Did Bush question Canada's need for defense?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around former President Bush's comments regarding Canada's defense needs and the implications of U.S. military support for Canada. Participants explore the political, economic, and military aspects of this relationship, including the missile defense system and NORAD. The conversation touches on national sovereignty, military expenditure, and differing perceptions of defense responsibilities.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference Bush's comments questioning the rationale behind U.S. defense spending for Canada, suggesting it may not be necessary.
  • Others argue that Canada is capable of defending itself and criticize the U.S. for its perceived overreach in military matters.
  • There are claims that the U.S. should not be financially responsible for defending other countries, particularly in light of its own debt issues.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the actual threats to Canada, questioning who would attack Canada and the role of U.S. military presence.
  • Concerns are raised about the expansion of NORAD into a missile defense system, with some suggesting it could make Canada more vulnerable.
  • Participants express frustration with U.S. foreign policy and the implications for Canadian sovereignty, particularly in the context of historical military alliances.
  • There are mentions of differing political perspectives within Canada, particularly regarding the Liberal party and its stance on defense.
  • Some participants question the effectiveness of missile defense systems, citing reports of their limited capabilities.
  • Speculation arises about the potential economic benefits of missile defense initiatives, though this is met with skepticism regarding the motivations behind such programs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the necessity or implications of U.S. defense support for Canada. Disagreements persist regarding the effectiveness of military alliances and the perceived threats to Canadian sovereignty.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various political and military contexts, including historical alliances and current defense strategies, without resolving the complexities of these relationships. The discussion reflects a variety of assumptions about national security and defense responsibilities.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in U.S.-Canada relations, military defense policies, and political discourse surrounding national security may find this discussion relevant.

fourier jr
Messages
764
Reaction score
13
"(Bush) leaned across the table and said: 'I'm not taking this position, but some future president is going to say, Why are we paying to defend Canada?' " the official was quoted as saying.

"Most of our side was trying to explain the politics, how it was difficult to do," he said.

But Bush "waved his hands and remarked: 'I don't understand this. Are you saying that if you got up and said this is necessary for the defence of Canada, it wouldn't be accepted?' "

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050123/w012336.html

more ammo for the anti-bush forces in Canada (& maybe elsewhere) i guess...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that would be great. Canadians are so superiror to Americans, they could easily defend themselves, along with all the other countires that the US protects. I personally think that the US should not waste any money protecting other countries, especially with all this talk about how the US is in debt.

cbc.ca (same as first post) said:
Paul Cellucci, America's ambassador to Canada, said earlier this month that the U.S. is optimistic Canada will sign on to the missile defence plan before the end of March.
Good to see that Canada will sign on, and that Bush's threat may have worked.
 
Last edited:
you americans always seem to think you "defend" others but from whom? who is going to attack Canada? (if not the US itself)
 
Just because the odds of Canada getting attacked is slim, does not mean that protecting it is a bad idea. And it seems as though your Prime Minister would agree.
 
god, America has been getting more and more staunchy with it's claims, when did this "America protecting Canada" rhetoric start? You're not protecting anyone, NORAD was set up during the cold war to protect America AND Canada from the possibility against Russian Bombers and Missiles, you barely have any military bases in Canada, mainly radar stations and it would be a small step for Canada to be able to defend it's self against anyone who does want to invade them and has the naval logistics capability to do so.

So don't start thinking your doing us any favors, there are a good number of people in Canada who want NORAD disbanded and the Americans kicked out, especially after Iraq. What nerve.
 
In fact, last I heard you guys were trying to bully us into expanding NORAD into a missile defence system, allying with you is making us even more vulernable than if we hadn't signed on NORAD in the first place.
 
bloody hate you stupid neocons [/rant]
 
Smurf said:
bloody hate you stupid neocons [/rant]
neocons? Are you referring to your PM or some Canadian official? I thought your PM was a liberal. Personally, and this is coming from an someone who lives in the US, I do not think we are protecting Canada. And if we are, I think we should stop. Why waste money on Canadians when we need it here.

Also, this is the first time I had ever heard of the US protecting Canada.
 
neocons being the term referring to ultra right-wing hawkish politicians usually involved in some way with PNAC such as bush, wolfowitz, cheney, ect.

and our PM is indeed a member of the Liberal party, wether or not they're 'liberal' is open to debate. In comparison to the US our Conservatives are 'liberal' but in comparison to Europe our "socialists" (NDP Party) are conservative
 
  • #10
Are you guys talking about that missile defense system which doesn't even leave the silo during a test ?
Read the ironic news reports on "what's new" from the university of Maryland :smile:

http://www.aps.org/WN/WN05/wn011405.cfm
 
  • #11
*chuckle chuckle*
 
  • #12
I'm not much for conspiracy theory, but this is an interesting statement:
"They say they may never publicly declare when the shield is fully ready."

I've often wondered if certain programs, like the ABMS, are already complete, and this all a front.
 
  • #13
Building missile defence will certainly boost the economy in the defence sector! Net flow of $ : Canada -> US.

Gruman stocks anyone?

Oh that's right, freedom is what Bush is concerned about, sorry about that.
 

Similar threads

News Is the Nuclear Arms Race Making a Comeback?
  • · Replies 153 ·
6
Replies
153
Views
15K
News Bush Arrested in Canada for War Crimes
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
News Can you spare a dime for the Bush Library?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
News Was George W. Bush's Response to 9/11 Justified?
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
15K
News Is Iran Next on Bush's Military Agenda?
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
8K
News Laptops Stolen From Bush Campaign Office
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Bush caught staging meeting with troops
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
9K
News Stop "Fox News North" - Avaaz.org 21M Global Campaign Network
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K
News Is George Bush Misusing Taxpayer Money for His Re-Election Campaign?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K