Suppose it was the CN tower in Toronto that was attacked. It wasn't a target of opportunity as they say, but Canadians were specifically targeted. In New York they destroyed many square blocks of the most expensive real estate in the US. Who knows, lets say most of down town Toronto is destroyed. Do you think Canada would be the same place it is today?
Jamaica vs Canada
- Thread starter RanchHand
- Start date
Suppose it was the CN tower in Toronto that was attacked. It wasn't a target of opportunity as they say, but Canadians were specifically targeted. In New York they destroyed many square blocks of the most expensive real estate in the US. Who knows, lets say most of down town Toronto is destroyed. Do you think Canada would be the same place it is today?
There's something really sad about people that will even lie in order to have an excuse to go killing and make the business of war so important.
Now we've come full circle. Thus the US eliminates 4 pirates, Canada captures a grenade.
Geee, that's a question that didn't require loads of thought and even less for the answer. I bet not near as many people on the planet WANT to attack us simply because we don't go looking for and starting fights and pushing our ideals on everyone else on the planet.
Is the concept of law so strange to you? Google piracy on international waters. Canadian law is lax on the matter. We would have had to accept them as refugees. Canadian law doesn't permit prisoners to be turned over to a jurisdiction where they will be tortured or suffer capital punishment. Where are the the rules of engagement that supersede Laws of Flag?
No. You seem like quite the ponderer. Tell me why, in September of 2001 Muslim terrorists hijacked 4 civilian airliners and crashed them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing thousand of office workers, 300 firemen, etc.
Seems to me to be a little exaggeration in that comment, too. I think a boat with people in it was captured along with the grenade.
Canada simply needs to revise some of its laws.
Am I a Muslim terrorist?
You don't suppose that a foreign policy that isn't much better than date rape wouldn't have something to do with the pissoffedness?
Let's look at it another way.
You live with someone, and you eat an apple a day. He insists on buying 10 apples a day for the two of you, and he himself only needs one apple a day. So instead of buying an apple yourself and let him waste 9 apples a day, you figure you might as well just eat one of his apples every day and that way waste only 8 apples a day.
He starts complaining because you don't buy your fair share of apples. So you say, OK, how about you buy one apple a day and I'll buy one apple a day? But I won't buy apples while yours are going to waste.
That's basically the situation with the US right now. You spend way more on the military than you need to and then ask us to spend more to match your spending. Well, if the US alone has enough fo an army to defend the world 2 times over, why shoud Canada spend more on its military? Not very fiscally responsible, now is it (oh, sorry, not a Republican banking forte now is it).
So I'll tell you what. If the US reduces its military spending drastically, then I might be open to Canada increasing its military spending. Both sides would benefit, with overall military spending dropping.
Seriously, you tell me, why do we need to increase our spending while you're spending like there's no tomorrow? We don't want a banking crash of our own.
That's another good point. We can tell the US to reduce it's military spending till we're blue in the face, and they'll still insists on spending enough to defend the solar system from extrastellar invasion.
We know that if an enemy ever attacked Canada, even if we asked the US to stay out of it, they'd still come in and defend us for th sake of their own national interests.
So really, where's the insentive for us to increase our military spending?
OK, let's suppose that they had attacked the CN Tower in TO. Here's how I would have handled it if I were the Canadian government:
1. Find out who is responsible. If the guilty all died in the crash, well then that would have been the end of the story. If not, then we find out where the rest of the guilty are.
2. If the rest of the guilty are in Canada, we arrest them. If not, we request extradition. Let's suppose that it was Bin Laden in Afghanistan.
3. If the other country refuses extradition, we request permission from the UN to take him by force. The Un would likely have approved, seeing that they did approve in the US case.
4. Whether approval is given or not, Canada takes security measures at its ports of entry to protect itself against future attacks.
