North American Relations

[Nurvingiel]

I didn't know we had a flag day... maybe I did and I just forgot being out of the country...

Thanks Val!

You can get a great Canadian flag wallpaper here.

And check out Falkland, BC, home of the largest Canadian flag:


Falkland flag

And last but not least:
Official Flag Day site

Okay one more: Flag Etiquette - don't mess with the flag.

[Nurvingiel]

JDs post in "What makes you thankful to live in a free country?" made me realize...

That's why it's the Bush Administration and not the Bush Government! Conversely, we would say the Martin Government. And our different systems are outlined. It all seems so obvious now...

I now understand the USA a little bit better.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

JDs post in "What makes you thankful to live in a free country?" made me realize...

That's why it's the Bush Administration and not the Bush Government! Conversely, we would say the Martin Government. And our different systems are outlined. It all seems so obvious now...

I now understand the USA a little bit better.

I think you may have it now. But the president's adminstration is only made up of him and his clsoe advisers (the people he appoints), such as the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Education, National Security Adviser, etc. Even they have to be approved by Congress though. So everyone, from Colin Powell (1st term) to Donald Rumsfield to Condaleeza Rice have to go before a Congressional hearing. These are the people who make up the Bush adminstration - and are his advisers and manage the various aspects of their departments. The succession of president (if he were to die or leave office) is determined by when each department was created. Homeland Security Department is the newest - so it would be the last position to fill the presidency (all the people in the other departments would have to be incapacitated for the Secretary of Homeland Security to take the presidency). Gerald Ford is the only president to never have been elected.

One thing about the president's administration that few people realize is with George Washington. He set the tone for all presidents to follow. In his first term - he felt it was important to surround himself with advisers of different view points. Based on his experience though during his 1st term - he said it made it very difficult to get things done, he changed his mind on that view. There was too much infighting and too many people trying to compete with him as the president (he and Jefferson did not get along too well). So in his second term, he surrounded him with people who had the same vision for the country as he did.

BTW - what did i exactly say that made you understand it better? I don't know what I said differently from the numerous other times I have tried explaining that the US government is NOT the politicians.

[Nurvingiel]

I'm not sure what you said exactly - it just clicked.

How did Gerald Ford become President?

How exactly are Senators elected? (I hope you haven't already said that... ) Do you have ridings like in Canada, or something else?

[EarthBound]

Impeachment.....Nixon, though he was pardoned by Ford immediately. Ford's library is in Grand Rapids Michigan, great place. Ford retired to a golf course in Palm Springs, CA. I visited the library in '97, worth it to visit for certain. Carter won the the next election.

[Valandil]

On how Ford became President without being elected:

Nixon was not actually impeached (which actually only means begin brought up on charges - being impeached doesn't remove you from the presidency), he resigned. How Ford was not elected is a longer story... you see, he wasn't on the ticket as Nixon's running mate in 1972.

Nixon's first Vice President was Spiro Agnew. He served the 1968-72 term and was on again as Nixon's 'running mate' for VP in 1972. The 'Watergate Scandal' broke into the news soon after that election, but meanwhile, Agnew got into trouble for income-tax evasion. He eventually resigned and Nixon picked Senator Gerald Ford to be his VP (which had to be approved - I think by the Senate itself).

Later - as the pressure built (and - not being Clinton ), Nixon resigned - I think about early fall of 1974. That made Ford the President (#38, I believe). Ford chose Nelson Rockefeller to be his VP... but when he ran again for President in 1976, his VP running mate was Bob Dole - the very same who ran unsuccessfully against Clinton in 1996! Ronald Reagan actually gave Ford a good run for his money in the primaries, but Ford won the Republican nomination - then lost to Jimmy Carter in the Election.

That's how Ford became President after not being elected... not being on the presidential ticket at all in 1972.

Did anyone answer how Senators are chosen? Each state has two and each Senate term is for six years. They are elected by their home state and the elections are staggered, such that a state elects either one or none every even-numbered year. So - approxiately one third of the Senate is elected at each election - and each state is voting for a Senator about two-thirds of the time in those bi-annual elections.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Valandil

On how Ford became President without being elected:

Nixon was not actually impeached (which actually only means begin brought up on charges - being impeached doesn't remove you from the presidency), he resigned. How Ford was not elected is a longer story... you see, he wasn't on the ticket as Nixon's running mate in 1972.

Nixon's first Vice President was Spiro Agnew. He served the 1968-72 term and was on again as Nixon's 'running mate' for VP in 1972. The 'Watergate Scandal' broke into the news soon after that election, but meanwhile, Agnew got into trouble for income-tax evasion. He eventually resigned and Nixon picked Senator Gerald Ford to be his VP (which had to be approved - I think by the Senate itself).

Later - as the pressure built (and - not being Clinton ), Nixon resigned - I think about early fall of 1974. That made Ford the President (#38, I believe). Ford chose Nelson Rockefeller to be his VP... but when he ran again for President in 1976, his VP running mate was Bob Dole - the very same who ran unsuccessfully against Clinton in 1996! Ronald Reagan actually gave Ford a good run for his money in the primaries, but Ford won the Republican nomination - then lost to Jimmy Carter in the Election.

That's how Ford became President after not being elected... not being on the presidential ticket at all in 1972.

Did anyone answer how Senators are chosen? Each state has two and each Senate term is for six years. They are elected by their home state and the elections are staggered, such that a state elects either one or none every even-numbered year. So - approxiately one third of the Senate is elected at each election - and each state is voting for a Senator about two-thirds of the time in those bi-annual elections.

I see my help isn't needed here.

I will add that Valandil is correct - Nixon was never impeached - however - Clinton was impeached. Impeachment occurs when the House votes that their is enough evidence against a sitting president to remove him from office. It then moves up to the Senate - where they determine whether the president should actually be removed. Clinton was impeached by the House, but the Senate voted against removing him from office. This is another example of our checks and balances. Nixon was never impeached because he resigned before the impeachment hearings ever started.

[jerseydevil]

Just to add about the election of senators. Initially in the consitution Senators were not elected directly by the citizens of the state - but by the state legislature. It was not until the XVII Amendment that the Senators were voted directly by the people of the state. It was initially felt during the Consitutional Convention that the people would elect the house of representatives and of course the state legislatures - these would be knownledgable people who would be able to make intelligent decisions on who would be best to elect to the higher offices. Hence it as up to the state legislatures to elect the "upper house" - the Senate. So there is another check that few people know about - and that is the check against the whim of the people.

I wonder if there would be greater turnover of senators if it went back to the state legislatures voting for senators. I don't like that so many senators stay in the senate for so long - they build a fiefdom around themselves. People have a habit of voting for familiarity which I don't think would be the case with the state legislatures voting. However - then we would run into another problem with people in the state legislature voting for people who were allies (but then again - that is partly the whole point of it all)

Side note: Arnold went to Washington DC to fight for getting more money from the federal government for California. He's complaining that for every dollar they put in they get back 79 cents. Well hell - for every $5,000 NJ gives to the damn federal government - we get back a damn lousy dollar. I hate the people who NJ elects - they're more worried about the national parks in the West then they are about what happens in NJ. Our representatives should be worrying about and REPRESENTING NJ - that is what they are there for.

[EarthBound]

What was Nixon Pardoned for then? Nixon resigned before he was impeached, so was there still a charge of some kind leveled at him? Just curious.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

What was Nixon Pardoned for then? Nixon resigned before he was impeached, so was there still a charge of some kind leveled at him? Just curious.

Yeah - for his involvement with Watergate and possile cover-ups. It just never went to the House for impeachment hearings though.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm not sure what you said exactly - it just clicked.

Well I'm glad it did. One down - 5 billion+ to go.

Do you have ridings like in Canada, or something else?

What are ridings?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

What was Nixon Pardoned for then? Nixon resigned before he was impeached, so was there still a charge of some kind leveled at him? Just curious.

I believe it was sort of a 'blanket pardon' for anything he might have done wrong or might be charged with. IIRC, it came from Ford the very next day or so.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I believe it was sort of a 'blanket pardon' for anything he might have done wrong or might be charged with. IIRC, it came from Ford the very next day or so.

Yeah - it basically was - because he still faced possible criminal charges after leaving office.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I'm glad it did. One down - 5 billion+ to go.

lol!

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

What are ridings?

Ridings (constituencies) are how we divide up voters under the Canadian system. I realize this was quite a national-centric way to ask...

There is one riding for every seat in the House of Commons, 307 in total. The divisions are based on population, so that each member represents roughly the same amount of people. (This doesn't always work though, especially in rural areas which end up with huge ridings, but we try.)

Provincial and National elections have different ridings.


EDIT: No riding (for the national elections) overlaps a provincial boundary. And... erm... I made some mistakes. Now corrected. In case anyone read my original post and was confused.

[jerseydevil]

Well I guess while we spend money on a missile defense system that I feel will ultimately work, Canada has opted out (or as the saying goes, will just enjoy the free ride). I mean come on, once it's built and operational, Canada will automatically be protected without having had to put anything into it. I heop if Canada is targeted by a north Korean nuclear warhead in the future that when we get an urgent call from the Canadian PM that we say "Okay, wire us 500 million dollars and we'll be happy to shoot it down for you." We did the research, we spent the money - if Canada wants to be protected and they have a nuclear weapon heading right for Vancouver, Toronoto or Quebec - I think they'll cough up the money quickly enough. They just think it won't happen because the Soviet Union, yet they seem to forget about China and possibly North Korea and Iran though.

Canada won't join missile defense shield
Thursday, February 24, 2005 Posted: 2:29 PM EST (1929 GMT)

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- Prime Minister Paul Martin said Thursday that Canada would opt out of the contentious U.S. missile defense program, a move that will further strain brittle relations between the neighbors but please Canadians who fear it could lead to an international arms race.

Martin, ending nearly two years of debate over whether Canada should participate in the development or operation of the multibillion-dollar program, said Ottawa would remain a close ally of Washington in the fight against global terrorism and continental security.

He said he intended to talk to President Bush later Thursday and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been informed of the decision earlier this week.

A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States had been informed beforehand of the decision, adding that Washington expects that cooperation with Canada will continue on a wide variety of issues.

Talking to reporters several minutes after his foreign minister first announced the move in the House of Commons, Martin said Canada would instead focus on strengthening its own military and defense in proposals laid out Wednesday in the federal budget.

"Canada recognizes the enormous burden that the United States shoulders, when it comes to international peace and security," Martin said. "The substantial increases made yesterday to our defense budget are a tangible indication that Canada intends to carry its full share of that responsibility."

The federal budget presented to the House of Commons calls for $10.5 billion in the next five years to increase the country's beleaguered armed forces -- including an additional 5,000 soldiers and 3,000 reservists -- the largest commitment to defense in two decades. It also called for another $807,950 to improve Canada's anti-terrorism efforts and security along the unarmed, 4,000-mile border with the United States.

When Bush visited Canada in December, he surprised Ottawa by making several unsolicited pitches for support of the defense shield, which is in the midst of testing interceptors capable of destroying incoming missiles targeted at North America.

Martin, who leads a tenuous minority government, has said Ottawa would not support what he called the "weaponization of space." Though he initially supported joining the program when he was a candidate for the Liberal leadership, Martin has retreated, since polls indicate that a majority of Canadians oppose it. Many believe that the umbrella, when fully implemented, could lead to an international arms race.

The Bush administration has tried to make a public show of understanding that Martin heads up a minority government that could fall over such a contentious debate.

But U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci told reporters Wednesday that he was perplexed over Canada's apparent decision to allow Washington to make the decision if a missile was headed toward its territory.

"Why would you want to give up sovereignty?" he said. "We don't get it. We think Canada would want to be in the room deciding what to do about an incoming missile that might be heading toward Canada."

"Canada recognizes the enormous burden that the United States shoulders, when it comes to international peace and security," Martin said. "The substantial increases made yesterday to our defense budget are a tangible indication that Canada intends to carry its full share of that responsibility."

To this I say, about frigging ass time. Sorry Nurv, one thing about Canada, as well as Europe, is that they don't feel the need to have a strong military because the US is always there to protect them. I feel it's about time that other countries start pulling their own weight instead of being armchair quarterbacks.

Interceptor missile hits test target
Thursday, February 24, 2005 Posted: 8:49 PM EST (0149 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An experimental naval interceptor shot down a short-range ballistic missile target during a test over the Pacific Ocean on Thursday, missile defense officials said.

It is the fifth kill in six tries for the interceptor, called a Standard Missile-3, said Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.

During the test, a target ballistic missile, similar to a Scud, was launched from the island of Kauai at 4 p.m. ET. The USS Lake Erie, a cruiser equipped with the Aegis radar system and stationed 100 miles offshore, tracked the ballistic missile and then fired the interceptor to shoot it down. Two minutes later, the missiles collided.

The SM-3 interceptor will be deployed on ships later this year, Lehner said.

Also involved in the test was the Aegis destroyer USS Russell, which tested some of its missile-tracking systems.

The SM-3 doesn't have the range of the experimental land-based national missile defenses located in Alaska and California, and it is envisioned for use in protecting allies or U.S. forces from short-range ballistic missiles launched over a body of water. Potential scenarios where it could see action include missiles fired by North Korea at Japan, or by China at Taiwan.

However, the tracking system on some naval vessels is designed to assist in hunting intercontinental ballistic missiles.

[Insidious Rex]

I dont think we can really fault them for not throwing money into the pit that is missile defense when we cant even get the damn things out of the silos. Some day it could work (if it hasn’t been made obsolete by then). But until then we cant really expect all our neighbors to give us cash to fund our crazy project that all their citizens find abhorrent.

