Monday, September 17, 2007

Canada's New Policy: No Nukes If Necessary, But Not Necessarily No Nukes

This Week's Embassy Magazine picks up on a surreptitious edit to the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Website (changes in bold):

Canada has long held a policy objective of non-proliferation, reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. We pursue this aim steadily, persistently and energetically, consistent with our membership in NATO and NORAD and in a manner sensitive to the broader international security context.

As the editorial notes, this change "strips Canada's policy of any real meaning. ", and I would add that it makes our nuclear policy hostage to that of our NATO allies, esp. the United States, who may be preparing to let the bunker-busters fall like rain over Iran.


Anonymous said...

"I'm siiiinging in the rain, . . . "

Anonymous said...

What else would you expect from a left-wing rag?

Snerd Gronk said...

Mr. Big: "... it makes our nuclear policy hostage to that of our NATO allies, esp. the United States, who may be preparing to let the bunker-busters fall like rain over Iran.

SG: Just wondering ... The Iran you refer to that seems 'aboot' to receive WMD for having allegedly pursued WMD, as well as for pursuing the regional advantages provided them by Bush's 'Wa(R)-for-Oil-f(R)eedumb' policy ... Is that the Iran beside the Iraq, that Harper would have had 'us' mired down in?


Anonymous said...

Gee could that be related to GNEP?

"...The initiative, called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, proposes that nuclear energy-using countries and uranium-exporting countries band together in a new nuclear club to promote and safeguard the industry.

Central to the plan is a proposal that all used nuclear fuel be repatriated to the original uranium exporting country for disposal..."

Sorry about the long url. You can find lots about GNEP by googling it, and funny thing, it's the lefty sites which tend to follow and make sense of this serious issue, not the poll-obsessed Liberal political wonks or the dimwitted cons.

Anonymous said...

Like the old saying, I'd rather have a gun and not need it.

Anonymous said...

How many times a day do you type out


Must be hundreds of times.

And why is Greenspan clarifying his Iraq war/oil comment? Is he saying the MSM reported his comments out of context to fit their agenda? Will we see their correction all over the media as we did the initial mis-reporting?

Oh, I forgot. There is no Liberal bias in the media. I'm such a silly paleo-con.

Snerd Gronk said...

Anon-an-on: "... I'd rather have a gun and not need it."

SG: What (R)eally handy about that simplicity is, 'Need is NEVER created by available tools'. AND so we'd never get a Rumfeld saying we should bomb Iraq, not Afghanistan, because Iraq was more target rich!


Anonymous said...

Canada is practically the US anyhow.

bigcitylib said...


Practically, except we have no guns, no George W., free health care, and hot blonde Frenchy chicks like Mitsou.

Deal with it.

Ti-Guy said...

...and public education, don't forget that one.

Anonymous said...

Polar bears and baby seals also.

Anonymous said...

SG: 'Need is NEVER created by available tools'.

That's correct, but you're totally off base in applying it as you did.

If all you have is a hammer, everything problem is a nail. The more tools you have, the more problems you can solve properly.

To carry the analogy, having a gun doesn't create the need to use it - being confronted by a robber, thief, rapists, carjacker, etc. creates the need. You leftards are the only ones who think the best solution to a problem is to not have any tools to deal with it.