Canada Free Press -- ARCHIVES

Because without America, there is no free world.

Return to Canada Free Press

Continental missile defense program

Ballistic Missile Defense: No-Dong makes it necessary

by Klaus Rohrich
Friday, July 7, 2006

For all the sob sisters, like the NDP's comedy duo Cheech and Chow, world events as usual are finding them on the wrong side of yet another issue. You may recall Jack Layton's hysterical ranting about the "weaponization of space" when he opposed Canada's participation in a continental missile defense program. It appears that North Korea's testing of the No-Dong ICBM has rendered Mr. Layton's No-Way No-good.

But then, rocket science isn't necessarily the Left's forte, as their opposition to a North american missile shield program is based more on their ability to formulate thoughts through their gonads than their brains. It was all about hating the americans and making sure that we Canadians didn't collude with them in their evil scheme to keep themselves safe. But that's what democracy is all about, being able to demagogue an issue to maintain an appearance of ideological purity and in the process maybe pick up a few votes.

However, now that North Korea's strong man, Kim Jong Il, has started lobbing missiles all over the Sea of Japan and aiming some of them into the general direction of North america, that missile defense shield looks a hell of a lot more attractive than Jack Layton's platitudes. Imagine if you will, that Kim decides he's had enough of George W. Bush's talk about axis of Evil and lobs a number of his No-Dongs at Los angeles or Seattle. Given their performance this last week, it's very likely that the No-Dongs will go ding-dong in the suburbs of Vancouver or Nanaimo, rather than Los angeles.

Imagine the look on Jumpin' Jack's face as he finds out that Vancouver is now a radioactive crater with a nuke that was intended for San Francisco and the missile that delivered that nuke could have been shot down if we'd been party to that anti-missile defense shield.

Hating the americans is a popular pastime in much of the world. I don't know if it's because of envy or a feeling of inferiority or both, but whatever the reason, people love to hate the States. People would also love to see the U.S. unprepared and defenseless against an ICBM attack launched by some deranged nation's leader whose grasp on reality is, um... less than solid. But Canadians can't really afford that luxury, as any successful attack on the North american mainland will affect us whether we are a party to the aMB shield or not. We need to take a realistic view of our position vis-a-vis our closest trading partner and resolve to participate in the continental defense program, no matter what the political risks.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's comments in Washington this week about Canada not likely participating in North american missile shield is an example of moral cowardice one would expect from someone as unprincipled as Jean Chrtien or Paul Martin, not from a Prime Minister who prides himself in doing the right thing. Harper's announcement, it appears, is because of his relatively weak position domestically, given that his government is very fragile. But it's likely that Harper is stronger today than he might be in November when the Liberals elect a new leader, for whom the parliamentary press gallery will immediately form a cheering section.

Maintaining that Canada will continue to opt out of the missile defense program is opportunistic, if not cowardly, particularly in light of recent world events. The Canadian electorate, perhaps with the exception of the kool-aid drinkers in Toronto, realizes the necessity of a program that would give us a chance to destroy a missile headed toward Canada in flight. It's difficult to understand why our Prime Minister does not.


Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement