Yes or No to missile defense?

[czardogs]

I hope to god we have a premier replacing Jean Chrétien really fast who opposes this crazy idiotic idea.

This would be a move equally or more idiotic than NAFTA by Mulroney... There's one thing Chretien has not had yet and thats a comparison to Mulroney... Well, that time is just about to come.

Um, did you mean Prime Minister or did you mean a premier who was going to run for the Prime Ministers office!? 8O

Yeah, I did mean Prime Minister, not Premier

But you know, I would really like to see Ontario's former premier (Mike Harris) run for the PC party in the federal elections and take over from Joe Clark, who has driven the party into the ground. He's a liberal!

Anyways back to my other point, Mike Harris made magic in Ontario and although he cut back from schools and hospitals, the cut backs did not make such a big difference since it was just cash flowing with no regulations.. Very badly mismanaged. Anyhow, he took it out, changed some things and made the tax payers` dollar more efficiently used. He also got rid of welfare! There's some people who live(d) on welfare for their whole life without working! terrible.

Harris is no better than Martin. He ran Ontario into the ground and openly privatized everything in sight. He is your typical right leaning politician who believes the private sector can do everything better. This even though the methods of the right have been proven time and again NOT to work.

Ontario is suffering through some of the highest electricity rates in Canada because of the moves of the right. Want to guess who owns those power plants now? Hint - they are not Canadian.

 

[Andem]

Ontario is suffering through some of the highest electricity rates in Canada because of the moves of the right. Want to guess who owns those power plants now? Hint - they are not Canadian.

I disagree with a lot of the privitisation going on in Ontario.. I disagree even more with the foreign ownership of our power!!! If NAFTA did not exist, would it be any better?

The PC's won't get in the next provincial elections in Ontario, god help us, the Liberals will :evil: . I know you would like to have NAFTA thrown out and it is possible, but is it possible to reverse the privitisation of our electricity in Ontario? Just curious...

 

[czardogs]

Ontario is suffering through some of the highest electricity rates in Canada because of the moves of the right. Want to guess who owns those power plants now? Hint - they are not Canadian.

I disagree with a lot of the privitisation going on in Ontario.. I disagree even more with the foreign ownership of our power!!! If NAFTA did not exist, would it be any better?

The PC's won't get in the next provincial elections in Ontario, god help us, the Liberals will :evil: . I know you would like to have NAFTA thrown out and it is possible, but is it possible to reverse the privitisation of our electricity in Ontario? Just curious...

Look at the ownership, it is NOT Canadian majority owned anymore. Can they roll back Nafta? Not a chance. Once that door is opened there is no closing it due to the national treatment clause. They could sue us for lost profits past/present/ and future. That would be into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

BTW I do not want Nafta "thrown out" only rewritten to exclude national treatment which trumps Canadian laws, and to establish trade based on the Marquis of Queensbury rules of FAIR TRADE. A trade deal IS neccessary but not under the current framework.
Did you know Mexico balked at signing the energy portion of the bill because it in essence makes the Canadian/Mexican resource a "north american" resource. We got suckered where as Mexico saw through the bullshit.

The other part that needs to be tossed or rewritten is the foreign ownership levels. Personally I think it should be no more than 25% of any one resource. Right now there is no cap and we are nearing 50% foreign ownership of all our major industries.

this while the major economic powers of Germany 6%, Japan 1.5% and the US at 12% protect their industries.

Harris will sell out this nation faster than we could say asshole!

 

[Jo Canadian]

Here's an old one...

 

[bluealberta]

Yes to missile defence, it would have cost us nothing, we would have had a "seat at the table" with some input. Now we are not even in the same room, with no input.

God save us from the Left and Liberals.

 

[annabattler]

RE: Yes or No to missile

NO to missile defense(an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
An agreement to support it would NOT be without strings attached,whether or not dollars were expended.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: Yes or No to missile

NO to missile defense(an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
An agreement to support it would NOT be without strings attached,whether or not dollars were expended.

AGREE.


("God" help us from the right wing fanatical psychotics who are so threatened/paranoid they have to build a fortress around themselves )

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: RE: Yes or No to missile

NO to missile defense(an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
An agreement to support it would NOT be without strings attached,whether or not dollars were expended.

AGREED AGAIN

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: Yes or No to missile

NO to missile defense(an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
An agreement to support it would NOT be without strings attached,whether or not dollars were expended.

AGREED AGAIN

:wink:

Keep them comining Jo C. The graphics say more than words can. :wink:

(good job)

 

[Jo Canadian]

:lol: Who knew, I found one more. I wasn't able to find the one that had canada as the ash-tray for fallout though, that was a good one.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Yes or No to missile

NO to missile defense(an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
An agreement to support it would NOT be without strings attached,whether or not dollars were expended.

