Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. says it would fire missiles over Canada
CNews ^ | February 28, 2004 | ALEXANDER PANETTA

Posted on 02/27/2005 7:43:56 PM PST by RWR8189

OTTAWA -- The United States will decide when to fire missiles over Canadian airspace whether Canada likes it or not, says America's ambassador. The blunt warning from Paul Cellucci came minutes after Prime Minister Paul Martin announced yesterday that he will not sign on to the controversial U.S. missile defence program.

"We will deploy. We will defend North America," Cellucci said.

"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 toward Canada."

The warning was no slip of the tongue -- Cellucci repeated several times that Canada's decision had handed over some of its sovereignty to the U.S.

Cellucci said he understands the political issues that made it difficult for Martin's minority government to endorse an unpopular American plan. Polls have suggested most Canadians oppose the project and Martin might even have faced a revolt within his own Liberal caucus.

While the Conservatives support missile defence, the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and many Liberals oppose it.

News of Canada's decision quickly appeared on news websites around the world. Many countries oppose the American plan. Opponents argue the scheme could trigger a new arms race, question why it's necessary in a post-Cold War climate, and note that the anti-missile technology is unproven.

Supporters of the program contend Canada will sit on the sidelines without any say over how the system is used, without any access to billions in related research contracts, and without any political credit from Washington.

Yesterday's announcement by Ottawa completes a slow retreat for Martin, who expressed support for the project last year in his early days in office, then qualified his support, and finally fell almost silent on the issue.

Martin insisted Canadian sovereignty remains intact.

"Canada is a sovereign nation," he said, "and we would expect and insist on being consulted on any intrusion into our space."

But critics scoffed at that, saying it's unrealistic to expect the U.S. to phone Ottawa before shooting down a high-speed missile.

Martin's own foreign minister acknowledged that reality.

"Would it have been otherwise?" Pierre Pettigrew replied when asked whether Canada's refusal means the final say now belongs to the U.S.

"Listen, the command of making a decision within eight minutes is a very, very rapid one anyway."

Pettigrew said Canada's decision is based on sound policy principles rather than emotion. But members of the same Liberal government have said privately that the announcement has more to do with politics than principle.

Pettigrew said he told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of Canada's intentions Tuesday at the NATO summit in Belgium, and phone calls quickly went out to Cellucci and U.S. deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

Martin personally informed Cellucci by telephone and also planned to speak with U.S. President George W. Bush.

The prime minister insisted the move won't hurt bilateral relations.

"Canada and the United States remain one another's staunchest allies and closest friends," Martin said.

He said Canada remains deeply committed to security, noting the $13 billion in new military funding announced in Wednesday's federal budget.

Instead of joining missile defence, Canada will work on border security, reinforcing coastal and Arctic sovereignty and expanding the military.

Neither Martin nor Pettigrew explained precisely why they disagree with missile defence or how the decision changes Canada's role in continental defence on a practical level.

Canadian soldiers are already part of the Colorado-based Norad program that monitors the skies for incoming missiles and will continue on in that role.

The NDP immediately applauded Martin's decision, but leader Jack Layton said the prime minister clearly would have preferred to involve Canada.

"Absolutely everybody knows that if we had a majority government in the last election we would be in Star Wars all the way," Layton said.

Now what we have is a half-way picture where we are half-way in and half-way out and nobody can figure out the dithering on this one."

Martin had promised a new era of Canada-U.S. relations after bitter divisions over the war in Iraq. But U.S. officials warned it would be an inauspicious start if Canada refused to join the missile plan.

They privately expressed befuddlement, frustration and even mild amusement with how long it took for Martin to make an announcement.

Bush raised the issue repeatedly during a trip to Canada late last year and, against all expectations, publicly prodded Martin for support while the prime minister sat by his side.

The waiting game became increasingly untenable in recent days.

The Conservatives had not budged from their silence on the issue in an attempt to isolate the government, and the Liberals also faced a bruising battle over missile defence at their March convention.


TOPICS: Canada; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bush43; canada; cellucci; martin; missiledefense; nuclearwar; paulcellucci; paulmartin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

1 posted on 02/27/2005 7:44:00 PM PST by RWR8189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Hosers!


2 posted on 02/27/2005 7:45:31 PM PST by Incorrigible (immanentizing the eschaton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible

LOL....take off,eh


3 posted on 02/27/2005 7:46:42 PM PST by kingattax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

missle aye over aye canada aye?


4 posted on 02/27/2005 7:46:54 PM PST by leadpencil1 ("The real problem is not that you have no privacy. It’s that you have no power.” - Whitfield Diffie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
Take off, eh!!


5 posted on 02/27/2005 7:48:45 PM PST by Hodar (With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Opponents argue the scheme could trigger a new arms race

Triggered by nations seeking to do us harm.

6 posted on 02/27/2005 7:48:52 PM PST by garybob (More sweat in training, less blood in combat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

I said "lunch" you hosehead, not "launch!"

7 posted on 02/27/2005 7:49:56 PM PST by airborne (Dear Lord, please be with my family in Iraq. Keep them close to You and safely in Your arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

8 posted on 02/27/2005 7:50:14 PM PST by m3d1um
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leadpencil1

if the US govt could fix the NHL problem, the canucks would let us fire rosie o'donnell over canada if we wanted to


9 posted on 02/27/2005 7:50:26 PM PST by kingattax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: garybob

We can shoot missiles into their airspace, and if they like, they can shoot them down.


10 posted on 02/27/2005 7:50:39 PM PST by Ethrane ("semper consolar")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Incorrigible
But members of the same Liberal government have said privately that the announcement has more to do with politics than principle.

Gee, ya think. What an incredibly short-sighted and pointless gesture it was on the part of Martin.

Perhaps we should inquire of the knucks just how, exactly, they intend to prevent us from violating their air space with an anti-ballistic missile? Have they developed an anti-anti-ballistic missile? I think not.

I'm tempted to say to the US command: if the missile's target is Toronto, hold your fire.

11 posted on 02/27/2005 7:50:48 PM PST by lafroste (gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189; xzins
"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 toward Canada."

It is Obvious that, Sharia-Laws,....al-Canada expects to 'see' a Nuclear War!

/'Swiss' non-interventions

Canada,....an al-Qaeda bank?

12 posted on 02/27/2005 7:51:19 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: m3d1um

OK,so like we will let you hosers shoot missiles over toronto for all the free moosehead beers we want, eh.

13 posted on 02/27/2005 7:54:59 PM PST by kingattax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Canada is so 9/10.


14 posted on 02/27/2005 7:55:48 PM PST by reagan_fanatic ("Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence" - R. Kirk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
It's more obvious now that we sent an Ambassador who can better flame communicate with the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and many Liberals.
15 posted on 02/27/2005 7:55:56 PM PST by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

""We will deploy. We will defend North America," Cellucci said."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 toward Canada."The warning was no slip of the tongue -- Cellucci repeated several times that Canada's decision had handed over some of its sovereignty to the U.S."

I think thats great. Makes me laugh..Ah, I love America.


16 posted on 02/27/2005 7:56:00 PM PST by kanecorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

So, does Canada announce it will develope a anti-anti-missile program to shoot down US anti-missile missiles? Does Cananda have a anti-anti-anti-missile gap??? Paging Doctor Strangelover Martin of Frogs.

Canada, goofy as only Canadian idjit politicians can be.


17 posted on 02/27/2005 7:58:17 PM PST by Ursus arctos horribilis ("It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ethrane
We can shoot missiles into their airspace, and if they like, they can shoot them down.

With what, hockey pucks?

Too bad our anti-missle technology doesn't give us the option of shortening an incoming's trajectory, as opposed to destruction.

18 posted on 02/27/2005 7:58:26 PM PST by Navy Patriot (I'm gonna hear it for this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

If we can detect that the missile will land in Toronto, then no interference will be required. Boom!

Well there you go there then, eh?


19 posted on 02/27/2005 8:00:16 PM PST by Uncle Miltie (Democrat Obstructionists will be Daschled!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot
"With what, hockey pucks?"

Well, that might be an option if the NHL were is session.

God, I miss hockey...

20 posted on 02/27/2005 8:03:55 PM PST by Ethrane ("semper consolar")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson