Suckers.....I'm going to make a fortune off this BS play and so are a lot of others.
You are being played!
You are being played!
Russian Planes Approach Canadian Airspace
- Thread starter EagleSmack
- Start date
Here is a little video of the Russian TU 160. A little different from the old Bear.
TU 160 bomber - Google Video
TU 160 bomber - Google Video
Do you watch the news? US F 15s were scrambled too so it would be pretty easy to prove a fabrication.
Are you then willing to take up military service? The Swiss have universal male military service, required. Not only that, Swiss men are required to keep a fully automatic assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition at home........(gasp), and to spend a significant amount of their time in training exercises.....and up until very recently, you had to qualify with your rifle before you were allowed to vote.
That is why women in Switzerland only got the vote in the 1970s.....because service to the nation was seen as a prerequisite to having a voice.....
Watch out what you wish for.....
It does work for the Swiss. The last time they fought was in the Napoleonic Wars, when Bonapart passed through on his way to Italy. That was 200 years ago......what other nation can say that? Especially one that has twice in the last 100 years been an island of peace in a sea of warring nations.....the Germans wanted to invade in WWII, but estimated it would cost them 800,000 casualties.....and dropped the idea.
I'm not opposed to conscription, but would rather avoid it if necessary. But if we're going to be apart of a confrontational alliance designed to divide the world into 'us' and 'them', then I'd rather no alliance even if it means conscription. Ideally, though, a world alliance would be preferable whereby all nations promise to defend any nation that is wrongfully attacked, with open membership to the alliance rather than an 'us' against 'them' mentality.
The North Pole is not ... repeat NOT ... Canadian territory. If you're so brilliant, look at a map. Two questions:
1/...Is there any land within 12 miles?
2/...Do you even know where the North Pole is?
Northwest Passage? That can be argued ... and claimed as Canadian water.
As for the North West Passage issue, that's just a thorn in the side. Why not put the question to arbitration once and for all and get it over with.
I never said any thing about the pole and the NWP is far far to the south of our most northern lands.
Pssst.
Guess who made the maps you refer to?
Unfortunately, until human nature changes, or the bad guys get good
(see previous phrase)....."confrontational alliances" are a necessity.Personally, I'd like to see an easing away from NATO in favour of an economic and military alliance of the English-speaking world.....Great Britain, Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, India.........we have a lot in common, and much worth preserving.......whereas Europe appears to be going to Hell in a handbasket.
To Colpie:
And as for conscription, Sweden does allow for two levels of conscientious objection:
1. To combat duties. You still have to join the military, but they do have a non-combat branch comprising unarmed nurses, communications, firefighters, etc.
2. To all parts of the militaty, for those who oppose even so much as being a part of the military.
Personally, I do agree with conscription if necessary, but only when necessary; but as far as conscientious objection is concerned, I don't know if it would be a good idea to guarantee it. I could see conscientious objectors being the last to be conscripted, and if they must be conscripted, to be given first dibs to non-compbat roles. But to guarantee them the right to refuse to join the military would be going too far in my opinion.
And as for conscription, Sweden does allow for two levels of conscientious objection:
1. To combat duties. You still have to join the military, but they do have a non-combat branch comprising unarmed nurses, communications, firefighters, etc.
2. To all parts of the militaty, for those who oppose even so much as being a part of the military.
Personally, I do agree with conscription if necessary, but only when necessary; but as far as conscientious objection is concerned, I don't know if it would be a good idea to guarantee it. I could see conscientious objectors being the last to be conscripted, and if they must be conscripted, to be given first dibs to non-compbat roles. But to guarantee them the right to refuse to join the military would be going too far in my opinion.
I wonder if those that reject consciption on moral grounds are still allowed to vote???
The Swiss are an interesting society.
Unfortunately, until human nature changes, or the bad guys get good
Personally, I'd like to see an easing away from NATO in favour of an economic and military alliance of the English-speaking world.....Great Britain, Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, India.........we have a lot in common, and much worth preserving.......whereas Europe appears to be going to Hell in a handbasket.
Actually, I wouldn't mind going one step further than just an alliance. Why not have the Commonwealth of Nations share an English-language military force of, say a maximum of 100,000 well-trained and equipped men, with each member state being free to either rely exclusively on this shared force for its military defence or to have an additional auxiliary force of its own in addition, as each member state sees fit.
We could create a parallel force with the Francophonie. This could be a great contribution to de-militarization and to alleviate the military burden on poorer countries. I'm sure some of the poorer countries might appreciate the lightening of the strain on their purse strings if they coudl share a force, an option not available to them at the moment sinse no such world military force exists.
So which pole do you propose putting a satellite over, space cadet?
Doesn't matter who made the maps. Who made the land formations?
I'm not sure abut the Swiss case though; I was reading about the Swedish case. Here's a quote from it, but it says nothing about whether they must forfeit their right to vote in the process. The impression I get from it though is that it must be based on sincere beliefs, but then how do we prove that?
"Sweden allows conscientious objectors to choose a service in the "weapons-free" branch, such as an airport fireman, nurse or telecommunications technician. Some may also refuse such service as they feel that they still are a part of the military complex. The reasons for refusing to serve are varied. Some conscientious objectors are so for religious reasons — notably, the members of the historic peace churches are pacifist by doctrine, and Jehovah's Witnesses, while not strictly speaking pacifists, refuse to participate in the armed services on the grounds that they believe Christians should be neutral in worldly conflicts."
Essentially, I prefer a professionalforce to a conscripted force, but would still prefer a conscripted force to a confrontational one like the ones we have now with NATO and NORAD.
But I don't see why a world force could not be created either as a substitute for or as a supplement to national forces. Again, I think this would do poorer countries a great service by giving them the chance to share a force and thsu save money for national development.
Are your Saturday cartoons over? Read up bumpkin and learn what "infrastructure" is and some geometry and come argue when you finish high school.