AGREE.


("God" help us from the right wing fanatical psychotics who are so threatened/paranoid they have to build a fortress around themselves )

And the left wing idiots who have their head in the sand and think that terrorists have no idea where Canada is. Geez you folks are naive. And dangerous. Remember Chamberlain? If not, look up the word appeasement, and Neville Chamberlain. The really dangerous people are those who refuse reality and those who refuse to learn from history. At least when the terrorists attack Canada, it will probably be down east. Not that I ever want Canada to be attacked, God forbid.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: Yes or No to missile

NO to missile defense(an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
An agreement to support it would NOT be without strings attached,whether or not dollars were expended.

AGREE.


("God" help us from the right wing fanatical psychotics who are so threatened/paranoid they have to build a fortress around themselves )

And the left wing idiots who have their head in the sand and think that terrorists have no idea where Canada is. Geez you folks are naive. And dangerous. Remember Chamberlain? If not, look up the word appeasement, and Neville Chamberlain. The really dangerous people are those who refuse reality and those who refuse to learn from history. At least when the terrorists attack Canada, it will probably be down east. Not that I ever want Canada to be attacked, God forbid.

:roll:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Yes or No to missile

I do remember Neville Chamberlain. He was the British PM who appeased Hitler when Hitler was invading countries on trumped-up charges. He didn't want to anger Germany because of its growing economic might and military power. He reasoned that there were many ties between England and Germany, especially in matters of trade.

It would seem to me that it is Harper who would be like Chamberlain.

There are some logical fallacies in your argument for joining BMD, Blue. Terrorists don't have ICBMs. North Korea might, but it has no recent record of belligerence outside its own borders. Anybody who fires a missile at the US can expect massive retaliation, and North Korea, assuming they actually have a missile that reach the US, does not want to become a smoking hole in the ground.

 

[Nascar_James]

By Roy Whyte
CDM
May 11/03

That would be a resounding NO!

Look at the issue closely and see the actual figures of the effectiveness of the system have been far from anything to spend further money on.

Of all the tests so far conducted less then 10% have done what they have sought to achieve - downing an incoming missile. 10% for missiles they know are coming, at what speed, and altitude!

Now for the costs... early estimates range from 200 billion dollars all the way up to 1 trillion dollars! Already the Americans have spent over $120 billion and still have very little to show for it. How are we to take part in that when we cannot even fund our health care system and maintain our own aging military? Beyond that, how much input into the process are we really going to get in the whole ordeal? Without doubt, very little in fact.

Moreover, look at the connections between the current American government and those that have been contracted to build and maintain the missile systems. The connections are dubious to say the least.

Now, do some research of the potential enemies. Russia and China have both openly said that the missile defense system as proposed by Washington is no deterrence to them because they will simply build more missiles, with more warheads and include with them more counter measures. No amount of money spent on missile defense could stop them.

Offense in this case is far cheaper and easier to deploy then defense.

As for rogue nations - why should they launch a multi-million dollar missile to attack America when it was clearly shown by Osama Bin Laden that a few determined men could inflict massive casualties with just a little planning. No missile defense system can stop a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke. Who really thinks the bad guys are going to play by the rules?

Missile defense is nothing more then a scam to give false hope and to line the pockets of the military industrial complex in the United States. It will cause a new arms race, which we had just turned away from. Remember now it took the US pulling out of the long established Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to get their plans this far.

We should focus and concentrate on preventing new threats from emerging in the first place. Canada should avoid this little fiasco and spend the money where it is really needed, here at home.

Well, when North Korea launches a Nuclear Warhead aimed at Canada and the U.S. cannot destroy it before it reaches Canadian soil cause Canada did not want to participate to increase the effectiveness of the system, I guess it would be too bad then.

 

[Nascar_James]

By Roy Whyte
CDM
May 11/03

That would be a resounding NO!

Look at the issue closely and see the actual figures of the effectiveness of the system have been far from anything to spend further money on.

Of all the tests so far conducted less then 10% have done what they have sought to achieve - downing an incoming missile. 10% for missiles they know are coming, at what speed, and altitude!

Now for the costs... early estimates range from 200 billion dollars all the way up to 1 trillion dollars! Already the Americans have spent over $120 billion and still have very little to show for it. How are we to take part in that when we cannot even fund our health care system and maintain our own aging military? Beyond that, how much input into the process are we really going to get in the whole ordeal? Without doubt, very little in fact.

Moreover, look at the connections between the current American government and those that have been contracted to build and maintain the missile systems. The connections are dubious to say the least.

Now, do some research of the potential enemies. Russia and China have both openly said that the missile defense system as proposed by Washington is no deterrence to them because they will simply build more missiles, with more warheads and include with them more counter measures. No amount of money spent on missile defense could stop them.