Im beginning to think defense of our (few) sattelites that we rely on more and more every year is becoming much more important then knocking down every scud aimed toward our coasts. We have intelligence that has shown that certain world powers have been looking at sattelites as our achilles heal. take one or two of those out and its like blowing a tire. We would be seriously crippled for a while considering how much we rely on it. Terrorists have certainly been thinking about this approach as the silver bullet. the question is how they would get up there to get at em.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I guess while we spend money on a missile defense system that I feel will ultimately work, Canada has opted out (or as the saying goes, will just enjoy the free ride). I mean come on, once it's built and operational, Canada will automatically be protected without having had to put anything into it. I heop if Canada is targeted by a north Korean nuclear warhead in the future that when we get an urgent call from the Canadian PM that we say "Okay, wire us 500 million dollars and we'll be happy to shoot it down for you." We did the research, we spent the money - if Canada wants to be protected and they have a nuclear weapon heading right for Vancouver, Toronoto or Quebec - I think they'll cough up the money quickly enough. They just think it won't happen because the Soviet Union, yet they seem to forget about China and possibly North Korea and Iran though.

I have no issues with wether it will work or not, from your article, it seems that it will. However, I disagree with the abassador Cellucci. We are not giving up our sovereignity by opting out of the program. We're excercising our right not to participate, and why not? The reason the program doesn't get a lot of support in Canada is because we really don't think we're going to be the target of anyone's nuclear warhead. This is not an irrational beleif.

If it turns out we're wrong, we'll be sure to wire you that $500 million US, and then eat our hats. However, I truly do not forsee such a situation in the near future.

As an aside, Paul Martin does seem to be very diplomatic, and an all-around nice guy. Maybe that's what comes with being the Finance Minister for so long. (Even though in the recent years he got to deliver a lot of good news.)

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

To this I say, about frigging ass time. Sorry Nurv, one thing about Canada, as well as Europe, is that they don't feel the need to have a strong military because the US is always there to protect them. I feel it's about time that other countries start pulling their own weight instead of being armchair quarterbacks.

We aren't armchair quarterbacks (hehe) - that implies we're telling you where and how to deploy your military. Though we did say don't deploy your military in Iraq, that's not really armchair quarterbacking.

In my opinion (though maybe all Canadians don't feel this way) the reason I don't think Canada needs a large military is because we don't feel we will need to defend ourselves from an invading army. This ties in strongly to our attitude around Star Wars.

Our military is only weak in size, not training. They are crack troops and we do send them on various peacekeeping missions. Also, we did join you in Afghanistan. But it's important to Canadians to not have a large military. That doesn't make us weak or shortsighted.

[inked]

Well, JD, you can pick your friends and you can pick your nose and you can pick the free ride! Remember, it was the inability of the British Empire remnants to fund and develop nuclear warheads in WWII that led to the transfer of TUBE ALLOYS to US development. So, it's not the first nor will it be the last free ride Canada takes!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I have no issues with wether it will work or not, from your article, it seems that it will. However, I disagree with the abassador Cellucci. We are not giving up our sovereignity by opting out of the program. We're excercising our right not to participate, and why not? The reason the program doesn't get a lot of support in Canada is because we really don't think we're going to be the target of anyone's nuclear warhead. This is not an irrational beleif.

If it turns out we're wrong, we'll be sure to wire you that $500 million US, and then eat our hats. However, I truly do not forsee such a situation in the near future. It's for the future - so if rogue nations such as Iran, North Korea and others get nuclear weapons, then we can be protected.

Actually - one problem - supposedly you're government said that it doesn't want us doing anything without their permission if a war head is coming toward you. So basically good bye Toronto or Vancouver or Montreal.

As for not foreseeing this in the near future - it's not for the NEAR future - it's to be prepapred - just like NORAD was for preperation.

We aren't armchair quarterbacks (hehe) - that implies we're telling you where and how to deploy your military. Though we did say don't deploy your military in Iraq, that's not really armchair quarterbacking.

You do tell us how and where and what we do wrong with our military al the time. So yes you do armchair quaterback.

In my opinion (though maybe all Canadians don't feel this way) the reason I don't think Canada needs a large military is because we don't feel we will need to defend ourselves from an invading army. This ties in strongly to our attitude around Star Wars.

Our military is only weak in size, not training. They are crack troops and we do send them on various peacekeeping missions. Also, we did join you in Afghanistan. But it's important to Canadians to not have a large military. That doesn't make us weak or shortsighted.

The reason you don't need a large military is because we provide your defense - that is the sole reason. There was something on CNN yesterday about how the free ride should be over and I agree. It's difficult to put a price on the protection the uS gives you - because you just take it for granted. The US isn't going to let a nuclear warhead hit one of your cities - because the radioactive fallout would have drastic concequences in the US.

[Nurvingiel]

(Deleteted because I posted it twice instead of editing it. It is found, in its proper form, as my next post.)