this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2025
27 points (80.0% liked)

Canada

10290 readers
647 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"Defence Minister David McGuinty visited the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) headquarters in Colorado on July 15 when he met with U.S. Gen. Gregory Guillot. McGuinty noted the government “removed all restrictions on air and missile defence of Canada” but specific details were not provided at the time.

"Defence sources, however, confirmed to the Ottawa Citizen that American officials were told that the February 2005 decision by then-prime minister Paul Martin not to join an existing U.S. missile defence system was no longer valid. At that time, the U.S. wanted Canada to join a largely unproven multi-billion dollar system which was to use ground-based interceptors to destroy incoming missiles aimed at North America."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

depending on details

true, we don't know what has been discussed or agreed to.

Here's the thing. There is no downside to us as Canadians if we say to our leaders "what the heck is this, we don't want to be part of the Golden Dome". Either the govt says "lol we were never actually thinking about joining it" (even though Carney has publicly stated he is open to the idea!), or, they hear the pushback and decide that it's not worth going ahead with discussions because it's too unpopular.

Also, it's one thing to question a news source, that's fine and is something we should be doing with literally every source of reporting. In this case, I think it's also worth asking this: is there any benefit to PostMedia's US owners from this piece being taken seriously? I don't see how this piece benefits the US whatsoever, quite frankly. In fact I'd argue that it benefits the US if we don't take this report seriously.

That's why I'm gently pushing back on the fact that doubt is being cast on this reporting, but no doubt whatsoever is being cast on our elected leaders who, so far, haven't really lived up to the "elbows up" promises made during the election campaign.