Offense in this case is far cheaper and easier to deploy then defense.

As for rogue nations - why should they launch a multi-million dollar missile to attack America when it was clearly shown by Osama Bin Laden that a few determined men could inflict massive casualties with just a little planning. No missile defense system can stop a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke. Who really thinks the bad guys are going to play by the rules?

Missile defense is nothing more then a scam to give false hope and to line the pockets of the military industrial complex in the United States. It will cause a new arms race, which we had just turned away from. Remember now it took the US pulling out of the long established Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to get their plans this far.

We should focus and concentrate on preventing new threats from emerging in the first place. Canada should avoid this little fiasco and spend the money where it is really needed, here at home.

Well, when North Korea launches a Nuclear Warhead aimed at Canada and the U.S. cannot destroy it before it reaches Canadian soil cause Canada did not want to participate to increase the effectiveness of the system, I guess it would be too bad then.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Yes or No to missile

I do remember Neville Chamberlain. He was the British PM who appeased Hitler when Hitler was invading countries on trumped-up charges. He didn't want to anger Germany because of its growing economic might and military power. He reasoned that there were many ties between England and Germany, especially in matters of trade.

It would seem to me that it is Harper who would be like Chamberlain.

Then you should get some rest, that is one of the most ridiculous and outrageous things even you have come up with. To implicitly compare the present day US to Hitlers Germany is absolute bullshit, even from you. You ought to be ashamed. Even as mad as I get at the liberals, I would never stoop as low as you have just stooped. What a disgrace.

There are some logical fallacies in your argument for joining BMD, Blue. Terrorists don't have ICBMs. North Korea might, but it has no recent record of belligerence outside its own borders.

YET

Anybody who fires a missile at the US can expect massive retaliation, and North Korea, assuming they actually have a missile that reach the US, does not want to become a smoking hole in the ground.

Nor does Canada, and there would be a really good chance that said missile would come over Canada. What will you do, just wave? Probably cheer, knowing your viewpoints,

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: Yes or No to missile

There are some logical fallacies in your argument for joining BMD, Blue. Terrorists don't have ICBMs. North Korea might, but it has no recent record of belligerence outside its own borders. Anybody who fires a missile at the US can expect massive retaliation, and North Korea, assuming they actually have a missile that reach the US, does not want to become a smoking hole in the ground.

This is a matter that I've been meaning to address for some time now.

"Axis of Evil Countries: How they Got Their Nukes" by Vanni Fucci

The quick and dirty version:

Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, over a 15 year period, sold nuclear secrets to at least two "Axis" countries, Iran and North Korea. This revelation was realized while Pakistan was counted as the US's closest ally in their war in Afghanistan, against the Taliban and Al Quaeda...

When the discovery was made, many people thought that there would be a US reprisal, considering their "global war on terrorism's" basic tenet was to bring terrorists, and those that support them to justice, and with all of the Axis of Evil rhetoric, the world thought for sure they would react decisively...but they didn't...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

To the world's surprise, the US Government chose not to pursue sanctions against Khan and President Musharraf for proliferating nuclear secrets to terrorist states...rather they left the fate of Khan within the purview of the Pakistani government.

And what did the Pakistani government do? They had a televised meeting with Khan and Musharraf, where Khan offered an apology to the people of Pakistan, which Musharraf accepted by pardoning Khan for any wrong-doing...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LEO403A.html

Am I the only one that sees something amiss here?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Well, when North Korea launches a Nuclear Warhead aimed at Canada and the U.S. cannot destroy it before it reaches Canadian soil cause Canada did not want to participate to increase the effectiveness of the system, I guess it would be too bad then.

This is more fearmongering bullshit spread by the rightwingers...

Better tackle that Arab-looking guy carrying a briefcase...it could be a dirty bomb... :roll:

 

[bluealberta]

Well, when North Korea launches a Nuclear Warhead aimed at Canada and the U.S. cannot destroy it before it reaches Canadian soil cause Canada did not want to participate to increase the effectiveness of the system, I guess it would be too bad then.

This is more fearmongering bullshit spread by the rightwingers...

Better tackle that Arab-looking guy carrying a briefcase...it could be a dirty bomb... :roll:

Well, you know the saying: Not all Arab Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Arab Muslims!.

Unfortunately, that attitude is there, and is understandable to a certain degree. If a bunch of blond haired Swedes had hijacked planes and done the 9-11 thing, the response would be the same. Everyone does a certain amount of unconscious racial profiling, right or wrong. To deny it is not being honest.

 

[mrmom2]

Well said Blue it wasn't Swedes that suposedly highjacked those airplanes it was young Arab men so who you going to watch flying Swedes 8O It's Arabs running around blowing up buildings and people till they stop they're the prime suspects