Say Anything Blog

Look, Star Wars won’t work.  The Canadians know this, our scientists know this--the old Soviet Union knows this.

Even GEN Daniel Graham (the father of SDI) has said that in the most optimistic scenario--SDI would be, at best, 90% effective.  Well, right now, our best case scenario is probably well under 10% effective.

The Candian statement came in response to our knucklehead ambassador saying the US wouldn’t respect Canada’s airspace.

The Bush administration is arrogant enough to think that it can violate a sovereign state’s national borders at will.

Sometimes those Bush-Hitler comparisons don’t appear so far-fetched.

Rob,

Given the overall failure rate of this boondoggle and general waste of money, its not surprising that the Canadians would want to press their claims of sovereignty.  After all, if they were attacked, they would have to worry not only about the nuclear weapon but also an errant ABM.

Its interesting how conservatives won’t fall into one variety of junk science (e.g., climate change, the “hormone mimics” myth, etc.) but will fall into another variety (e.g., SDI, creationism, etc.).  Of course the same can be said of liberals.

Jadegold,

The Bush administration is arrogant enough to think that it can violate a sovereign state’s national borders at will.

Rob:  You miss the point.  Our ambassador essentially told Canada we wouldn’t respect their airspace; that’s arrogant beyond belief if we said it to a hostile nation.  It’s worse that we told this to an ally and a neighbor.

You know, there are some in Canada who think SDI is a swell idea and want Canada to participate.  But when you have the US ambassador telling them--in essence--we’re going to as we please with your sovreignty, well, you’ve probably lost a few supporters.

Do you two ever bother to read an entire post before you begin your knee-jerk reactions?

I’m no supporter of SDI (if you’d clicked through on the link above you’d know that), though I do think that a strategic defense system for incoming missiles is something we should do.  Its just that the current system doesn’t show any signs of working.

My comment was that it is unfortunate that Canada won’t even allow America to shoot down missiles in defense of their own country.  And that’s their decision to make, I just think its a stupid one.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Do you have a link to this ambassadors comments?  I am not aware of them.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2005/02/26/942993-sun.html

Thank you Jadegold, but I wonder how this statement:

“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.”

“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,” he said.

Is an anyway an indication that that America won’t respect Canada’s air space?  The ambassador is simply amazed that Canada would refuse this protection.

Now I understand Canada’s decision, certainly the program has major problems, but I think you’re mischaracterizing his statements just a bit.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Indeed, one has to ask, protect Canada from what?

The primary rationale for getting Canada on board isn’t to protect Canada as Canada is hihgly unlikely to be a target of such an attack.  The rationale is to protect the U.S.  The Canadian government realizes this and they realize that co-operation with the U.S on the matter makes them a target, especially if Canada were to offer the U.S. space in Canada for a facility.

The primary rationale for getting Canada on board isn’t to protect Canada as Canada is highly unlikely to be a target of such an attack.

Perhaps, but America is likely to be the target of such an attack.  And given that such an attack is likely to come from a crack-pot dictatorship like North Korea the chances are very, very high that Canada could be hit with a war head aimed at us.  Not to mention the fact that a major attack on the U.S., like a nuke, could have fallout for Canada...environmentally, economically, etc.

One would think that it would behoove Canada to cooperate, though as I stated before if I were them I’d wait and join in on a project that looks like it has a better chance of actually being useful.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I see.  So they should co-operate in a program that is likely to make them more of a target and is also wholly ineffective.  Yeah, that makes a lot of damn sense. 

Not to mention the fact that a major attack on the U.S., like a nuke, could have fallout for Canada…environmentally, economically, etc.

Which means, of course, that the U.S. can’t even protect itself, much less Canada. 

From all perspectives this is a lose-lose situation for the Canadians if they were opt on.  They made the wholly sensible decision and said piss off.

Rob,

Actually they are two-sides of the same issue.  If the current system doesn’t work, why should Canada accept the offer of false protection, when that false protection just paints Canada as a target?  They shouldn’t of course, and that’s where your line of thinking gets muddle-headed. 

Again, Canada rightly told the U.S. to piss off.  Indeed, it gains everything by doing so, since SDI is a worthless POS that would merely paint a big old target on Canada without providing Canada with even the slightest measure of security.  Hell, the U.S. acts like its handing out some wonderful gift here when its at best a waste of money and at worst a curse.

Rob,

I can’t help it if there are inconsistencies in your statements.  You castigate the Canadians for not going along with a program that you don’t believe in and act like their statements re: their air space present some real danger to the Canadians.  You seem to be of two-minds on the subject and all I am criticising one of those minds.

Gary, did you read this part of my comment:

though as I stated before if I were them I’d wait and join in on a project that looks like it has a better chance of actually being useful

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I don’t think I’m being inconsistent at all.  I agree with Canada that the current system will not work.  I don’t agree with their decision to prevent America from acting to protect North America in Canadian air space.

Two separate issues.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: