North American Relations

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks for the articles JD.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That is the funniest thing I've ever heard. The terrorists dont' care about a damn arms race - they'll use whatever they can get their hands on. And as for the terrorists being around - where are they going to get the launch pads and rockets?

Funniest thing ever eh?(1) I feel special. Of course the terrorists don't care about whether or not it's an arms race, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. The constant upgrading of weapons in order to be more advanced than your enemies is an arms race. Every country, and terrosists, engages in this to some degree.

As for no launch pads and rockets I'm a bit confused as to what you mean. Are you suggesting the terrorists will not have a means to launch nukes either then? (Though the worry of nukes is probably more with respect to rogue nations.) I wasn't suggesting the arms race will eventually lead to battles in space or something if that's what you meant.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

There was some benefit in the past, but mostly it waa because past presidents just let other countries get away with just relying on us all the time - but Bush has basically told Paul Martin the free ride is over. That's why he's increased military spending.

What are you complaining about then?

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That article is from Dec 2003, you will notice how it says that the lack of military spending on the Candadian side and the fact that you don't pull your own weight - is one of the rifts between US and Canada.

It seems that with the increase in our spending, this sore point is on the mend.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I actually dont' know why britain or we would invade you. Last time I checked though - we weren't the problem countries. it's funny how you dont' look at the threat of North Korea and others though - not that they would necessarily "invade you" or even us - with boots on the ground - but it's not at all unlikely they would lob a nuclear missile at you or us.

Oh yes of course. I realize now that fighting terrorism (however this may be done) takes a different approach than conventional military thinking. My statement that someone might invade us was thinking of the military conventionally. *embarassed face*
I did know before that ending (or at least significantly reducing) terrorism will take non-conventional means, I just let some "old-school" slip into my post there. (But no I did not actually think you or Britain would invade us.)

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

We currently do - but we think you should carry your fair share of the burden. Finally Canada has recognized this and that's why military spending was basically just doubled this year under Martin. With this increase - according to GlobalSecutiry.org this increase will put you just behind Brazil

Thanks for the link to globalsecurity.org btw, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Globalsecurity.org is interesting. I notice India only spends $12,079.7 million (wouldn't that be just over 12 billion?), with a population of over 1 billion people. I was also surprised to see China, the #2 military spender, is only $65 billion. Don't they have the largest air force in the world? Anyway, that's a little OT, but I thought it was interesting.

Though I don't think it's useful to call George W. Bush a warmonger, perhaps people who say that base their comments in part on this number: 466 billion. That is roughly half of the entire world. (I think I knew that already. Holy crap.)

Iceland, I also note, doesn't appear to have a military budget at all. (It's listed as $0 rather than N/A.) I'm impressed, but I bet you're not.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Also - I suppose since you "rationally decided" that means that all others who support a missile defense system are being irrational - is that it?
Based on your statements though - you haven't seriously educated yourseklf on it - because you wouldn't have made such erroneous statements as to what the missile defense system entails.

This is from an older post which I missed, but I have to comment now.

When I say "rational" here, I mean a logical decision given the values of the decision-makers. Obviously, you can have two or more opposing views which are rational. The opposite of rational is irrational, but I wasn't saying the USA was irrational with my statement. I was defending Canada's stance, pointing out that it is in fact rational.

Also, I fully admit that I don't know very much about the missile defence system. I've learned a lot in this thread so far though (NORAD et al), yet another bonus of this great thread. *grin*

However, that doesn't mean that my opinions about Canada's military spending and/or involvemement with the missile defence program are worthless.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Then you wouldn't know how much we spend per GNP or what Canada is likely to move it to? We're not asking you to spend the same percentage as us - we're asking you to do your fair share though and stop relying on us to hold your hand. The US military is ours - we can do with it as we wish. Bush is always described as a war monger. Maybe we should just invade canada and be done with it. We probably still have the plans from 100 years ago we can dust off.

