NationStates Jolt Archive

Well...it just came in.

Premier Martin said that Canada will not participate in the Missile sheild.


I think it`s good and bad at the same time. It`s good because we will not take part in the armement of space and bad cause it`s the first time since 1938 that Canada will not participate at the defence of the North American continent and it will probably affect our political friendship with the US.

Missile Defence (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/24/missile-canada050224.html)

So what? If somebody actually bothered to shoot a missile at Canada we'd still defend them.

Canada just keeps being a sane place. Good for you, Canada! Kudos.

Bravo Canada... lead by example!


It's not like you guys have given the rest of the world a reason to invade/attack you anyhoo... Everybody loves Canada... except neo-cons that is but there's no way the US is going to invade you so keep up the good work.

serously i dunno why everyone makes fun of them ;) even me yes mr. D im talking bout u :P

So what? If somebody actually bothered to shoot a missile at Canada we'd still defend them.
Aw, shucks...thanks!

It's a pretty silly idea anyway...would it have stopped the 911 attackers? Yeah no.

So what? If somebody actually bothered to shoot a missile at Canada we'd still defend them.


Of course we would. We need their resources.

Canada will however be deeply offended if at least a portion of the parts aren't made in Canada...

So what? If somebody actually bothered to shoot a missile at Canada we'd still defend them.

Well that's jolly decent of you. Merci beaucoup.

I'm glad Paulie didn't cave. It's a pretty dumb idea, all things considered.

It`s just a couple of compagnies axed on defence that will lose some contracts but we don`t have alot here and it`s worth it.

Aw, shucks...thanks!

It's a pretty silly idea anyway...would it have stopped the 911 attackers? Yeah no.
N. Korea may use missiles. So might Iran if they develop a long range one.

N. Korea may use missiles. So might Iran if they develop a long range one.



Come on man...you will take care of that well before they have long range ballistic missile....You know it.


You will bomb the shit out of those country before they pose a possible threat. Right???

Come on man...you will take care of that well before they have long range ballistic missile....You know it.


You will bomb the shit out of those country before they pose a possible threat. Right???
I'm hoping we do, but I don't work for the federal government. Apparently Iraq was the bigger threat.

So what? If somebody actually bothered to shoot a missile at Canada we'd still defend them.

True. Partly out of friendship, but partly because the US can't tell whether any missile heading in the direction of Canada is intended for Canada - or the United States. Missiles don't usually announce their intentions.

All Bush really wanted was permission to shoot missiles down over Canada. Now he'll just do it without our permission.

why would Iran or North Korea ever launch a missle at Canada? I'm not defending them but thats the equivelant of someone running over a kitten in front of a peta rally, and no one is that stupid.

why would Iran or North Korea ever launch a missle at Canada? I'm not defending them but thats the equivelant of someone running over a kitten in front of a peta rally, and no one is that stupid.

Actually it would be more like running over a kitten in front of a NRA rally. Sure, some might hate kittens and say "good riddance" but all the ones who like kittens and get pissed HAVE GUNS AND KNOW HOW TO USE 'EM!

Er, yeah.

wait.
isnt this the thing that wouldve protected ( or at least be supposed to protect) Canada and cost you nothing?
I thiught it was all at the US' expense
why did you reject it?

It would`ve cost us 80 million it wasn`t free.

And even if it was free we don`t want it.We don`t want to put weapons in space and we don`t want to start a weapon race.

Of course Canada would sit on their behinds while watching American TV and drinking American soda onthis one. You have the luxury of being the neighbor the the most powerful nation in the world. We providie all the military protection you could want simply because of your location. In fact you should completely disarm because you know the good 'ol red white and blue won't let anything happen to you anyway.

The beauty about having the missiles deployed in Canada would be that missiles coming in from the North could be intercepted before they entered into Canada - so the yummy eminently recyclable debris would land on ice and Tundra....

Now the missiles will be based in North Dakota and the debris will land in Winnipeg...

But Hey, Martin's not from Winnipeg!

Er, Alaska?

Besides, who the hell has ICBMs these days anyway?

It would`ve cost us 80 million it wasn`t free.

And even if it was free we don`t want it.We don`t want to put weapons in space and we don`t want to start a weapon race.

OK as a Canadian - I have to admit we have people here that periodically suffer from the cranial-rectal inversion as well....

He no doubt thinks the same of me - but atleast I'm not suggesting my viewpoint reflects that of 30 Million people.

Er, Alaska?

Besides, who the hell has ICBMs these days anyway?
USA
Russia
France
India
Pakistan (I think)
N. Korea
China
UK
and perhaps more.

Er, Alaska?

Besides, who the hell has ICBMs these days anyway?


The Nadong III product is getting awfully close, Iran is only one generation away, China certainly, Russia, Britain, France. Mainly I worry about France.

Canada is THREE THOUSAND miles across, Alaska is at one end.

Oh yeah, forgot India - don't think so with Pakistan, and I omitted the US because they can just send out the special teams and kick it over the peace bridge.

OK as a Canadian - I have to admit we have people here that periodically suffer from the cranial-rectal inversion as well....

He no doubt thinks the same of me - but atleast I'm not suggesting my viewpoint reflects that of 30 Million people.


Well our goverment do represent the population of Canada you may or may not agree with their decision.

But the reasons they gave were pretty much related to the cost and the armement of space so in a way they spoke for the 30 million of Canadians, including you and me buddy!!!

This is gonna make many Canadian angry but I must.

In the past Canadians had a true national identity and so they were comfortable living next to the United States, they didn't feel the need to constantly disagree with the US simply for the sake of doing so.
Now, however, with US culture being so dominant and with heavy and largely unassimilated immigration, Canada has lost much of its national identity and now as a nation it defines itself mainly by what it is not, part of the US. (I know you like beer and hockey and that counts for something) So, Canada now as a kneejerk reaction rejects whatever the US does. It does not actually matter what the US is doing, Canada will reject it simply because it is a US action.
Missle defense, much malaigned, will cost Canada nothing so whether it would work or not is irrelevant. They know if it does not work they can feel good about themselves for so smartly rejecting it and that if it does would the US will use it to protect Canada whether they rejected it or not. Canada is part of the homeland defensive sphere of the US because of its proximity to us.
Canada doesn't have to have a military because the US military is the defacto defense of Canada. I feel bad Canadian soldiers, it must be a bit humiliating for them to know how outdated and pathetic their equipment is. Sure, they have pride and will say, " We don't need all that fancy gear! We can do a good job with circa WWII ships and 1960's armaments." My point is not to insult the Canadian military at all, I have great respect for them because at least they care about the defense of their nation enough to try and not leave it up to another country.

I realize the use of "they" is a generalization and I do not believe all Canadians feel this way, but enough of them do to have allowed their nation to become this weak. If Canada wants to reject the missle shield that's just fine and dandy because all their talk of rejecting it will make not one whit of difference to the situation. The US has to defend them to defend itself.

Okay, on that list (the one DK posted) I see one country that might maybe consider the remote possibility of launching a nuclear attack against the US in the near-ish future (North Korea). And NK is situated such that no nukes it launches would have to come anywhere near Canada. They could pretty much just follow the 40th parallel.

So no worries for me. I think. (I hope.)

Besides, the real threat is a small tactical-nuke type of device smuggled into America a la "Sum of All Fears". All the fancy lasers and interceptors in the world won't save you from one of those.

This is gonna make many Canadian angry but I must.

