And now: Syria

[Chaerophon]

Occhi, no offense, but you seem to be granting Canada a great deal more 'independance' and 'sovereignty', particularly regarding national defence, than is warranted regarding the nature of our relationship with the United States.

He ignores the relationship of the past 100 years, and NATO. In short, his assertion that the US is, or has in his lifetime been a security threat to Canada is pure bullsh**.

Canada will do as Canada thinks best, of course, and so Canada should always.

The Cold War provided an excellent opportunity for the United States to demonstrate just how far our 'sovereignty' reached. At that time, we actually possessed a military worth speaking of, demonstrable through our navy, standing army, and the development of such projects as the 'Avro Arrow' and other such state-of-the-art military technologies. The fact that we scrapped that plan, and, with the arrival of Lester Pearson, began a project of diminishing our armed forces, focussing instead almost exclusively upon "Peace Keeping", has little to do with a 'national agenda' and very much to do with the fact that, regardless of our own desires, America will control the continent in terms of defense. Diefenbaker refuses to arm nuclear warheads in Canada? The American machine rolls over him like yesterday's news. Media scorn him to an unprecedented extent (despite initial Canadian support for the plan), Kennedy publicly denounces him, and the FBI funds a part of the opposition's campaign. Pearson had previously been against such measures, but with his election, which boasted American support, he suddenly changed policy, and allowed the Americans free reign on our turf. I wonder why? It's not because he agreed with arming Canada for the conflict, he had passionately spoke against it just a couple of years earlier. Kennedy was happy, all of a sudden we were "friends" again, and we were "free" to do as we saw fit. Were the Russians going to attack us? Doubtful. Would the effects of shooting down a nuclear missile fall on our side of the border? Yup. Furthermore, does arming nuclear weapons in our country make us primary contributors in a war in which we would have been no better than secondary targets, if targets at all? Uh huh.

If this isn't a security threat, it certainly isn't an act of "friendship" either, nor does it permit us the sort of "sovereignty" to which we are supposedly entitled. Thus, we disassemble our military and let the Americans take control of continental defense. Sure, we've got lots of money to spend elsewhere, but to my mind, this event speaks volumes as to how "friendly" we really are, and just how secure Canadian interests are when faced with American opposition.