In Defense of Canada

I had a ton of comments today, and I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to put in their two cents. There were a couple of posts in particular that I'd like to address in greater detail, and both were regarding the Canadians and their defense of North America. I'll post them below.

Saith pony:

Although I found the warship comment amusing, I have to defend the Candaian's stand on not joining the US Star Wars program. Even though I'm fairly anti-war, I won't comment that way, since your site is obviously coming from a very different background. Strictly monetarily, it doesn't make sense for Canada to support a missile defense system that no one has made work. It doesn't work! it costs a fortune, and IT DOESN'T WORK. That's gotta at least make some sense to you...

Saith Sarah:

You know, Fly, I actually agree. If Canada's going to be benefitting from a missile defence shield, then yeah, we should maybe toss in some coin. There's just one problem:

WE CAN'T FUCKING AFFORD IT.

It's not our fault that the U.S. government is determined to go ahead with this project at this time. We've got other priorities that need attending to. You should be happy that the defence budget got expanded at all! Our health care system is already in shambles, education gets cut more and more every year, we're in debt, our military, while still very well trained and proficient, is under-funded, under-equipped, and too damn small... the list goes on and on. And now you want us to chip in on the missile defence shield? Sorry. No dice.

And by the way... the only thing that's wrong with the Canadian Military is that they're under equipped and small. They're among the best trained soldiers in the world, I've read.

Now, to address pony's concerns first, I'll start by pointing out that the ballistic missile defense program is not "Star Wars." The so-called "Star Wars" program was the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980's. This is somewhat different. As to "it doesn't work," there are all sorts of things that didn't work. America's space program took a couple of years to literally get off the ground because the rockets kept falling over, or blowing up, or whatever. If the basis of whether or not to pursue a new technology was whether or not it's been made to work yet, nothing would have ever been invented. The latest "failure" of the system didn't even have anything to do with the system itself, it was a ground-based error.

Besides, money isn't the only way to support development of this system.

As for Sarah's points. As I've said, I'm not looking for solely economic contributions, but that's really not the issue. You speak of other priorities, health care being the first one you mention. What does it say about a country when providing free health care for their citizens is more important to them than protecting their citizens from those who would seek to attack or invade? I'm not saying that anyone necessarily has their eye on Canada, but the fact of the matter is that people aren't looking to invade or attack Canada because they know that America would smite them.

Unfortunately, Canada's not the only example of this. America and only America built up a massive military capacity to protect the free world from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. France, West Germany, England, Canada, and other nations joined the fray, but relied on the military might of the United States to deter their enemies, all the while developing "progressive" social welfare programs.

I'll admit that ballistic missiles aren't the threat they once were, but with China and North Korea developing their weapons systems with every passing day, and former Soviet weapons stocks being guarded by increasingly mercenary guards, defensive measures against ballistic missiles are crucial. In addition, Canada, England, France, and all the rest should have real concerns about their nations being targets in the War on Terror. With the liberal social agendas of France, England, and Canada, isn't it a little bit naive to think that Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't attack if given the chance?

I can agree that Canada doesn't have the money to make big investments into the ballistic missile defense system. I think, however, that a country that would trade its ability to safeguard its own freedom for so-called "free" health care has some very skewed priorities. I value my liberties far more than I value medical coverage. The fact that Canada and the nations of Europe are willing to take America's pledge to stand by them in times of trial and use that pledge as a foundation for social welfare programs should offend both Americans and the citizens of those nations. Americans should feel betrayed at being taken advantage of, and Canadians, Brits, the French, et cetera, should be ashamed. (Mainly the French.)

Saith Plutarch:

The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.

Thus saith the Fly.