In the past Canadians had a true national identity and so they were comfortable living next to the United States, they didn't feel the need to constantly disagree with the US simply for the sake of doing so.

As a point of interest, what do you think the true Canadian national identity used to be before the Borg...I mean the US assimilated us?

Uh...why didn't we want it?

Well, for starters, it doesn't work. The following links show a pattern of failure for missile interceptors since the early 1990's.

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/briefv3n6.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1219-28.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/12/national/main666433.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/19/national/main559397.shtml
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0215/dailyUpdate.html

As a point of interest, what do you think the true Canadian national identity used to be before the Borg...I mean the US assimilated us?

Lumberjacks and fur traders!

Come on man...you will take care of that well before they have long range ballistic missile....You know it.


You will bomb the shit out of those country before they pose a possible threat. Right???

I would hope so, thats how my parent's tax dollars should be spent.

Lumberjacks and fur traders!
Hey, we still got those!

*sings, "I'm a lumberjack and I'm alright..."*

Uh...why didn't we want it?

Well, for starters, it doesn't work. The following links show a pattern of failure for missile interceptors since the early 1990's.

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/briefv3n6.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1219-28.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/12/national/main666433.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/19/national/main559397.shtml
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0215/dailyUpdate.html

Equus - there is no plan to deploy anything developed to date, this is an engineering project. Every trial until the one that works will be a failure. Thats true of every engineering project (See Edison for example).

As a point of interest, what do you think the true Canadian national identity used to be before the Borg...I mean the US assimilated us?

resistence is futile. . .

hmm, that is difficult but not because I think there was no identity. I think Canadians saw themselves as the rugged members of first the British Empire and then the British Commonwealth. They were the simpler, down to earth people who could be counted on. They didn't spend their political days worrying over the US, they spent them taking part in the whole of the commonwealth, defined by how they contributed to that.
Of course, since Canada is part of the overall north american cultural sphere much of the everyday customs between the US and Canada were the same, but this was not seen as a problem like it is today. In fact is wasn't worried about at all, it was just the way things were. These days every similarity is a cause for concern and fret, at least it seems to be.

to reject a missle defense system because it doesn't work now and hasn't worked in the past is strange. Rockets didn't worked at first and before they worked, it didn't cause people to give up, they just kept trying until they did work.
It will take many years to make a viable missle defense system but we must keep trying because having one will help, it certainly won't hurt anything.

Well our goverment do represent the population of Canada you may or may not agree with their decision.

But the reasons they gave were pretty much related to the cost and the armement of space so in a way they spoke for the 30 million of Canadians, including you and me buddy!!!

1) The government is a minority. It most certainly does not speak for all Canadians.

2) Our government is very nearly exclusively drawn from two provinces - It most certainly...

3) Our government spent TWELVE times their estimated cost of the program failing to create a database listing the names of gun owners. Let's not whine about money.

there's no way the US is going to invade you
Believe me, I wouldn't touch that one with a ten-foot pole. But then again, some of us are prepared for that eventuality...

Equus - there is no plan to deploy anything developed to date, this is an engineering project. Every trial until the one that works will be a failure. Thats true of every engineering project (See Edison for example).

Well, perhaps that's the problem. Bush wants a commitment now even though he has nothing to show Canada now. If there were concrete plans and an actual system (that did not involve the weaponization of space) that could be shown as reliable then perhaps the answer would be different.

I mean, how would you react if someone came up to you and aked you for 50 dollars so that he could design a new automated security system for his house but could not offer any details of how the systems would work, if it would work at all, and if it was really necessary in the first place?

... it certainly won't hurt anything.

Actually it might. If it leads to a new arms race we may get stuck into another cold war. Cold wars can turn hot. And we don't want that.

This is gonna make many Canadian angry but I must.

In the past Canadians had a true national identity and so they were comfortable living next to the United States, they didn't feel the need to constantly disagree with the US simply for the sake of doing so.
Now, however, with US culture being so dominant and with heavy and largely unassimilated immigration, Canada has lost much of its national identity and now as a nation it defines itself mainly by what it is not, part of the US. (I know you like beer and hockey and that counts for something) So, Canada now as a kneejerk reaction rejects whatever the US does. It does not actually matter what the US is doing, Canada will reject it simply because it is a US action.
Missle defense, much malaigned, will cost Canada nothing so whether it would work or not is irrelevant. They know if it does not work they can feel good about themselves for so smartly rejecting it and that if it does would the US will use it to protect Canada whether they rejected it or not. Canada is part of the homeland defensive sphere of the US because of its proximity to us.
Canada doesn't have to have a military because the US military is the defacto defense of Canada. I feel bad Canadian soldiers, it must be a bit humiliating for them to know how outdated and pathetic their equipment is. Sure, they have pride and will say, " We don't need all that fancy gear! We can do a good job with circa WWII ships and 1960's armaments." My point is not to insult the Canadian military at all, I have great respect for them because at least they care about the defense of their nation enough to try and not leave it up to another country.

I realize the use of "they" is a generalization and I do not believe all Canadians feel this way, but enough of them do to have allowed their nation to become this weak. If Canada wants to reject the missle shield that's just fine and dandy because all their talk of rejecting it will make not one whit of difference to the situation. The US has to defend them to defend itself.


Just to point it out.
The oldest ships in the Canadian navy, were built in the late 1970's. Our newest ships are only a few years old. And every ships is being constantly upgraded (I live in the city with Canada's EastCoast Naval base, I see it ALL the time).
Canadian ground equipment is circa late 1980's. And that's the old stuff (Not counting certian military vehicles we keep around.)

Also, about the Canadian army being pathetic. Why is it that in ever compitition Canada and the US has for it's units, Canadian soldiers come out on top?
I believe there was a compitition in '04 (Forgot the name) between Canadian tank crews (With our outdated Leopard 1's.. which also happen to be the most advanced Leopard 1's in the world at this moment) against American tanks crews (with M1A2's to boot), where Canada won every event.

Canada rejected the missile defence stuff because we do not wish to put weapons in space.

EDIT: 2002 CANAM Cup Tank Compitition (http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lfwa_hq/Documents/2002/NR/NR-CANAMCup1.PDF)

Well, perhaps that's the problem. Bush wants a commitment now even though he has nothing to show Canada now. If there were concrete plans and an actual system (that did not involve the weaponization of space) that could be shown as reliable then perhaps the answer would be different.

I mean, how would you react if someone came up to you and aked you for 50 dollars so that he could design a new automated security system for his house but could not offer any details of how the systems would work, if it would work at all, and if it was really necessary in the first place?

What is wrong with weapons in space? Is space somekind of sacrosanct holyland that must remain pure. It is a place. Places do not inherently have purity or corruption. Weapons are neither good nor bad, only the hand that holds them can be so.

Equus - there is no plan to deploy anything developed to date, this is an engineering project.

Untrue. The plans called for a deployment of the missile defense shield in early 2005. That's right now. (The date is stated in one of the links I provided earlier.)

I believe there was a compitition in '04 (Forgot the name) between Canadian tank crews (With our outdated Leopard 1's.. which also happen to be the most advanced Leopard 1's in the world at this moment) against American tanks crews (with M1A2's to boot), where Canada won every event.
I heard about that today from a buddy of mine who's in the Reserves, he told me the Americans cancelled a night-fighting tank exercise because the Canadians would have utterly slaughtered them, even with those damned Abrams of theirs.

Just to point it out.
The okdest ships in the Canadian navy, were built in the late 1970's. Our newest ships are only a few years old. And every ships is being constantly upgraded (I live in the city with Canada's EastCoast Naval base, I see it ALL the time).
Canadian ground equipment is circa late 1980's. And that's the old stuff (Not counting certian military vehicles we keep around.)

Also, about the Canadian army being pathetic. Why is it that in ever compitition Canada and the US has for it's units, Canadian soldiers come out on top?
I believe there was a compitition in '04 (Forgot the name) between Canadian tank crews (With our outdated Leopard 1's.. which also happen to be the most advanced Leopard 1's in the world at this moment) against American tanks crews (with M1A2's to boot), where Canada won every event.

Canada rejected the missile defence stuff because we do not wish to put weapons in space.

I wrote this nice, friendly response and the system kicked me out!!

Basically, thanks for correcting my perception of the Canadian military. I certainly don't want to insult them and I don't like to make arguments based on mistaken information.
Still, outdated equipment from the 70's and 80's isn't much better.
Also I would argue that one on one victories in tactical situations are not good overall indicators. I think Canadian units would have a great deal of pride on the line during such drills and US units would treat them rather lightly and so not really perform up to capabilities.
Also, it is overall power projection and industrial capabilty that wins wars, Canada has chosen to not have power projection because they know that the US will protect them in the unlikely event there were a major conflict.

Also, about the Canadian army being pathetic. Why is it that in ever compitition Canada and the US has for it's units, Canadian soldiers come out on top?
I believe there was a compitition in '04 (Forgot the name) between Canadian tank crews (With our outdated Leopard 1's.. which also happen to be the most advanced Leopard 1's in the world at this moment) against American tanks crews (with M1A2's to boot), where Canada won every event.


Someone's been watching the History Channel (or was it Outdoor Life?). It had a series of shows on US/Canada/and sometimes Britain competing in sniper, tank, FIBUA, that sort of thing. Canada generally did extremely well, although they didn't win every competition. What I found interesting was the sniper competition. It was done US style, with 2 man teams (Canadian snipers are loners), which I hadn't seen before, except in movies. But the weirdest thing was that they pixellized the Canadian snipers' faces but not the US snipers' faces.

Anyway, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence of Canadian soldiers outdoing their American counterparts in training sessions down at Fort Lewis, but I also realize that anecdotal evidence has little-to-no standing here, since I can't support it with links. Some good stories, though. :)

I think Canadian units would have a great deal of pride on the line during such drills and US units would treat them rather lightly and so not really perform up to capabilities.
...

...

...

So you're saying... they let them win?

And I thought I'd heard every excuse in the book.

as an American I don't want my tax dollars going to this peice of shit missle defense system either. Well I am kinda for a laser based system but not a missle interceptor style system.

wait.
isnt this the thing that wouldve protected ( or at least be supposed to protect) Canada and cost you nothing?
I thiught it was all at the US' expense
why did you reject it?

A funny analogy:

Man: "Look honey, I bought you an M-16 for your birthday!"

Woman recoiling in horror: "I asked for diamonds, you jack ass. Or maybe you could just cut out all those softwood lumber duties."

yes, I'm perfectly aware that some women would love an M-16. This is just meant to be funny.

Sorry to step in here but...

Canadian Snipers faces were pixilated because they were prolly JTF-2.

And the CANAM games were a team event, not quite one on one. Its like the U.S. saying they had planned all along to lose those air games with India months ago. Thats the lamest excuse ever. We didn't invade the US fully in 1812 because we didn't feel like it. Yeah, thats it. ::roll::

The larger the army, the less is spent on the individual soldier. Canada focuses on training for her people in the service, and it saves lives more than those high tech deathtraps rolling around in Iraq.

Now, as for the Defence Initiative, we should allow them to build a OTH-B in the North, to atleast allow for early detection over the pole, but weaponization in space? No. Canada is co-operative to an extent. Its the U.S. that often complains about Canada.

...

...

...

So you're saying... they let them win?

And I thought I'd heard every excuse in the book.

No, not let them win in a consious way. I mean that Canadians would go into with far more on the line because they feel the pressure from the US all the time. I do not think US units sat around thinking, "Hey, lets let these poor Canadians win." I just think the US troops wouldn't have cared about it as much because if they lost the competion they would not view it at a blow to national pride. They would be upset, but would get over it. If a Canadian unit would lose it would be more of a blow to their pride because they feel overshadowed by the US.

some thoughts about the missile shield (or why it will fail) after reading a critical science-based article:

You have 3 possible ways of intercepting a long range missile:
-right after the launch
-in mid flight
-before impact

The first recuires a system to detect the launch, and more important: the presence of a ship or silo in a small radius of the launchsite (limited time before the bomb is in mid flight and limited acceleration of intercepting rocket).

The last suffers from the same problem: you launch you missile once the real bomb has been identified and falling towards his target (a city or a silo presumably). This requires interception missile silo's in a small radius near every city in the US.

The second has a different problem. A limited amount of rockets installed at the border can intercept the bomb - if they know what the bomb is. Once the launch missile of the bomb releases the bomb, it also releases fake bombs - balloons. These form a cloud with the bomb inside it. You can develop systems to identify the real bomb, but these systems can be bypassed with low costs. You can also attack the balloons, but these can be replaced.

You could try to build something in space to intercept the missiles, but these satellites will be very expensive and very vulnerable to an attack that does not cause an immediate war. The same goes for the warning satellites used by any other systems.

A last remark: every system will be useless against a short range missile fired from a submarine or a ship in international waters. A bomb can also be smuggled into the country.

A missile shield is expensive, but can be bypassed with a limited amount of costs and scientific knowledge (compared to the knowledge to build long range rockets, nuclear devises and missile shields). No need to build one i say.

"Sir, the Canadians have opted out."

"Good, good. Ready the missiles... Canada will be conservative whether they like it or not! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

<- is a Republican

Sorry to step in here but...

Canadian Snipers faces were pixilated because they were prolly JTF-2.



Oh yes, no doubt. What I wasn't clear about is why the US military didn't require the same protections for their snipers. Not why were the Canadians pixellated.

[QUOTE=31]This is gonna make many Canadian angry but I must.

In the past Canadians had a true national identity and so they were comfortable living next to the United States, they didn't feel the need to constantly disagree ........[QUOTE]

The reason Canadian government goes in the opposit direction of the US, is simply because the people don't want what americans want. If the people of a nation tell their government NO, then the government must obey. Canadians firmly said NO, to the missle shield.

I on the other hand support the missle shield because America isn't concerned with a nuclear war, that would be obsurd. America is worried about the one timers who want to shoot off a nuke at the US knowing full well they only get one shot but don't care anyways. If you take the per capita income and multiply it by the population than even towns with populations of 100k, pass 2 billion dollars of income a year. How much would we have to spend on aid if some regime or terrorist group nuked LA, seattle, or vancuover. This being the finiacial rational (kind of like pro active finaincial insurace).
On the other hand people will tell you that the United states is trying to eliminate MAD (mutual assured destruction), and the only way to revive MAD, would be to weaponize space, witch america would still most definatly have a lead in weaponization, to the mad balace would be restored. The only differance between the situation we have now and with the star wars program is the weapons will come from higher abouve our heads.

I hope this makes sense, im drunk...

Uh...why didn't we want it?

Well, for starters, it doesn't work. The following links show a pattern of failure for missile interceptors since the early 1990's.

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/briefv3n6.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1219-28.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/12/national/main666433.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/19/national/main559397.shtml
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0215/dailyUpdate.html

The Ground base intercept system isn't workning because of software. When that is fixed, the ground base launchings out of Fort Greely, will succeed. The Laser system is working, and other defenses are online and operating too.

I wrote this nice, friendly response and the system kicked me out!!

Basically, thanks for correcting my perception of the Canadian military. I certainly don't want to insult them and I don't like to make arguments based on mistaken information.
Still, outdated equipment from the 70's and 80's isn't much better.
Also I would argue that one on one victories in tactical situations are not good overall indicators. I think Canadian units would have a great deal of pride on the line during such drills and US units would treat them rather lightly and so not really perform up to capabilities.
Also, it is overall power projection and industrial capabilty that wins wars, Canada has chosen to not have power projection because they know that the US will protect them in the unlikely event there were a major conflict.


Considering the CANAM Tank Cup is public, as well as it's predecessor that ran in Germany from 1977 to the 1990's, I would think the US would try harder then ever to win. Otherwise they look like loosers in the international scene, and at a time where the US has alot of military oppositsion (USSR back in the day, a few nations comming out with it now), looking weak does not make sense.

Canada maintains a defensive military, because we know that other nations like to have their soviergnty respected.

Also, the US is using weapons from the early 1980's, just upgraded (As do Canadians, we don't use the same weapons, we upgrade them). So the argument that US weapons are newer is moot. We're about equil in weapon quality, quantity is another issue.

And so far, ever way Canada has been in, Canadian regular units have been treated as elite units in the world stage, this inculdes both world wars, Korea, Iraq, and Afganistan (Just to name the ones you'd probably know of).
Canadian soldiers have gained a very serious and respected reputation on the battlefeild, unlike many American units (Baring some of the more kickass, like the 101st Airborne and some Marine divisions). The fact that Canada does not see it a good idea to go to war over stupid things does not mean that Canada does not know what it's doing in a war.

The Ground base intercept system isn't workning because of software. When that is fixed, the ground base launchings out of Fort Greely, will succeed. The Laser system is working, and other defenses are online and operating too.

Oh, if that were true. The interceptor isn't launching because of software. There is still the problem of the interceptor not being able to hit the incoming missile.

Someone's been watching the History Channel (or was it Outdoor Life?). It had a series of shows on US/Canada/and sometimes Britain competing in sniper, tank, FIBUA, that sort of thing. Canada generally did extremely well, although they didn't win every competition. What I found interesting was the sniper competition. It was done US style, with 2 man teams (Canadian snipers are loners), which I hadn't seen before, except in movies. But the weirdest thing was that they pixellized the Canadian snipers' faces but not the US snipers' faces.

Anyway, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence of Canadian soldiers outdoing their American counterparts in training sessions down at Fort Lewis, but I also realize that anecdotal evidence has little-to-no standing here, since I can't support it with links. Some good stories, though. :)


Nah, I just like keeping up on current Military stuff. Got all my info from the DND website.
And I have freinds who've been down to Virginia for the joint training and games they do down there the past few years. You don;t even want to hear the anecdotes I get from them.

I heard about that today from a buddy of mine who's in the Reserves, he told me the Americans cancelled a night-fighting tank exercise because the Canadians would have utterly slaughtered them, even with those damned Abrams of theirs.

Care to provide proof?

my stepfather is an engineer who works for a company that handles part of the missile defence system, and he says the whole thing is a waste of time that'll never work.

my stepfather is an engineer who works for a company that handles part of the missile defence system, and he says the whole thing is a waste of time that'll never work.


I agree, and all I have to go off of is the BS I'm spoon fed by the Newsand the US press releases. And of course, past experiance.

*Cough-Bomarc-Cough*

Considering the CANAM Tank Cup is public, as well as it's predecessor that ran in Germany from 1977 to the 1990's, I would think the US would try harder then ever to win. Otherwise they look like loosers in the international scene, and at a time where the US has alot of military oppositsion (USSR back in the day, a few nations comming out with it now), looking weak does not make sense.

Canada maintains a defensive military, because we know that other nations like to have their soviergnty respected.

Also, the US is using weapons from the early 1980's, just upgraded (As do Canadians, we don't use the same weapons, we upgrade them). So the argument that US weapons are newer is moot. We're about equil in weapon quality, quantity is another issue.

And so far, ever way Canada has been in, Canadian regular units have been treated as elite units in the world stage, this inculdes both world wars, Korea, Iraq, and Afganistan (Just to name the ones you'd probably know of).
Canadian soldiers have gained a very serious and respected reputation on the battlefeild, unlike many American units (Baring some of the more kickass, like the 101st Airborne and some Marine divisions). The fact that Canada does not see it a good idea to go to war over stupid things does not mean that Canada does not know what it's doing in a war.

I agree with you about the historical quality of Canadian units. I do not believe Canadian units are poor quality, just underfunded these days.
Power projection. This is what matters. You don't have it. Now as to whether you want it or not, that is a different matter.
Sorry but the whole "Canada knows other nations like to have their soveirgnty respected." has nothing to do with why Canada has opted for a small military. It is just an attempted, we're more holy than you, shot.
Canada knows it doesn't need a big military because the US will shield it. So, Canada feels free to spend its money elsewhere.

People had their doubts about the atomic bomb, jet propulsion. Right now the technology needs to be developed. That takes time, and it takes effort. Unfortunately the best and brightest the US has to offer go work for video game makers and dont become scientists anymore so its going to take awhile before any sort of viable missile shield works.

As for Canada, the next time they need strategic airlift for their military I'm sure they can ask another NATO ally.

some thoughts about the missile shield (or why it will fail) after reading a critical science-based article:

You have 3 possible ways of intercepting a long range missile:
-right after the launch
-in mid flight
-before impact

Correct! Those are the 3 possible ways.

The first recuires a system to detect the launch, and more important: the presence of a ship or silo in a small radius of the launchsite (limited time before the bomb is in mid flight and limited acceleration of intercepting rocket).

We have the system to detect the launch and what is around it.

The last suffers from the same problem: you launch you missile once the real bomb has been identified and falling towards his target (a city or a silo presumably). This requires interception missile silo's in a small radius near every city in the US.

Not unless you catch it in mid flight. The Laser defense system, which is active and operating, is designed to do.

The second has a different problem. A limited amount of rockets installed at the border can intercept the bomb - if they know what the bomb is. Once the launch missile of the bomb releases the bomb, it also releases fake bombs - balloons. These form a cloud with the bomb inside it. You can develop systems to identify the real bomb, but these systems can be bypassed with low costs. You can also attack the balloons, but these can be replaced.

Here you have a point. I'll concede this one.

You could try to build something in space to intercept the missiles, but these satellites will be very expensive and very vulnerable to an attack that does not cause an immediate war. The same goes for the warning satellites used by any other systems.

Actually, very few nations have the capacity to knock out a satellite in orbit. Besides haveing a weapon in orbit violates about half a dozen treaties if not more.

A last remark: every system will be useless against a short range missile fired from a submarine or a ship in international waters. A bomb can also be smuggled into the country.

Not 100% true. When its detected, a laser defense plane would probably take it out.

A missile shield is expensive, but can be bypassed with a limited amount of costs and scientific knowledge (compared to the knowledge to build long range rockets, nuclear devises and missile shields). No need to build one i say.

We already have some of it in place. The problem is the ground base defenses. Software glitches are gumming out the works.

I agree, and all I have to go off of is the BS I'm spoon fed by the Newsand the US press releases. And of course, past experiance.

