st Century Politics and Military Planning.
Ok. So it's essentially a Navy version of the B-2. What the heck does the Navy need with a heavy bomber?
Canada needs it because it has Air-to-Air refulling can stay air born for days and be able to keep watch up there and still is able to carry out a airstike if needed.
Plus we tend to go for Naval versions of military aircraft to meet the needs of patroling the arctic... Since if it goes down up there it means that there is no a pilot waiting 3-4 hours in -40 degrees temps to be Rescued.
We still should go with some F/A-18 Super hornets to use as a stop gap incase of even longer delays in the F-35 and speaking of the F-35 JSF II we should still buy them due to the fact that it will be the plane that all major player NATO countries will have them and replacement parts will be easy to come by during overseas operations.
No, I say pull all troops out of Europe and also the Middle east.
If it is for the security of Europe, then let them be responsible and look out for themselves, not with American lives and dollars.
I don't believe it is for their security though, but to protect business interests abroad. The Mega Corporations and Financial Institutions have made it patently clear that the only represent themselves and their cronies, so I say, let these be responsible on their own, with the blood of their sons and daughters and their money.
I don't want one red cent nor American life going to help these parasites.
A posting to Europe is a nowadays huge free vacation for troops lucky enough to get it. It is the most desired posting, is there any more to be said as to why we do not need to be there anymore?
No, I say pull all troops out of Europe and also the Middle east.
If it is for the security of Europe, then let them be responsible and look out for themselves, not with American lives and dollars.
I don't believe it is for their security though, but to protect business interests abroad. The Mega Corporations and Financial Institutions have made it patently clear that the only represent themselves and their cronies, so I say, let these be responsible on their own, with the blood of their sons and daughters and their money.
I don't want one red cent nor American life going to help these parasites.
I agree the US won't withdraw from Europe for three main reasons.
One US bases in Europe include NSA bases such as Menwith Hill that have been accused of protecting US commercial interest and of spying on the EU to gain comercial advantage, as well as spying on EU Citizens and Governments.
Two, the US does not want the EU forming stronger bonds and it's own military alliance to rival NATO or developing a rival inteligence structure to that of the current US dominated one.
Thirdly a lot of US bases support US operations beyond the European arena.
In actual fact a better organised EU could easily defend itself and the Russians are not the miltary superpower they once were.
I do think we will see further reductions of force in europe with the coming defense budget cuts.That along with cuts i defense spending here i US itself.Its being figure now by the dept of defense. one thing is its not goig to help as much because defense has remain staed at about 4% of GDP in budget since Clinton made the big so called peace dividend cuts when in office. That is why we will be seeing domestic cuts that are large to balance the budget this timeas CBO pointed out to congress in deficit hearings.
Our blood sweat and tears and tax dollars, allows the European countries to invest very little in their own military, so they can pour that money into their health care, and other government services. Canada is no different, for example, they refused to help pay for a continental balistic missile shield, cuz they know we will have their back either way.
Um...hows the air on that planet?
The Europeans massivly outspend any possible military opposition. Russia and China together fall short of matching the combined spending of just the UK, France and Germany -only three European countries. Poland and Scandinavia together has about 40 % of the military budget of Russia.
While Russia has announced big increases in military spending o try to reduce the gap a little, fact is that the Europeans outspend any possible opposition by an insane amount.
Meanwhile, their healthcare systems cost half of what the US does, treats all the citizens and gets better results. In fact, the overspending in US health care is twice the US military budget!
Finally, European blood is spilled for the US in Afghanistan, as it was in Iraq. I am not aware of anywhere the US is fighting for Europe.
I have heard that an entire US Division in Germany may be replaced by Chuck Norris in the next round of US Budget cuts.
Last edited by Mulhall; 04-20-2012 at 06:02 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
