Canada gives up sovereignty to US

February 24, 2005 12:05 PM

Days ago, Canada's new ambassador to the US said that Canada was already part of the controversial US Missile Defence plan. Today Prime Minister Paul Martin finally stopped dithering and declared that Canada would not join the controversial program. The American ambassador to Canada is confused by this... confused that Canada would choose to relinquish it's sovereignty to the US.
posted by futureproof (62 comments total)

awright, but don't come crawlin to us when da russkies go ape shit.
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:08 PM on February 24, 2005

Paul Cellucci is a tool. That is all.
posted by Johnny Assay at 12:16 PM on February 24, 2005

"We will deploy. We will defend North America."

Except, of course, Mexico.
posted by fungible at 12:17 PM on February 24, 2005

PWNED!
posted by Stonewall Jackson at 12:17 PM on February 24, 2005

Jesus. I wonder how long this country has until it collapses under its own arrogance.
posted by borkingchikapa at 12:19 PM on February 24, 2005

Does it start and stop at Cellucci?

Is there any international law that is being invoked here? How does Canada's choice not to participate in a doomed American project automatically relinquish her sovereignty?
posted by futureproof at 12:19 PM on February 24, 2005

So if Canada decided to host the inoperable missile defense system they'd be able to say "Gee guys, don't fire at that incoming missile"? Not likely and not a plausible response either. The comment that they'd be relinquishing any sovereignty is a meaningless comment designed to tweak the few people in Canada that would be in favour of having the malfunctioning system on their soil.
posted by substrate at 12:20 PM on February 24, 2005

Anyone else think that Frank McKenna committed political suicide this week?

The Ambassador doesn't get to call the shots.
posted by clevershark at 12:24 PM on February 24, 2005

Mckenna responded that he still had to learn some diplomatic duties, patience being one of them.
posted by futureproof at 12:30 PM on February 24, 2005

Missle defence does not work. For example, no Patriot missle has EVAR hit its target (unassisted). In Israel, the missle is outlawwed because it killed so many people during Gulf 1 (the missles explode in the air and rain down to hit houses, people, etc.)

Missle defence requires the weaponization of space. We haven't figured out safe space travel yet but we want to put nukes up there? How many accidents has NASA had already? Isn't the weakage of the last shuttle still strewn around Texas? Not worth the risk.

Missle defence pushes other nations to build more nukes and could prompt America to ask more brashly internationally.

It's not a good idea. But America's going to build it with or without Canada's blessing. I'm happy that it might be without.
posted by dontrememberthis at 12:32 PM on February 24, 2005

"I personally don't think it's in Canada's sovereign interest to be outside of the room when a decision is made about a missile that might be incoming towards Canada."

Uh huh, I am sure that getting everyone together in a room is procedure 1(A) in the Manual of Incoming Missile Response Activities.

Cellucci: "A quaint half-baked Italian nutcake"
posted by Mike D at 12:32 PM on February 24, 2005

Is it just me, or does this sound a whole lot like a protection racket?

"Pay us money, supposedly to go towards missile defense, or else we'll shoot down anything in your airspace we feel like. Pay up if you want any say in your own territorial boundary."

The arrogance on display is just staggering.

Gee, we should do this with other countries. Like Saudi Arabia. Create some sort of "Mideast Defense Initiative" and make them all pay for us to protect them. Otherwise, we might accidentally blow up things they want to keep.
posted by InnocentBystander at 12:36 PM on February 24, 2005

We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty - its seat at the table - to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada.

It seems that Canada has decided that it's unlikely that a missile will be coming towards Canada, so it doesn't need to worry about it.

Critics also question why the elaborate plan is necessary in a post-Cold War climate where the U.S. government is fighting low-budget terrorist operations, not state-run communism.

Those crazy Canadians just don't get it. It's vital to their national security to fatten the wallets of U.S. defense contractors defend themselves from terrorists.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:38 PM on February 24, 2005

AFAIK the US was not asking Canada for money, simply permission to set up their missile stations on her soil.
posted by futureproof at 12:39 PM on February 24, 2005

Yep, McKenna comes out of this with all kinds of egg on face. Martin looks really good to just about all Canadians I figure - heck, even the Tories were wavering on this one.