*Cough-Bomarc-Cough*

Well..Bomarc was supposed to be armed with nuclear weapons..you really dont need to get direct on hits with a nuke.

Oh, if that were true. The interceptor isn't launching because of software. There is still the problem of the interceptor not being able to hit the incoming missile.

WRONG!! The have hit them in other testing. This is now the first time they are doing a full system's test. There are bound to be glitches.

my stepfather is an engineer who works for a company that handles part of the missile defence system, and he says the whole thing is a waste of time that'll never work.

He doesn't have the full knowledge to provide proof that it will or not. He handles parts of it. Not the whole thing. And he's an engineer to boot. Just what part does he work on?

WRONG!! The have hit them in other testing. This is now the first time they are doing a full system's test. There are bound to be glitches.

As you said to someone on the last page, prove it. I supplied plenty of links showing that the interceptor missiles weren't hitting their targets, even when manually launched.

I agree with you about the historical quality of Canadian units. I do not believe Canadian units are poor quality, just underfunded these days.
Power projection. This is what matters. You don't have it. Now as to whether you want it or not, that is a different matter.
Sorry but the whole "Canada knows other nations like to have their soveirgnty respected." has nothing to do with why Canada has opted for a small military. It is just an attempted, we're more holy than you, shot.
Canada knows it doesn't need a big military because the US will shield it. So, Canada feels free to spend its money elsewhere.


Again you fail to see the point. Perhaps looking past the idology that everyone thinks the US is the best country ever and think for a moment.
Canada does not rely on the US to protect it, if anything Canada has closer defence ties with the UK and Australia for simply being in the Commonwealth.
Canada does not "Know the US will protect it", this sounds just like, as you put it "an attempted, we're more holier then thou, shot."

Canada is, and always has been, willing to work with the US and Mexico in the mutual defence of the North American continent, hence NORAD, but only on projects that will work, and do not go against Canadian policy.


If you want to talk about a nation that spends little to nothing on it's military because it "knows the US will sheild it", talk about Iceland. They have no army outside the US army.
I think the fact that Canada constantly keeps the defence of it's own soviergnty to it's own units (Which is why the US CoastGaurd does not patrol Canadian waters for instance, nor do US aircraft patrol Canadian skies) can attest to the fact that Canada does not rely on the US to "sheild it".

The only time the interceptors hit their target was when they knew the exact path of the incoming missles. THey haven't even tried to deal with decoys yet.

As for Canada, the next time they need strategic airlift for their military I'm sure they can ask another NATO ally.


Canada either uses it's own aircraft, or pays a private Ukranian company to airlift it's equipment.
The ocasions Canadian military units have gone with US units in a stratigic airlift, have been all cases where the US armed forces offered the space. Never have Canadian units asked for an airlift by US forces.

The only time the interceptors hit their target was when they knew the exact path of the incoming missles. THey haven't even tried to deal with decoys yet.

Thank you. Nice to know someone is reading the same articles I am.

Well..Bomarc was supposed to be armed with nuclear weapons..you really dont need to get direct on hits with a nuke.


The problem being that Bomarc was not very effective at getting within range.
Also, the nuclear weapons that the Bomarc missiles had, wen't all powerful huge weapons. They were small, tactical weapons.
With their inaccuracy ratings, and the small yeild of weapon, it would be a wonder if a Bomarc could hit Mt.Everast.

As you said to someone on the last page, prove it. I supplied plenty of links showing that the interceptor missiles weren't hitting their targets, even when manually launched.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/15/missile.test/
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/15/missile.defense.test/
https://secure.lsit.ucsb.edu/archives/gordon-newspost/2000-June/001578.html (Laser one)

These are just 3 links that I could find right now.

WRONG Corneliu, there have been several misses.

And Canada does not need the US to protect them... because the real issue is, who would invade Canada, and why? Sure there was Russia, but they are no longer a threat.

Lemme put it in these terms. United States is like those conservatives that refuse to allow gay marriage, abortion, womens rights, etc, essentially refusing to "keep up with Social Changes."

Canada on the other hand already recognizes that Russia is no longer a threat, but rather a friend (Canadian and Russian trade has almost doubled). We are like those liberals that recognize the Social Changes and adapt to it. You are stuck in the past, in a world you can comprehend, in which countries are the enemies, and not groups of people that do not technically have a place of origin.

EDIT: Give me a minute and I'll post failures of US ABM, more recent than the 2001 links you gave us.

The only time the interceptors hit their target was when they knew the exact path of the incoming missles. THey haven't even tried to deal with decoys yet.

And if you have the technology, you will know the path of a ICBM! It takes alot to have decoys. Earlier missiles didn't have decoys. The later ones did.

We have the system to detect the launch and what is around it.
I'm aware of that, but this system can be disabled. The important argument against intercepting in the first fase is the fact that you need to have an interception missile ready in a close radius. This becomes impossible if you can't get this close to the silo and if you can get close enough, the interception missiles can be attacked before launching the nukes.


Not unless you catch it in mid flight. The Laser defense system, which is active and operating, is designed to do.
just arguing against taking them down in the third fase.

Actually, very few nations have the capacity to knock out a satellite in orbit. Besides haveing a weapon in orbit violates about half a dozen treaties if not more.

If you have the capability to launch a long range rocket, you also have the technology to build something that can take out a satellite i believe.


Not 100% true. When its detected, a laser defense plane would probably take it out.

This would again require laser defense planes to be near almost every place of importance. The reaction times of these planes also makes it fail. The launch has to be detected, data has to be analysed and an order has to be given to an airport that is located closest to the path of the missile, the plane has to take off and has to intercept the missile. If a missile is launched from 10 km of the coast, i don't think this gives you enough time to perform all of these actions considering the speed of said missiles.

WRONG Corneliu, there have been several misses.

And Canada does not need the US to protect them... because the real issue is, who would invade Canada, and why? Sure there was Russia, but they are no longer a threat.

Lemme put it in these terms. United States is like those conservatives that refuse to allow gay marriage, abortion, womens rights, etc, essentially refusing to "keep up with Social Changes."

Canada on the other hand already recognizes that Russia is no longer a threat, but rather a friend (Canadian and Russian trade has almost doubled). We are like those liberals that recognize the Social Changes and adapt to it. You are stuck in the past, in a world you can comprehend, in which countries are the enemies, and not groups of people that do not technically have a place of origin.

EDIT: Give me a minute and I'll post failures of US ABM, more recent than the 2001 links you gave us.

Its been mixed! You'll have successes and failures. Its really new technology so your going to have problems! Period

Well heres the Issue:

Any missiles coming OVER Canada, will be from Russia. And what will Russia launch? TOPOL-M and their newer ICBM's...

Please keep in mind both ICBM's have unheard of countermeasures... and there isn't much a laser can do to something that has a reflective style skin. Each missile offers up something like 5 or 6 MIRV's and 10 decoys, plus the ICBM and MIRV's perform maneuvers at high-speeds, never seen before by other ICBM's. To date there is no ABM in the world that could intercept these, unless you had a Patriot GEM-T right next to the Silo.

What Im trying to say is, your screwed whether or not you have defences in northern Canada.

I'm aware of that, but this system can be disabled. The important argument against intercepting in the first fase is the fact that you need to have an interception missile ready in a close radius. This becomes impossible if you can't get this close to the silo and if you can get close enough, the interception missiles can be attacked before launching the nukes.