Fair enough. Hey... do we agree? It looks like we do agree, except on the missile defence program.

We should be ambassadors!

By the way, that's Canada, with a capital "C". (I know, speedy typing. )


(1) Note: This is one correct usage of the word "eh", if you ever need to know this.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

something i dont understand about norh americans
americans go on about canadians saying "eh" all the time
all the canadians i have ever meet hardly ever say "eh", but every single english person i have met says "eh" all the time
it is used in this country for just about any sort of questioning tone

[Nurvingiel]

I say "eh" fairly often, but you Brits need to understand the subtlety of eh, not use it just to ask questions. (The British people I know don't abuse "eh" though.)

EDIT: Americans don't really go on about it, it's just one of those things we tease each other about. Like when you make a joke about your buddy. I hope people don't actually think that. (Some Canadians do abuse "eh", but this isn't a national phenomenon.)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

eh? O_o

[Nurvingiel]

Hey, we were having a serious discussion in here!

BTW, it doesn't need to be just rantage from JD and I, or spam from Chrys (just kidding guys! )

All Mooters feel free to join in on this subject.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

something i dont understand about norh americans
americans go on about canadians saying "eh" all the time
all the canadians i have ever meet hardly ever say "eh", but every single english person i have met says "eh" all the time
it is used in this country for just about any sort of questioning tone

it's more of an Ontario thing than other parts of Canada. I hear it all the time when I'm there.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by IronParrot

Jersey, what the statistics aren't telling you is that Canada is a deeply and regionally divided country. Right now, a lot of the grandstanding by the Liberal government is part of a precarious compromise they are striking to stay in power given that they are an unstable minority in Parliament. Military spending issues in Canada - either for or against - are largely the result of power games more than an actual representation of what the people think, because the thing about Canada is that you can't actually put your finger on what the people think, 58% or otherwise.

Now, for my part, I think it's a shame that Canada has completely left its military in the cold since the Second World War under the false pretense that "not having a real military" lends itself to more effective peacekeeping. I don't think this necessitates a full involvement in such initiatives as ballistic missile defence, but for different reasons - mostly pragmatic ones, and not the philosophical hokum about ceding sovereignty to America (which I don't think is really the case).

Sorry IP, didn't mean to ignore. Yay, another Canadian in the thread! (Maybe we cross-posted.)

You bring up a very good point about regional divisions. That's certainly the case.

And though I don't support a large military, I do support the current military being adequately equipped, with enough people for its current operations. (I'm all for replacing the Sea King helicopters, I hope they've done this already.)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

ah, my gran's cousin is from quebec, and she never says eh?, she tends to say "excuse me?" but she is extremely well-spoken

my gran has a cousin, also from canada somewhere, that is on tele in canada
"the singing nun" dont know how long ago that was, though
(yes there are religious parts in my family )

[Nurvingiel]

Speaking of Toronto and terrorism...

TORONTO: MILITARY FEARS BIRD FLU AS BIO-WEAPON
The Canadian military arm's intelligence service says it's afraid that avian influenza could be used as a terrorist weapon. A report by the J2 Directorate of Strategic Intelligence outlines various methods that could be used by terrorists to create a man-made strain of bird flu that could unleash a pandemic. The Canadian Press obtained a censored version of the report through the Access to Information Law. Infectious disease experts disagree among themselves to what extent such a man-made virus represents a potential threat because it would kill terrorists as well as their targets. However, Dr. Brian Ward, a virologist at McGill University, said the bird flu virus would create panic, social disruption and economic damage. The Canadian government has estimated that a bird flu outbreak could cause losses ranging between $10 billion and $24 billion, without counting economic losses in terms of productivity or to the airlines and tourism industries.

From: CBC.com

[Nurvingiel]

Speaking of Toronto and terrorism...

TORONTO: MILITARY FEARS BIRD FLU AS BIO-WEAPON
The Canadian military arm's intelligence service says it's afraid that avian influenza could be used as a terrorist weapon. A report by the J2 Directorate of Strategic Intelligence outlines various methods that could be used by terrorists to create a man-made strain of bird flu that could unleash a pandemic. The Canadian Press obtained a censored version of the report through the Access to Information Law. Infectious disease experts disagree among themselves to what extent such a man-made virus represents a potential threat because it would kill terrorists as well as their targets. However, Dr. Brian Ward, a virologist at McGill University, said the bird flu virus would create panic, social disruption and economic damage. The Canadian government has estimated that a bird flu outbreak could cause losses ranging between $10 billion and $24 billion, without counting economic losses in terms of productivity or to the airlines and tourism industries.

From: CBC.com

[inked]

Speaking of Canada and the umbrella of the USA, in the case of ACA and ECUSA as defined by the Primate's meeting in Dromantine Retreat, near Newry, Ireland - the coattails of ECUSA seem a poor place to be riding:

Canterbury snubs North American churches

SOLANGE DE SANTIS STAFF WRITER
The Anglican Journal

TORONTO (March 7, 2005) - The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has rejected an invitation to attend a joint meeting in April of U.S. and Canadian bishops next month in a move that the Canadian primate, Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, said is clearly linked to the turmoil over homosexuality.

"It does send a very, very negative symbol to the Canadian church, no question," Archbishop Hutchison said in an interview. "The message it sends to us is that at the moment he does not want to be associated with the Canadians."

The Canadian primate, meanwhile, has also voiced his displeasure with the actions of a fellow primate who defied the commitment of the primates of the Anglican Communion "not to encourage cross-boundary interventions."

Just a day after the end of the primates' meeting last month in Northern Ireland, however, the primate of the Southern Cone, Archbishop Gregory Venables, traveled to Vancouver to meet with dissenting Canadian Anglicans, including those who have walked out of the New Westminster diocese.

Archbishop Hutchison called Archbishop Venables' visit "a clear violation of the agreement," adding, "To think that there's such a lack of good faith in this discussion is profoundly disturbing." He said he has written to Archbishop Williams asking him to "move very quickly" to see to it that this agreement is kept.

Archbishop Williams' reason for declining to attend the meeting of North American bishops, scheduled for April 25-May 1 with sessions in Windsor, Ont., and Detroit, was "the present situation and he also refers to a meeting that he should be attending," said Archbishop Hutchison. However, he added, "Our invitation went out to him over a year ago and I'm sure that this (other) meeting is not something that he (had) committed (to) before our invitation."

Archbishop Hutchison said he was troubled by Archbishop Williams' decision. "I'm very upset because it goes against what I believe is his own personal position (on homosexuality) and he has expressed it pretty publicly and in other circumstances," he said.

Canadian bishop Bruce Howe, who is on the organizing committee and in whose Huron diocese the meeting will take place, said that he was a "little disappointed." Considering what happened in northern Ireland, he said, Archbishop Williams "should have made more of an effort to come, to make a pastoral visit to the Canadian and American bishops."

However, he added, "I understand the optics. In the context of unity, he doesn't want to send a signal to the other primates that he's not taking them seriously. But he should be here."

The joint meeting, which has been in the planning stages for more than a year, is scheduled to include the primates of the U.S. and Canadian churches, about 40 American bishops and the full Canadian house of bishops (also about 40).

From April 25-27, the Canadian bishops will hold their regular spring meeting in Windsor, Ont. They are scheduled to be joined by their American counterparts on April 27, and the joint gathering continues until May 1.

They are scheduled to discuss the state of religion in Canada and the U.S., with discussions led by Walter Brueggeman, author and retired professor from Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, Ga. The original schedule had called for a panel discussion led by the three primates.

The meeting is set to end with a Saturday evening banquet and joint celebration of the eucharist, both in Detroit. With files from Marites N. Sison

END
******************

Seems the ABC intends to take the dis-invitation of ACA and ECUSA recommended by the Primates LITERALLY.