counterSpin
 
Carol Off
This season counterSpin welcomes the return of Carol Off as the host of CBC Newsworld's flagship debate show.
Contact Info

Email:
feedback@counterspin.tv
Telephone:
+1 (416) 907-5089
Fax:
+1 (416) 504-0329

Postal:
counterSpin
P.O. Box 53 Station B
Toronto, ON
M5T 2T2
Audience Info


Enter your email address to be informed of opportunities to be in the audience:
Credits

Host
Carol Off

Guest Host
Adrian Harewood

Executive Producer
Paul Jay

Senior Producer
Pedro Sanchez

Researcher/Producer
Colman Jones

Audience Producer
Audrey Huntley

Visual Producer
Joe Keenan

Audience Assistant
Rebeka Tabobondung

Editorial Interns
Emmy Pantin; Idil Mussa

Business Manager
Marilyn Ryan

Director
Don Reynolds






Program Archive
MISSILE DEFENCE AND CANADA-US RELATIONS
Wednesday, January 21, 2004.
Paul Martin’s government sent a formal letter to Washington saying Canada is ready to negotiate an agreement on the missile defence system. Canada’s Defence Minister David Pratt says he wants Canada to have the closest possible involvement in the program. The missile defence system is meant to shield North America from incoming missiles launched by what the US administration refers to as "rogue states." But is this the real objective behind installing such a system? Will it lead to the eventual weaponization of space? And, is Canada’s recent involvement more about business interests and improving our relationship with the US, than it is about our own defence? counterSpin debates the pros and cons of the missile defence system and what it really means for Canada-US relations.

Watch this episode Online! Part One, Two, Three, Four, in rm format.

 

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
MISSILE DEFENCE AND CANADA-US RELATIONS
Wednesday, January 21, 2004.
| Login/Create an Account | Top |84 comments
Threshold:
If you want to make a comment regarding this episode, please click this button --->
These dicussions are moderated: Abusive, racist, sexist, or otherwise inflammatory language will be removed without warning.
Bloody Ridiculous!
by Crammed on Friday January 16, @10:45AM (#4629)
User #349 Info
Way to go CS 3....another "let's bash America show". This is getting to be silly.
But is this the real objective behind installing such a system?
What's with the cynicism?
Will it lead to the eventual weaponization of space?
So what if it does? What's the difference between having a weapon is space and having it in France?

Weapons will eventually be placed in Space. That's just a fact, if it hasn't already happened. And, if Iran is going to be building space vehicles, they plan to do so within 18 months, we have to ask ourselves some tough questions. Who do we want to have space weapons first, Iran, China, North Korea, Osama?
And, is Canada’s recent involvement more about business interests and improving our relationship with the US, than it is about our own defence?
These aren't really separate. Improving our relationship with the USA does improve our defence. Unless Canadians are willing to put the billions of dollars into our military that we would need to be entirely self-sufficent, we need the USA to help protect us. And, if anti-missile missiles are going to be flying over Canada, shouldn't we be involved? Afterall, the shield will be protescting us as well.

And, it will probably also help the Israeli economy because they have already developed advanced anti-ballistic missile systems. Suck on that one Jojo!
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
What???
by H-Bomb on Saturday January 17, @10:04PM (#4649)
User #1705 Info
Defence????

From who? Who the hell is going to launch a ballistic missle, tipped with a nuke, at the States? You'd have to be more mentally retarded then Crammed...if that's possible. Christ the States has what a million nukes? enough to blow up the universe a million times or some such shit. Who the hell is going to attack them when that's the retaliation? NO GODDAMN ONE. That's who. The shield my friends is so the States can attack ANYONE they want without the threat of an equivalent reponse.
Do you honestly think Bush would have invaded Iraq if Iraq actually did have nukes it could launch at New York in response? Invade Iraq (to liberate them) and have New York turned to atoms...LOL yah right. God you really do have to be naive to believe all this BS coming from the US.

But then again maybe it's just me...LOLOLOL.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
the big hammer in the sky
by paul on Monday January 19, @07:04PM (#4659)
User #1864 Info
Sounds exciting. Like a new stary constilation waiting to pound the livin daylights out of anybody that pisses off the Bush administration
but does it work this nasty missle defence thing in the sky. Check out the interview with Franklin Chuck Spinney on Bill Moyers PBS show "NOW". Its in the achives. The date was 12.05.03 I believe but you could probably just punch in Chuck's name in the search on the PBS web site. Its sounds by this interview that missle defence system is similar to the patriot missles that didn't work very well at knocking them SCUDs out of the sky that Saddam fired off. It also seems that this M.D.S is just a way of making some big bucks for a few lucky companys that rely on weapons manufacturing as way of getting rich. War is Business I suppose and apparently its big business in the U.S. Anyway I'd hate to have this missle go off by mistake. Who knows, some sneaky terrorist might find a way off getting control of it and smokin us good.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
LET US ...make a pledge
by Sal Greco on Tuesday January 20, @03:36PM (#4660)
User #1865 Info
LET US …

Yes, let us improve Canada’s relations with the United States of America.

Let us also improve our relations with the people of all other countries, and if one is at the expense of another, then we have not come to suitable relations.

Let us defend ourselves against aggression, but not aggressively threaten others. (Let us not be so naive to believe that by threatening no one, no one will threaten us).

If the proposed Defense System is to be what it claims, let it pass the scrutiny of international weapons inspectors. (Let there be no “weapons of mass destruction” along with the defense materials). Let Canada have as a clause that it will participate in such a relationship with the US, to the extent that these conditions are met.

Let us be accountable to international law for any acts of violence committed by us, and try solely by international law, anyone who commits any human rights violation against us. (Let us be signatory and encourage other countries to sign on to an agreement which would pass on the responsibility for prosecuting all violent crimes, to an international body such as the United Nations, for they are crimes against all of humanity, and should not seek the refuge of corrupt governing bodies within nationalistic or even “cultural” boundaries).

Let us defend the rights of others, mostly by not threatening the rights of others, and by agreeing not to look the other way when the rights of others are threatened. Let us be fair in all transactions, and take interest in the welfare of others, for when we do, others will have reason to be interested in our welfare. (Remember that when we have acted in a way which we would like others to act with us, we have made the world a better place immediately, for others, who will come to appreciate the fairness in the world). Therefore, let us be careful not to equate Capitalism with Democracy, for they are not one and the same, and capitalism requires imposed limitations to ensure that profit is not made at the harmful expense of others.

Let us take interest and hold our elected officials responsible to our wishes, not allow them to vote for us in our ignorance and absence, for they have agreed to be responsible to us, and are totally accountable. Let us remove the loopholes here and there which effectively lessen their accountability to us.

Let us ensure that all elections are managed by international bodies without prejudice or a vested interest in the outcome of an election. Let us remember that any person who was not elected fairly, cannot claim to represent the will of the people, and should not be trusted to have the best interests of the people at heart. Let us also acknowledge that when a leader acts contrary to the basic wishes of the people, he or she is in violation of international law.

Sal Greco salgreco@ryerson.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
BMD and what Canada should be doing.........
by masterD on Wednesday January 21, @06:49PM (#4674)
User #1867 Info | Last Journal: Wednesday January 21, @06:47PM
Ballistic Missile Defence is about improving our ability to defend ourselves...is that not worthwhile? Canada is an important part of the US gameplan to defend north america. No one should question whether we should be a part of the BMD plan, we already are. Remember NORAD? If anyone would take the time and sit down to read what we signed up to in the NORAD agreement, what it covers, who the players are, and what it was designed to do, then they would not question BMD. Canada should only be proud of its committment to NORAD - during 9/11 it was Canadian Colonels and Generals that were at the helm of NORAD's defence systems. Our solid committment to NORAD should not go unnoticed, and now is the right time to set new goals. Look at the outdated web of radar systems we have in the Canadian North; this Early Warning System protected North America for years against imminent attack from the former Soviet Union. Now, the threat has changed and so should we not change our posture as well? We need to update our aging defence equipment and BMD is part of that. We should be part of BMD as this is the future of how wars may one day be fought. We should be part of this venture since we are an integral part of the North American defence team. Canada can contribute a significant part to BMD in terms of technology as well. Canada is a world leader in Radar Systems, spectral signatures and sensor technology and we can play a really active role in making BMD a REALITY. We should grasp this opportunity to be part of this venture; it is part of out duty to protect our soveriegnty. Maybe a compromise can be made in that the Canadian Gov't can pledge to play a passive role instead (by choosing only to work on the non-missile part of the BMD systems) while still reaping the benefits of being an active member of this new defence system. Its about time we stand up and re-affirm our committment to defence by contributing our knowledge base, know how and expertise to this venture. Let us not forget the enormous price we have paid to secure the freedoms we hold and value today. Let us invest in securing it for tomorrow as well.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Bloody Ridiculous!
by jocko on Thursday January 22, @07:11AM (#4676)
User #1871 Info
Missile defence is fine, as long as they get ride of their missile offence! (Having ~9000 deployed nuclear weapons is ridiculous!)
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Let me off this Bush-league ride
by Nicolai on Thursday January 22, @10:37AM (#4680)
User #1872 Info
The USA plans to secure its position in the world as THE global leader. Don't believe me? Check out this link;

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

This missle defence system is step one of many that are intended to assure this conclusion.

I don't want to be a part of a society that accepts unilateral action when global opposition exists. Further, there is no need to use ICBM's against America in order to destroy it. These days, a single domestic car bomb is enough to create national panic and economic collapse.

The central ideas of American existence are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Add to this the "American dream" (translation: wealth, fame, power) and you have a government willing to act every way necessary to preserve this lifestyle.

I don't seek wealth, fame nor power. What I want are the central ideas of Canadian existance; "peace, order, and good government." (good = responsible). My responsible government will think globally and act locally.

I'd rather see Canada commit billions to ensuring an international state (read: United Nations) where numerous countries dictate policy, rather than further the structure of a one-nation police state.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Anti-americanism
by jojo on Thursday January 22, @02:36PM (#4685)
User #1677 Info
For those who think nothing good ever come out of the US, you should check "The Daily Show". The best darn TeeVee news program from the US.

Go to:

The Daily Show [comedycentral.com]

And click on the picture of the dumb guy.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
missle defence
by gumpy on Sunday January 25, @09:42AM (#4701)
User #1879 Info
Interesting how objection to US policies and ideals is immediately translated into US bashing.
Whatever happened to defence by non-aggressive policies such as arms reduction versus arms build-up. Case in point is the quantity of deaths from gun shots in Canada versus the US where more guns are better.
Of course anti star wars plans are bad for big business therefore bad for Bush. Oops here we go again.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
openflows.org
Help and Information About this Site