It can but it'll take alot to disable the satellite. When a satellite like this does go down, don't you think that the nation that satellite belongs too will go on full alert? If they have the capacity to, their ABM laser systems as well as missile systems will also go on alert. Finding out if a missile launched, would be somewhat more difficult but you'll have to knock out most of those satellites and when you take out one, well, that's an act of war in and of itself.

just arguing against taking them down in the third fase.

Yea, I wouldn't want that to happen. That is why we are trying to knock them in the 1st or 2nd phase.


If you have the capability to launch a long range rocket, you also have the technology to build something that can take out a satellite i believe.

North Korea doesn't and they have a missile that can theoretically hit the US West Coast.

This would again require laser defense planes to be near almost every place of importance. The reaction times of these planes also makes it fail. The launch has to be detected, data has to be analysed and an order has to be given to an airport that is located closest to the path of the missile, the plane has to take off and has to intercept the missile. If a missile is launched from 10 km of the coast, i don't think this gives you enough time to perform all of these actions considering the speed of said missiles.

There are plans to have more than one plane. We know that the laser system does work and the 1st plane is operational. Don't know when the others are coming online. Besides, what numnut would have its laser defense planes on the ground? You would want them up in the air even if there isn't a nuclear threat.

Again you fail to see the point. Perhaps looking past the idology that everyone thinks the US is the best country ever and think for a moment.
Canada does not rely on the US to protect it, if anything Canada has closer defence ties with the UK and Australia for simply being in the Commonwealth.
Canada does not "Know the US will protect it", this sounds just like, as you put it "an attempted, we're more holier then thou, shot."

Canada is, and always has been, willing to work with the US and Mexico in the mutual defence of the North American continent, hence NORAD, but only on projects that will work, and do not go against Canadian policy.


If you want to talk about a nation that spends little to nothing on it's military because it "knows the US will sheild it", talk about Iceland. They have no army outside the US army.
I think the fact that Canada constantly keeps the defence of it's own soviergnty to it's own units (Which is why the US CoastGaurd does not patrol Canadian waters for instance, nor do US aircraft patrol Canadian skies) can attest to the fact that Canada does not rely on the US to "sheild it".

When did I even mention the US was the best country ever? Its you Canadians who can't seem to look past your belief that Canada is the best country ever.
Canada has "always" been willing to work with the US and Mexico in the mutual defense of N. America? Always? Even when firmly a member of the British Empire you were working with the US and Mexico for the mutual defense of N. America? Evan when the US and Canada ( as part of the British Empire) almost went to war over a pig?
Iceland? And this has what to do with Canadian/US military relations?
And now I am really wondering why we got to this argument when the topic was the missle sheild.

*Pixelated faced Canadian snipers surrounding my apartment, massive Canadian coastgaurd blockading my driveway, I chose to stand at the window and wave.*

I have never met a people with a bigger chip on their national shoulders than Canadians. They constantly acuse we USians of being full of pride and then fall back on, " We're better than you!" "Canada has the best. . . . in the world!" for their own arguments. If you don't like other people having national pride then don't have any yourselves.

It is incredibly hard to disable a satellite, especially with North Korea's resources and technology available to it.

Well heres the Issue:

Any missiles coming OVER Canada, will be from Russia. And what will Russia launch? TOPOL-M and their newer ICBM's...

Please keep in mind both ICBM's have unheard of countermeasures... and there isn't much a laser can do to something that has a reflective style skin. Each missile offers up something like 5 or 6 MIRV's and 10 decoys, plus the ICBM and MIRV's perform maneuvers at high-speeds, never seen before by other ICBM's. To date there is no ABM in the world that could intercept these, unless you had a Patriot GEM-T right next to the Silo.

What Im trying to say is, your screwed whether or not you have defences in northern Canada.

We'll just have to see. However there is alot more here than what we can find on the internet. We are not privy to everything the government has to defend the country. We'll just have to wait and see what comes off the line next.

Shall we actually call this a draw?

Canada either uses it's own aircraft, or pays a private Ukranian company to airlift it's equipment.
The ocasions Canadian military units have gone with US units in a stratigic airlift, have been all cases where the US armed forces offered the space. Never have Canadian units asked for an airlift by US forces.

Thats the thing, you dont have any aircraft for strategic airlift anymore. Having spoken to other Canadians you got rid of your aircraft capable of such. Hell your own House of Commons was shown on CSPAN bickering over this very topic.

When did I even mention the US was the best country ever? Its you Canadians who can't seem to look past your belief that Canada is the best country ever.

Uh sweetie, you're the only one getting his tail in a knot. All we said was we didn't want to be involved in the missile defense system. Then you bashed our military. We explained why it didn't deserve to be portrayed so poorly. Then you went off on a rant again.

Nobody was calling down the US, we were just disagreeing about the use of a certain piece of technology. Surely we're allowed to do that?

Thats the thing, you dont have any aircraft for strategic airlift anymore. Having spoken to other Canadians you got rid of your aircraft capable of such. Hell your own House of Commons was shown on CSPAN bickering over this very topic.

Yeah, here's hoping some of the $12.8 billion in the budget for the military includes the purchase of a few Hercs or something.

Lemme end the topic this way.

We decided not to weaponize space, but you can go ahead. Its just Canadian policy, and we believe that it won't work or there is no need for it. However, if the Americans percieve a threat, go right ahead and use the system.

And I am sure in the future, once the Canadian Government is shown the system works we'll adopt it. Theres a reason why Canada does not use the Patriot.

And yet the Patriot wasn't originally designed to shoot down missiles!

Yea, Canada doesn't need to participate for many reasons. Most have been stated, but insane countrys like N Korea and Iran would still attack Canada too just for no damn good reason. And we wouldn't only come up to Canada and help defend them just because of material objects such as electricity ( That may be a fraction ) but there our neighbor to the north, the UN would make us anyways, a lot of Americans ( despite popular beliefe ) still don't mind Canada at all ( and no matter what Canada says about Americans ) and just many other reasons, and there are a lot of familys who have family members in Canada and America.

Anyways, were apparently making plans to assault Iran next. And even if we don't, Iran will attack Iraq regardless if we are there or not. N Korea will do something to piss everyone off anyways, so N Korea will eventually get blown the hell up. I kind of think everything is going a little steady.

Thats the thing, you dont have any aircraft for strategic airlift anymore. Having spoken to other Canadians you got rid of your aircraft capable of such. Hell your own House of Commons was shown on CSPAN bickering over this very topic.


HoC will bicker aboput everything. That means nothing.
The Canadian Armed Forces still opperate CC-130's, CC-150's. We also rent AN-124's and IL-76's from a Ukranian company when we need them.

Stratigic airlift is not defined as C-5 and C-17.

And yet the Patriot wasn't originally designed to shoot down missiles!

Or friendly aircraft!

HoC will bicker aboput everything. That means nothing.
The Canadian Armed Forces still opperate CC-130's, CC-150's. We also rent AN-124's and IL-76's from a Ukranian company when we need them.

Stratigic airlift is not defined as C-5 and C-17.

Those are just 2 planes in our stratigic Airlift.

Our C-130s do that too! My dad is a nav on our C-130s so I'm kinda partial to that aircraft.

Or friendly aircraft!

Happens in war unfortunately.

insane countrys like N Korea and Iran would still attack Canada too just for no damn good reason.

no country attacks another country for no reason. certainly not when this means the destruction of the attacking country by use of nuclear force. 'Politicians' who have succesfully stayed in power long enough know how to stay in power - getting yourself killed doesn't fit this category. No country is 'insane'. This statement seems to be the result of too much propaganda.