It is just infuriating reading the scare-mongering and barely supressed rage coming out of U.S. politicos about this the last few days. All this talk of "a missile flying over Canada". No one up here is worried about this, no one is feeling the fear and that is (at least part of the reason) why no one is jumping at the chance to sign up.

I am SO glad Martin made this announcement while Bush II is still in Europe. Ha. What a bunch of ass-clowns and spoiled babies. Quoth David Jones, ex-US State Dept., "the US government would not have leapt for joy if Canada had joined and it won't cry itself to sleep if you (do)". Well! I haven't heard puffing like that since I was out on the playground in grade school. Maybe next Celucci can hold his breath til his face turns blue. Rrrgh.
posted by stinkycheese at 12:45 PM on February 24, 2005

I don't think you understand.

America has a sacred duty to defend Canada's' right to American leadership!

As Americans, we share a common cultural and ethnic heritage with Canadians: both countries speak the same language (except for a few unfortunate Quebecois) and are derived form the same British racial stock (except for some minorities from the East Mexico and, as inevitably as great cities attract rats, a smattering of Jews).

Indeed, it is a mere accident of history that British North America is not united in one common Empire. Truly, Canada could be called "Northern America".

Canadian Chancellor Schuschnigg is foolish to defy the American Protector for Canada, Mr. Celluci, and even more foolish to resist the historic re-Union of the North American Empire. He should recall the fate of the late Canadian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss.

If necessary to preserve the territorial integrity of Canada and the freedom of the Canadian people to join in our American Empire, we are prepared to annex Canada as a U.S. state. We know how to protect the ten million ethnic Americans living on ours borders - whether in Canada, the Danzig Corridor, or the Sudetenland!

We and the Canadians are one People, and they deserve to be led by our Leader, President Bush! One People, One Empire, One Leader!

Continued Canadian intransigence can have but one resolution: Anschluß!
posted by orthogonality at 12:51 PM on February 24, 2005

Missile defense is utterly ridiculous, and I'm glad we're staying the hell away from it. This will be seen as yet another moment in history where Canada shows they're Not Quite As Bad As America(tm).
posted by mek at 12:51 PM on February 24, 2005

Spirited defense of missile shield in 5 . . .
4 . . .
3 . . .
2 . . .
1 . . .

aw crap!!! Missed again!
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:56 PM on February 24, 2005

Agreed; I'm glad Canada will not have it's name assocaited with this mess. Of course, it will still suck when cosmic fire is raining down all around us because America's nukes are falling out of sky.
posted by chunking express at 12:58 PM on February 24, 2005

Breaking news... Bin Laden found aboard ISS! Secret moonbase revealed... Inter-Planetary-Ballistic-Missiles discovered... Canadian Missile Defense Earth's last hope...
posted by crazy finger at 1:03 PM on February 24, 2005

I thought missile defence was part of NORAD. We're part of NORAD. Doesn't our membership in NORAD automatically mean we're part of the surveillance system that missile defence programs use? I had understood that's what McKenna was trying to say.

Still, the US shouldn't be surprised. The current administration just doesn't have the diplomatic chops to sell any big programs. I'm sure Martin and his minority government have kept a close eye on how being Bush's ally has hurt Blair. I am not a fan of missile defence by any means, but the way Martin handled this whole thing (he supported it...then he wasn't sure...wasn't sure some more...then...nope, not gonna do it) certainly doesn't make him look like a strong leader.
posted by Salmonberry at 1:06 PM on February 24, 2005

Salmonberry: I don't believe anyone outside of (maybe) the Liberal Party thinks Martin with a strong leader. I don't think Canada's had a strong leader since Trudeau in fact. But he muddled around & he hummed & hawed & he finally came out on the right side. If not for the right reasons (keeping his minority government going was likely the deciding factor), well, we'll take what we can get in these times.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:23 PM on February 24, 2005

My thoughts, which I think many Canadians share:

1) We're spending money this budget on more worthwhile national defense items like better border and port security screening, more coast guard and navy activity, and a cash boost to the CSIS intelligence agency. Remember the poor Oregon state trooper in Farenheit 9/11... One guy, 400km of coastline. Hmm.

2) If we say yes, we get missiles flying over our country. If we say no, we still get missiles flying over our country, but we've somehow "surrendered our sovereignity".

How is saying yes and having US based missile stations (i.e. legitimate targets) stationed on our soil 'keeping our sovereignity'?

3) As the joke goes, what's the best way to smuggle a nuke into the USA?

In the back of a pickup truck, concealed in a large bale of marijuana.
posted by anthill at 1:24 PM on February 24, 2005

"AFAIK the US was not asking Canada for money, simply permission to set up their missile stations on her soil."

That in itself, having U.S. missile stations in Canada, would compromise Canada's sovereignty -- AND make Canada a likely target of any missiles that might be launched. I.e., whatever U.S. enemy won't nuke U.S. misslle stations in Canada if there are no U.S. missle stations in Canada. That is, Canada might not get nuked when the U.S. does (if such a thing ever happens). See?
posted by davy at 2:21 PM on February 24, 2005

Exactly.

But Canada loosing sovereignty for saying no to the stations?
posted by futureproof at 2:25 PM on February 24, 2005

"Missle defence does not work. For example, no Patriot missle has EVAR hit its target (unassisted). In Israel, the missle is outlawwed because it killed so many people during Gulf 1 (the missles explode in the air and rain down to hit houses, people, etc.)" -- dontrememberthis

This isn't the first time I've heard this, and it wouldn't surprise me to discover that it was partly or completely true, but does anyone have a source backing up these assertions about the inadequacy of the Patriot missile defense system?
posted by Ritchie at 2:29 PM on February 24, 2005

Er, I think you all have some misconceptions about what was being asked here. Canda was not being asked to spend anything or allow missiles in the country. This essentially was a request for some political support, which the US thought its neighbor would give it. I think the last paragraph of the last link sums it up:

"U.S. officials have indicated they didn't really need Canada's help, but would have appreciated political support from their neighbour as they attempted to sell the plan abroad."

On preview:
That in itself, having U.S. missile stations in Canada, would compromise Canada's sovereignty -- AND make Canada a likely target of any missiles that might be launched. I.e., whatever U.S. enemy won't nuke U.S. misslle stations in Canada if there are no U.S. missle stations in Canada. That is, Canada might not get nuked when the U.S. does (if such a thing ever happens). See?
davy
That might make sense, if the US were asking to put missiles in Canada.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:37 PM on February 24, 2005

Thank jeebus. My heart almost warmed a degree or two towards Paul Martin after reading this.

How does telling America where to get off result in a loss of Canadian sovereignty? I didn't have the patience to read through the reasoning on this first time, so I suppose I'll give it another try. But mostly I'm just relieved, and wanted to say so.
posted by jokeefe at 2:43 PM on February 24, 2005

I've looked and I can't find it.
But I distinctly recall an anecdote by an journalist who worked the White House beat in the 80s...
His story is that a group of journalists were loitering in the Rose Garden, having a smoke and waiting for the Press Conference to begin. Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney were in the Oval Office, just sort of within earshot of the journalists...and as the meeting seems to be wrapping up for the Press Conference, Reagan gives Mulroney some instruction, and Mulroney replies, "Yes, sir."
WTF? Ron says jump, you say "How High?" Mulroney was the duly-elected leader of a sovereign nation, and he's kissing Ron's ass?
I wasn't surprised by the anecdote, just saddened...and that was how the POTUSA saw Canada in the 80s...can't imagine that it's improved much.

Actually, Paul Martin's "Just say NO!" raises him a few notches in my estimation...not as much as Chretien saying he won't ban same-sex marriage just because it conflicts with his Catholic views; not as much as Chretien telling G.W.Bush that Canada won't be taking part in Gulf War, Part Deux; but a few notches...

And what's the value of a missile defense system when, according to Homeland Security, the greatest threat facing the USA is from trans-national terrorists: people whose idea of a good weapon is a 747 driven very fast into a tall building; or a vanload of fertilizer in the parking garage; or an envelope of Anthrax delivered by FedEx; or a suitcase full of explosives smuggled into a Federal Building...how does the missile defense "shield" you from that?
posted by Al_Truist at 2:48 PM on February 24, 2005

does anyone have a source backing up these assertions about the inadequacy of the Patriot missile defense system?

The Patriot system is not the same as the grand missile defense system that is supposed to protect the entire continent, the one where even the controlled tests don't work, though it is indeed an anti-missile system. It will also shoot down planes.

Patriots were used to defend Israel and other places against Sadam's Scud missiles in Gulf War I. Great claims were made about their effectiveness, later analysis has shown that the claims were greatly exagerated:

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

See The Patriot Missile. Performance in the Gulf War Reviewed for more details. The archives of the Risks Digest also contain quite a number of references to the failures of both systems
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 2:55 PM on February 24, 2005

McKenna's point was that we are already part of NORAD, and Martin's government recently re-negotiated some of the NORAD agreement so that the NORAD intelligence could be used in the missile defence program.

The comment about us giving up our sovereignty by not 'signing on' is pretty silly. The US said they weren't looking for our money. So if it's an American designed system funded by American dollars, why would we think for a moment that American decision-makers would listen to Canadians when it came down to the wire? If it's your money, your plan, it's pretty clear to me that we're just along for the ride. If that was the case (and I'll admit I'm making assumptions, but no unreasonable ones) then THAT is us forgoing our soverignty.

On 9/11, the US airspace closed down. There were hundreds of flights in the air that had to be re-routed and hundreds of those planes were sent to Canadian airports because there was no where else to go. At the time, no one knew if there were more attckers or bombs on those flights. Closing their airspace was an understandable defensive tactic for the Americans to take, but it meant that many Canadians were put at risk to save Americans. Thankfully, there were no tragedies in Canada that day. But the lesson that I personally took from that was that the American government is (understandably) more interested in the safety of its own citizens, and I would never count on them to protect me.

I'm not interested in my government rubberstamping an initiative to arms-build up. It seems to me like Bush trying to gain from Canada's reputation as non-violent and friendly.
posted by raedyn at 2:56 PM on February 24, 2005

Let's try that again with a real URL

The Patriot Missile. Performance in the Gulf War Reviewed
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 3:02 PM on February 24, 2005

For example, no Patriot missle has EVAR hit its target (unassisted).
38 SCUDs reached Israel, 27 after the Patriot missile batteries became operational in the first Gulf War. The Patriot engaged 17 of these (the others fell in uncovered areas). The US Army, after initially claiming near 100% success, revised its assessment drastically downwards and now claims only 7 interceptions, with 3 of those being high confidence.

In Israel, the missle is outlawwed because it killed so many people during Gulf 1 (the missles explode in the air and rain down to hit houses, people, etc.)
28 US soldiers were killed when a SCUD hit a barracks in Saudi Arabia. Two (some sources say one) Israelis were killed by SCUDs that made it past the Patriot defense. Four Patriots are known to have hit the ground and exploded in Israel, causing damage but no deaths. No confirmed deaths or injuries have been attributed directly to the Patriot.

Good summary here.
posted by joaquim at 3:34 PM on February 24, 2005

thanks for the links, Quinbus and joaquim. I'd always wanted to go back and see if those things really worked like they said they did.

here's a decent review of the US missile defense system from CTV.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:50 PM on February 24, 2005

Sheesh. Is this administration trying to make enemies of every other country in the known world, or just some of them?
posted by SisterHavana at 4:00 PM on February 24, 2005

This is richly ironic. I have not doubt that Paul Martin would have handed this to Bush on a silver platter if he could have. But Bush is so phenomenally unpopular here, kowtowing to missle defence really would have been the kiss of death for this minority government. Even Harper was smart enough not to say anything.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 4:02 PM on February 24, 2005

Wait. If Canada's now American territory, does that mean I can move to Toronto?

The heat here in Phoenix is killing me.
posted by Target Practice at 4:10 PM on February 24, 2005

this celluci fucker deserves some good canadian lumber shoved up his arse
posted by randomstriker at 4:31 PM on February 24, 2005

taken together with this : Border talks called `disturbing', you guys better be prepared. : <
posted by amberglow at 4:37 PM on February 24, 2005

You ever live where your neighbour was a complete asshole? The sort of guy who'd build his fence a foot over the property line? The sort who'd cut the limbs off your tree if the leaves were falling on his side? The kind who attracts drive-by house shootings on occasion? The kind who expects you to lend him your lawnmower and never returns it?

That's what it's like living beside the USA.

If only we could move.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:41 PM on February 24, 2005

Right, any other Canadians want to start lobbying Ottawa to take some of that surplus and sink it into getting our hands on say, 20 or 30 nuclear tipped cruise missiles in hardened bunkers in the Rocky Mountains and Canadian Shield?

I'm not saying there's an immanent threat from the U.S. or anything. I'm saying it's a reasonable investment given the current situation. It's like insurance. Many megatons worth of coverage, for an uncertain world.
posted by Grimgrin at 5:19 PM on February 24, 2005

Mike D: Uh huh, I am sure that getting everyone together in a room is procedure 1(A) in the Manual of Incoming Missile Response Activities.

This has made me laugh harder than ... well ... most anything else I've read in the past month, anyway.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 5:44 PM on February 24, 2005

On CBC radio this evening, Pierre Pettigrew - Foreign Affairs Minister - said that this decision did not mean Canada is relinquishing sovereignty over our airspace but "rather the opposite".
posted by raedyn at 5:49 PM on February 24, 2005

This story appeared in the SF Chronicle today, reprinted from the NYT. But the Chron headline writer is a fucking moron:
Canada rebuffs Bush on missile defense plan
Premier is seen as waffling on decision

(the "Premier" in question is in fact PRIME MINISTER Paul Martin.
posted by stevil at 6:01 PM on February 24, 2005

As a Canadian living in the U.S., I don't really follow Canadian politics all that much any more... and I am thunderstruck by how good Paul Martin keeps coming out in all these Metafilter posts. I know that he isn't a very competent guy and that he's doing this all because of backroom politics and to keep control of his government, but from the perspective down here, compared to American politicians, everything he does looks like pure heroism.
posted by painquale at 6:21 PM on February 24, 2005

Paul Martin has me perplexed. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. Yet he keeps being Canadian about things.

I am beginning to suspect that he is firmly committed to having "the Prime Minister that shaped Canada" go beside his name in the history books, along with Trudeau, Tommy Douglas, Sir John Eh., and suchlike. Which means his business philosophies have to take a back seat to doing the correct cultural/social things.

If Paul Martin is smart enough to see where the train is heading, he can fast-track us there.

Gay marriage is an inevitability in Canada: every damn sign points to it becoming legal and accepted in a civil context. So let's not piss away time and money avoiding it: do it and be done with it.

And so maybe we'll be lucky, and he'll do the right things. Demand recognition of our sovereignty rights. Go wholly against his own moral beliefs, and maintain the legality of abortion. Recognize that prohibition just plain doesn't work. Keep and improve social healthcare. Keep the environment in mind. Help our kids get the education and support they need to become great adults.

If he's got the balls, I think he's got the ability to really make a difference even though some of it runs against his religious beliefs and business ethics.

And that would make him truly a great man. Damn, I hope he's got it in him. I hope he doesn't turn out to be a two-faced sleaze.

If someone has Paul Martin's ear, read him this:

As the completed questionnaires poured in, it became clear what characteristics historians valued in a leader. They looked for a coherent vision of the country and well-articulated goals in domestic and foreign policy. They expected a solid record of achievement, not least in getting elected and staying in power. They sought leaders--of cabinet, of party, of country. For most, national unity, confronting and overcoming Canada's geographic and linguistic divisions, was the decisive factor in determining a prime minister's ranking. Failure here made relegation to the prime ministerial boneyard all but certain. Not surprisingly, as a result, Liberal leaders tended to rank higher. Under Laurier, King, Louis Saint-Laurent and their successors, the Liberal party has paid more attention to Quebec in this century than the Conservatives. Historians paid attention, too.

posted by five fresh fish at 6:55 PM on February 24, 2005

I'd really like to view Martin as a good guy, but I have this suspicion he's just reading the writing on the wall. Canadians really want to distinguish themselves from Americans, and they are. I think Canada is reacting thoughtfully to the social strife in the U.S.

Oddly, while I second guess Martin's motives all the time, I don't second guess his intelligence. I definitely am more open to giving Martin the benefit of the doubt.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:20 PM on February 24, 2005

In Israel, the missle is outlawwed because it killed so many people during Gulf 1 (the missles explode in the air and rain down to hit houses, people, etc.)

For the record, in the runup to Gulf 2, Israel actually borrowed several patriot batteries (from Germany and the US, I think). In addition to that, Israel deployed their own, more advanced, indigenously developed missile system, the Arrow 2 (developed with American funding).
posted by kickingtheground at 8:16 PM on February 24, 2005

Has Canada ever had a truly stupid Prime Minister? Have we had any comparable to Bush II or Reagan?

I think on the whole, Canadians strongly dislike stupid people. Although, I do have to admit, my riding elected Mr. Stinson, cretinous cowboy dipshit extraordinaire, several times over. Guh. No accounting for evangels and prairie DPs.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:56 PM on February 24, 2005

fff: The Prime Minister isn't really powerful enough to have his level of incompetence demonstrated the same way that Reagan or Bush can demonstrate theirs. Some would say that John Turner or Kim Campbell were incompetent, but they were also both only in office for a few months between retirements and subsequent elections. Personally I'd say more "mediocre" than "incompetent", though.
posted by mendel at 9:09 PM on February 24, 2005

Canadians are constantly comparing their PM's to Trudeau, who was, admittedly, a fantastic PM, a superb politicician, and a man who was completely committed to Canada. Chretien did his best to fill those shoes, and he did okay, but he was no Trudeau. Martin, given half a chance, might do as well as Chretien, and I think he's well on the road to that goal. Martin has simply got to stop waffling on the issues and make a decision, which is exactly what he did here. Frankly, I'm proud of him. He made the right choice, the only choice. I sincerely hope that he continues on the same path, because if he does, he will leave a legacy that will land him in the history books. Unlike Chretien.

No nukes in Canada!
posted by ashbury at 10:04 PM on February 24, 2005

Painquale in this case he had no choice, NDP and the Bloc were against this deal, the conservatives were hesitant, members of his own party didn't want to enter this agreement, over 50% of the population felt it was worth going to election over (compared to 30%+ who said the same over gay marriage) having a minority government forced the decision. I said, "yes!!!" (which scared the cat - heh) a bunch of times when I saw the news yesterday but I'm not fooled into thinking he did this for any reason other than to hold off another election for as long as he can. I thought Chrétien had cajones when he stood up and said we wouldn't go to Iraq, this guy I see as a typical sleazy politician/lawyer trying to save his job.

Has Canada ever had a truly stupid Prime Minister?

We had a really drunk one who talked to their dead mother, but I don't think we've had one that can equal Reagan or Bush II ...

/ducks
posted by squeak at 10:39 PM on February 24, 2005

This recent story about a failed missile test shows how useful the whole thing is.

The part of it I particularly enjoyed was the line "Wednesday's test had been put off several times because of bad weather, and a malfunction of a recovery vessel not directly related to the equipment being tested, The Associated Press reported."

Because of bad weather. The missile test was put off because of bad weather. Yup, worth every penny. Just don't attack us if it's raining, okay? You promise, don't you? Huh?
posted by ralphyk at 3:17 AM on February 25, 2005

Gwynne Dyer's article on Missile defense was great.

It was the first full test in two years for the "ground-based midcourse" interceptor. None of the previous eight flight tests were conducted under realistic conditions and most of them failed anyway, so this time the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency described the goal of the test in terms that precluded failure. It was just going to be a "fly-by" of the incoming warhead (and nobody said how close). The interceptor missile managed to fail the test anyway: it didn't even get out of its silo.

Mike D: Uh huh, I am sure that getting everyone together in a room is procedure 1(A) in the Manual of Incoming Missile Response Activities.

Judging by the NORAD and U.S.A.F. response to 9/11 one could argue that it actually is... Sad as that may be...

Sengermaine: Er, I think you all have some misconceptions about what was being asked here. Canada was not being asked to spend anything or allow missiles in the country. This essentially was a request for some political support, which the US thought its neighbor would give it.

In an ideal world this probably wasn't the right fight for Martin. The proper approach, I think, would have been to give political assent initially. Political object would have had more impact if we waited for weapons to actually be put in orbit. Of course the U.S. may have headed that approach off already. Who knows what the real terms of negotiation where...

Of course I wouldn't trust Martin for that, he only objected out of political necessity. It is just as well that Canada has objected, but it hasn't been handled in a way that best promotes Canada's interests.

Grimgrin: I'm not saying there's an immanent threat from the U.S. or anything. I'm saying it's a reasonable investment given the current situation. It's like insurance. Many megatons worth of coverage, for an uncertain world.

This is interesting, I had a similar conversation with a friend in the financial industry a few weeks ago. I suggested that letting China own some Canadian natural resource rights might be the best long term guarantee for Canadian sovereignty available... Weapons certainly aren't the answer...

five fresh fish: Has Canada ever had a truly stupid Prime Minister? Have we had any comparable to Bush II or Reagan?

Well, there was MacKenzie King... (what squeak said)
posted by Chuckles at 5:22 AM on February 25, 2005

Friend of mine worked on the software for Patriot missiles before Gulf War One. He told his managers that they wouldn't work. He was over ruled.

He doesn't work in that field any more
posted by IndigoJones at 5:36 AM on February 25, 2005

Is it just me, or does this sound a whole lot like a protection racket?

Luigi: How many men you got here, colonel?
Colonel: Oh, er ... seven thousand infantry, six hundred artillery, and er, two divisions of paratroops.
Luigi: Paratroops, Dino.
Dino: Be a shame if someone was to set fire to them.


Reagan gives Mulroney some instruction, and Mulroney replies, "Yes, sir." WTF? Ron says jump, you say "How High?" Mulroney was the duly-elected leader of a sovereign nation, and he's kissing Ron's ass?

Perhaps Mr. Mulroney was just well trained in etiquette and diplomacy? I use "sir" and "ma'am" all the time. It's just polite.
posted by dejah420 at 12:42 PM on February 25, 2005

"U.S. officials have indicated they didn't really need Canada's help, but would have appreciated political support from their neighbour as they attempted to sell the plan abroad."

Does this mean they just wanted to add Canada to their "coalition of the willing"? We could join Poland, and Uzbekistan! During Martin's election campaign he repeatedly stated that he opposed "the weaponization of space." I'm surprised he took so long wavering over this. He would have been bounced in a hurry if he'd broken that promise.
posted by jmcnally at 1:14 PM on February 25, 2005

Has Canada ever had a truly stupid Prime Minister? Have we had any comparable to Bush II or Reagan?

There's a good case to be made for Diefenbaker, thou he certinaly has his defenders, and I say this as one who's family comes from Saskatoon. Deef was the guy who killed the Arrow and did much damage to our industrial capacity. He knew how to say no to good ideas and that's about all. The contrast between him and, say Pearson is striking.

King was, like Cretein, a supremely good politician, careful to avoid debilitating scandal, interested mostly in his own survival. Hardly our worst, but neither our best.
posted by bonehead at 3:32 PM on February 25, 2005

"No confirmed deaths or injuries have been attributed directly to the Patriot." - joaquim

What about the British Tornado crew last year?
posted by Lebannen at 10:18 AM on February 26, 2005

Perhaps Mr. Mulroney was just well trained in etiquette and diplomacy? I use "sir" and "ma'am" all the time. It's just polite.

Not in this instance dejah. I remember a joke t r a c y used to tell back then: What's blue and white* and hangs between Ronald Reagan's legs? Brian Mulroney's tie.
*blue & white are the conservative party of canada's colours

There's a good case to be made for Diefenbaker,

Diefenbaker wasn't stupid, he was angry, cruel, and spiteful. Typical conservative traits (besides raging alcoholism), as displayed by Deef, Mulroney, and provincially by any number of that party's premiers over the years.

Celluci can go fuck himself. I met him late last year and had the great pleasure of witnessing my godmother refuse to shake his hand and then tell him he was a poor excuse for an ambassador.
posted by zarah at 10:52 AM on February 26, 2005

U.S. must not intrude on Canadian airspace: Martin
posted by amberglow at 7:38 PM on February 26, 2005

ralphyk:Because of bad weather. The missile test was put off because of bad weather. Yup, worth every penny. Just don't attack us if it's raining, okay? You promise, don't you? Huh?

Actually this is good engineering practice for intial testing in two ways. It's a lot easier to observe the test if it's not taking place in bad weather conditions and it reduces the variables if the test fails. So in this case we know that the test didn't fail because the antimissle was rained on or had trouble seeing through clouds or any other bad weather related reasons. Once you can successfully launch under ideal conditions is the time to start testing while conditions are less than ideal.
posted by Mitheral at 9:01 AM on March 11, 2005