Canada's Rejection of Missile Defense Historic: analysis

[Frodo]

Canadian rejection of missile defence historic, unpredictable shift: analysts
 
Alexander Panetta
Canadian Press

Friday, February 25, 2005

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's rejection of missile defence is a historic shift in its relationship with the United States and could have deep unforeseen consequences, analysts warn.

This week's announcement is more significant than Canada's refusal to join fighting in Iraq or Vietnam because, some say, this time the country has rejected a domestic defence plan.

One military analyst in Washington says Canada has turned its back on a 67-year-old agreement signed by then-prime minister Mackenzie King and president Franklin Roosevelt to jointly defend North America.

"This is a significant policy change, and it will clearly have consequences," says a briefing paper released Friday by Dwight Mason.

http://www.canada.com/maritimes/news/story.html?id=06ac788d-7f20-4f1e-9699-d7778e25ca6a

[AuH2O]

Problem is, most Canadian cities are near the US border. So, tragically, we have to shoot down missiles shot at Canada. I would prefer to let the Canadians get nuked, but the fallout would hurt Americans.

I'm not real worried about the "strategic" implications. What are they gonna do? They buck up to us and in 30 minutes they are a territory of the US. Basically it's just their communist government trying to score points.

[Hatman 🍁]

The missile defense system is flawed, and therefore a waste of money. We have enough problems with wasted tax dollars.  And as much as I dislike the policies of the US, I would never wish it to be nuked. You are very sick.

[Gabu]

The missile defense system is flawed, and therefore a waste of money. We have enough problems with wasted tax dollars.  And as much as I dislike the policies of the US, I would never wish it to be nuked. You are very sick.

Yes, God forbid we not hate an entire nation of people for the actions of its government, over which it has no control between elections.