5. If approval for an attack is given, find out how likely it would be to find Bin Laden in Afghanistan. If the chances are pretty good, we attack. If not, we keep the UN's permission to attack folded neetly in our pocket ready to pull it out at any time should the chance to capture Bin Laden become reasonably good. Nothing like a surprise attack while his guard is down.
6. We don't start illegal wars in Iraq on trumped up charges against the wishes of the international community.
Had we gone about that way, there would have been no war in Iraq, and maybe a war in Afghanistan. In the event of a war in Afghanistan, it would have been a quick and decicive war with the clear and explicit objective of capturing Bin Ladin, and launched only once we believed there was a good chance of success. Of course we could have miscalculated, gone in and failed to capture Bin Laden. But as soon as it should become clear that it's not likley to be a success, swallow our pride and pul out. That's just how I would have handled it I think.
Why are you being so coy? This is like pulling teeth. What is it about American foreign policy that caused 4 Muslim terrorists to crash 4 planes into buildings killing thousands of office workers, 300 firemen etc?
I'd say it has to do with the US being perceived as a fomenter of injustice by many in the Middle East. Whether the perception is right or wrong is a matter for another thread, but it is there none-the-less and needs to be dealt with.
Certainly we need to take rational defensive actions. But at the same time it woud be wise to study the cause of this to find out how this perception came to be in the first place so as to counter it.
If the perception is true, then it would require a change in US foreign policy. If not true, then a change in US foreign relations to correct the false perception.
It's not a matter of pointing fingers but of solving root problems in the world.
"That's basically the situation with the US right now. You spend way more on the military than you need to and then ask us to spend more to match your spending. Well, if the US alone has enough fo an army to defend the world 2 times over, why shoud Canada spend more on its military? Not very fiscally responsible, now is it (oh, sorry, not a Republican banking forte now is it)."
Earlier in the thread I said the US let's Canada be Canada, causing a Durka to swoon.
When you say "why shoud Canada spend more on its military? Not very fiscally responsible" you are confirming what I told th Durka. If that was your intention than I salute your honesty, while I look upon the Durka with disdain.
Earlier in the thread I said the US let's Canada be Canada, causing a Durka to swoon.
When you say "why shoud Canada spend more on its military? Not very fiscally responsible" you are confirming what I told th Durka. If that was your intention than I salute your honesty, while I look upon the Durka with disdain.
First off, even if you are the OP, 9/11 wasn't the topic of discussion.
Your foreign policy offers assistance, then wants wants payback. Even offered gratitude isn't enough when you're expecting returns on your investment. True friends offer help with no conditions.
Why do you disrespect the cultures of the people you are helping? Why do you expect to be able to set the rules and be above the laws of nations in whom you have invested? Why do you treat people like they are not as good as you? It's not hard to figure out if you create enough resent, someone is going to act on it.
Your own attitude reflects the above in "we let Canada be Canada". As if we really need your permission.
So if we weren't what the US "let" us be, would we be invaded on some false pretense or other, too? lmao
I'm not sure what you told Durka, so I won't comment on that.
However I just want to clarify a possible point of misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that Canada should have no responsibility in the world. I'm simply saying that it should use its money responsibly. If the US wants Canada to spend more on its military, Canada has every right to request that the US reduce its military spending to slightly below what is needed, so that Canada could then increase its military spending to compensate. I'd be all for that, or likewise any sharing of a common military force. But there is no point for Canada to increase its military spending while the US is already spending too much on its military.
A reductionin military spending in the US would be good for you anyway. It would give you a chance to pay off your national debt and restructure your economy to fight inflation and high interest rates when the recession ends, etc.
This is nt about sticking it to the US, but rather a matter of fiscal responsibility plain and simple.
Until recently, Canada has been left of the US on every front but one, and that has been government balancing the budget, where even Liberal governments have proven more fiscally conservative than even the Republicans in the US (though then again, both the Liberals and the Democrats have proven more fiscally conservative than either the Republicand and the Conservatives, ironically enough).