Those are just 2 planes in our stratigic Airlift.

Our C-130s do that too! My dad is a nav on our C-130s so I'm kinda partial to that aircraft.


Yea, but Canada uses C-130's too, as I said. So I'm asuming that people actually know that, and are saying Canada has no stratigic airlift because we don't have the bigger ones.
As you've stated, as have I, C-130's are Stratigic airlift. As well are CC-150's (Although more commonly refered to as multi-purpose).

The American Neo-Conservatives want terrorists to attack them so they can have an excuse to get people to vote for them so they can keep invading countries and get scare people into voting for them. Way to go Canada, you just saved yourself billions of dollars that can be spent on making Canada better instead of wasting it on something that makes the world more dangerous. Bush isn't stupid, he knows what he wants and he knows how to get it done. That doesn't make it right though.

Bush :fluffle: BinLaden

1) no country attacks another country for no reason. certainly not when this means the destruction of the attacking country by use of nuclear force. 'Politicians' who have succesfully stayed in power long enough know how to stay in power - getting yourself killed doesn't fit this category. No country is 'insane'. This statement seems to be the result of too much propaganda.

So Hitler had a reason to go to war with Poland starting WWII? Austria-Hungary against Serbia that started WWI? North Korea invading South Korea starting the Korean War? North Vietnam invading South Vietnam? How about Queen Victoria's Wars? Napoleon's?

Yea, but Canada uses C-130's too, as I said. So I'm asuming that people actually know that, and are saying Canada has no stratigic airlift because we don't have the bigger ones.
As you've stated, as have I, C-130's are Stratigic airlift. As well are CC-150's (Although more commonly refered to as multi-purpose).

Sorry!

I saw C-5 and C-17 are not defined as Strategic Airlift. My apologies.

wow, i was reading through this topic and theres some things i have to set straight.

1. The National Missile Defense system canada rejected to participate in does not involve the militarization of space. it involves land and sea based radar systems, satelite detection systems (plume detection, thermal detection, etc.), and land based missile interceptors.

2. Nuclear deterrence was effective throughout the Cold War between the USSR and the United States. why would American strategic nuclear weapons not deterr any other nuclear power? keep in mind no other nuclear power, current or developing, has the means or the desire to develop as large a nuclear arsenal as the Soviet Union had. And yes, i realize Russia inherented the Soviet stockpile, but we can all agree the NMD is not directed toward, or would be able to defend against, a Russian nuclear attack.

3. the current proposed NMD system (or any possible near future systems) can be easily defeated by low tech warhead dummies and alot of other technologically simple systems im not going to take the time to go into right now.

4. given that the proven theory of nuclear deterrence obviates any need for a NMD to protect the United States from other state actors, the only other possibility (which has been noted by the Bush administration) is non-state actors; terrorists. a: where is a terrorist going to get an ICBM. b: if they could, why would they when they could either buy a much cheaper nuclear bomb (or even the warhead designed for the ICBM) and smuggle it into the United States through 98% of the shipping containers that arent inspected....c: even if we had a NMD system, and we screwed up a 'terrorist plot' to launch an ICBM at New York, they could simply then just detonate the nuclear weapon within the United States as just mentioned.

5. the NMD proposed by bush is going to cost atleast 100 billion dollars. i'll let you guys figure out why this is important on your own.

As an American citizen, i applaud the canadians. and if i ever hear anyone say Iraq was a threat to US national security again im gunna pee on their shoe.

Along with those soldiers in Afganistan that were killed by the pilot that was doped up. But I think all of Canada realizes it was a mistake.

And if you've ever talked to Agnosticium on this forum, you'd find out some pretty interesting stuff. Like he was in USAF Spec Ops, and flew in CC-130's over Afgan. He said the Canadian crews were often Female, and often sexy, lol.

So the US used CC-130's in Afgan? The concept is known as "being friendly" and allowing the use of all allied vehicles for the purpose of working together. Canada and United States may bicker alot, but we work together very well, partially because our cultures and societies are so alike, but also because under it all there is still a sense of respect for both.

So Hitler had a reason to go to war with Poland starting WWII? Austria-Hungary against Serbia that started WWI? North Korea invading South Korea starting the Korean War? North Vietnam invading South Vietnam? How about Queen Victoria's Wars? Napoleon's?

he meens no natation attacks with out a reason in those casicea it was conquest

Of course Canada would sit on their behinds while watching American TV and drinking American soda onthis one. You have the luxury of being the neighbor the the most powerful nation in the world. We providie all the military protection you could want simply because of your location. In fact you should completely disarm because you know the good 'ol red white and blue won't let anything happen to you anyway.


Some of us are trying to get your corporations out of our country. We do not need poisons/carcenogens or obesity. I mean have Americans looked in the mirror at what their society has done to them? They are getting fatter, they have record levels of heart disease and cancer and you just want it to keep on coming to make more money...

Quote me on this anytime you like "Your right to pollute ends at my body. You have no right to kill me, even for money."

... And we just upped out military another 13 billion. Don't worry, we are not worried about something from the outside attacking us, the US relies to heavily on our energy, clean water, uranium and lumber... We are only worried that eventually your new "President" will show the world what his fathers "New World Order" speech meant, and we will have to defend ourselves from you.

It's hard to corrupt a people who pride themselves on honesty, doing good work and being passionately equal.

Along with those soldiers in Afganistan that were killed by the pilot that was doped up. But I think all of Canada realizes it was a mistake.

And if you've ever talked to Agnosticium on this forum, you'd find out some pretty interesting stuff. Like he was in USAF Spec Ops, and flew in CC-130's over Afgan. He said the Canadian crews were often Female, and often sexy, lol.

So the US used CC-130's in Afgan? The concept is known as "being friendly" and allowing the use of all allied vehicles for the purpose of working together. Canada and United States may bicker alot, but we work together very well, partially because our cultures and societies are so alike, but also because under it all there is still a sense of respect for both.

Here here! We should all get along :fluffle:

Yea, but Canada uses C-130's too, as I said. So I'm asuming that people actually know that, and are saying Canada has no stratigic airlift because we don't have the bigger ones.
As you've stated, as have I, C-130's are Stratigic airlift. As well are CC-150's (Although more commonly refered to as multi-purpose).
Yes, C-130s have already been discussed here... my father was a pilot on one of ours, flew one into Rwanda during the genocide there. Or was that the other thread about Canada with Corneliu in it?

They're falling apart now, just not enough money for spare parts. Let's hope this new budget provides, hmm?

Anyway, I have relatives in the United States - there's a rather distant family branch in Montana, and a far more recent one in California. As far as I know, they're all Democrats. ;)

Yes, C-130s have already been discussed here... my father was a pilot on one of ours, flew one into Rwanda during the genocide there. Or was that the other thread about Canada with Corneliu in it?

Different one! I appreciate your father and what he does. As I said before, my dad is a nav on the C-130!

They're falling apart now, just not enough money for spare parts. Let's hope this new budget provides, hmm?

Yes! Let us hope so :)

Anyway, I have relatives in the United States - there's a rather distant family branch in Montana, and a far more recent one in California. As far as I know, they're all Democrats. ;)

I had an uncle that lived in Canada for awhile. He liked it there.

Different one! I appreciate your father and what he does. As I said before, my dad is a nav on the C-130!
Did. He retired from the CF in '95, shortly after that deployment. We still live about 10 kilometres from the local military base, though. He's an A330 pilot, now.
Yes! Let us hope so :)
I certainly do, but I hope that those shiny new aircraft the budget is paying for won't be used in a situation like Iraq.
I had an uncle that lived in Canada for awhile. He liked it there.
Not a draft dodger, I take it? :) I know a great deal of American expatriates up here, some of them even have parents in the U.S. military who are on exchange at CFB Kingston.

So Hitler had a reason to go to war with Poland starting WWII? Austria-Hungary against Serbia that started WWI? North Korea invading South Korea starting the Korean War? North Vietnam invading South Vietnam? How about Queen Victoria's Wars? Napoleon's?

Hitler was a bitch, serbian's killed their eir, Communism and Capitalism/USSR testeing the west, ditto last, napolean wanted to spread revolution.

"We're about equil in weapon quality, quantity is another issue."

this is an oversimplification. As the F-22 begins deployment, the Canadians have no near comensurate system. as the JSF is preparing for deployment in 2010, the canadians have no comparable system (also keep in mind all the countries who are puchasing the JSF are getting inferior versioins...long story but true). as the US is preparing nano-armor for infantry, Canada has no equal system. the list goes on and on and on.

besides, the US has a much more qualitatively superior force of guided and standoff munitions...which are of course cardinal value in contemporary warfare.

lets not forget to examine strategic level system. the true stregnth of the United States' military is its C4IR capabilities (Command, Control, Computer, communication, Intelligence, Reconissiance). Canada's C4IR infrastructre is far behind that of the United States

does any of this matter? no. your canada...why would you need a world class military? politically it doesnt make sense.

Conversely, is American military primacy worth it? well...wish i knew.

but anyway...and this isnt placation it is sincerely met...i do admire the prowess of the canadian military given the limited resources it has at its disposal.

I'm not sure if this has already been brought up, but in regards to a post somewhere either on page 2 or 3 of the thread, that stated

"Of course Canada would sit on their behinds while watching American TV and drinking American soda onthis one. You have the luxury of being the neighbor the the most powerful nation in the world. We providie all the military protection you could want simply because of your location. In fact you should completely disarm because you know the good 'ol red white and blue won't let anything happen to you anyway."

I'd just like to comment that this makes us seem useless, which we most certainly aren't. And if the US is oh so powerful (this is directed at the person who posted this, not to any other Americans) then why is Canada the one who has how many countries, all of which have some pretty scary weapons, backing us, while the US somehow manages to keep getting trouble with other countries? Just a thought there.

Blessed be. :)

Did. He retired from the CF in '95, shortly after that deployment. We still live about 10 kilometres from the local military base, though. He's an A330 pilot, now.

Still though! He did his duty. I respect people like that.

I certainly do, but I hope that those shiny new aircraft the budget is paying for won't be used in a situation like Iraq.

I hope there isn't another war for awhile myself.

Not a draft dodger, I take it? :) I know a great deal of American expatriates up here, some of them even have parents in the U.S. military who are on exchange at CFB Kingston.
No not a draft dodger! LOL! His company transferred him up there for abit. He's back in the states now. And that's cool. I like that type of exchange program :D

Still though! He did his duty. I respect people like that.
20 years in the Canadian Forces certainly qualifies. I'm thinking about joining the Reserves, myself.
I hope there isn't another war for awhile myself.
I'll drink to that.
No not a draft dodger! LOL! His company transferred him up there for abit. He's back in the states now. And that's cool. I like that type of exchange program :D
Yeah, there's been quite a few of those sorts here. One of my best friends for a couple years in elementary school had a father who was a Royal Navy officer on exchange.

Hitler was a bitch, serbian's killed their eir, Communism and Capitalism/USSR testeing the west, ditto last, napolean wanted to spread revolution.

1)Still no reason to go to war, and you never did answer it
2)Again no real reason but meh, I'll grant it to you.
3)Granted but why?
4)Queen Victoria was a socialist? Explain Queen Victoria's Wars
5)Napoleon wanted to take over the world. Much like Queen Victoria!

4)Queen Victoria was a socialist? Explain Queen Victoria's Wars
5)Napoleon wanted to take over the world. Much like Queen Victoria!
Hey, don't bash Queen Vic! Thanks to her, we Canadians get a long weekend in May ;)

I don't think Victoria wanted to own the whole world... just a significant portion of it. 1/4 certainly qualifies, don't you think?

If you want to talk about a nation that spends little to nothing on it's military because it "knows the US will sheild it", talk about Iceland. They have no army outside the US army.

I was thinking more along the lines of the UK's army. It's has a large army, sure, but it spends nothing on it.
It's gun, the SA80, doesn't work, niether do our tanks, radios or boots. There arn't enough rations to go around in Iraq, forcing our lads to beg of the Americans, and not a lot of troops even have body armour.
For a country that claims to have the fourth biggest econemy in the World it's a ruddy disgrace!

When did I even mention the US was the best country ever? Its you Canadians who can't seem to look past your belief that Canada is the best country ever.
Canada has "always" been willing to work with the US and Mexico in the mutual defense of N. America? Always? Even when firmly a member of the British Empire you were working with the US and Mexico for the mutual defense of N. America? Evan when the US and Canada ( as part of the British Empire) almost went to war over a pig?
Iceland? And this has what to do with Canadian/US military relations?
And now I am really wondering why we got to this argument when the topic was the missle sheild.

*Pixelated faced Canadian snipers surrounding my apartment, massive Canadian coastgaurd blockading my driveway, I chose to stand at the window and wave.*

I have never met a people with a bigger chip on their national shoulders than Canadians. They constantly acuse we USians of being full of pride and then fall back on, " We're better than you!" "Canada has the best. . . . in the world!" for their own arguments. If you don't like other people having national pride then don't have any yourselves.


Sorry, we pride ourselves not being Americans. Around the world, America says they believe one thing, and that they are free and value freedom, this is a good thing. Also that many americans are thougthful caring people and want people to be well taken care of.

Unfrotunately thats only on TV. In reality, your corporations rule you with an iron fist. Telling you what to wear, what to drink, who to act like... People who do not conform to the costumer way of life are absolutely publically evicerated. Just today, Fox (A Rupert Murdock, Republican Propganda Station) will be showing "Stars without Makeup!" "You know you gotta see it!" all the pictures are of liberal/activist actresses and actors in their most embarrassing situations. This is called character assassination.


Your freedom should not be bought and not be sold, your freedom should be abolute. Your freedom should be inspiring hope to the hopeless ot bring light to darker corners of the earth, and to your nation itself. I should be something that helps people build a better world.

Your "Freedom and Democracy" means hypocracy and death around the world. People do not open their arms when they see you coming, they run, and run fast, because you are about to roll about a million tons of ordinance into their country and massacre many people who didn't need to die.

Your Corporate masters don't like nosey independant reporters, so it targets reporters, killing a hotel full of them. They didn't like the fact there was no war to boost economy and so on September 10th, the US military surrounded Afghanistan, because the corporate masters had a great idea of having some FBI protected people fly planes into the Twin Towers the next day...

If I was an American, seeing all this, I would not be watching the corporate "thinkthisway-box", I would be preparing for the inevitable... If your not going to conform, then they're will be no place for you in their "new world order" and if you are a free-thinking person of ethics and morality, you will be on their list.

Since you signed away your civil liberties with your "patriot act" they have unprecedented power to not be accountable. What makes you think for one second that unprecedented private corporate power, with the might of the American armed forces will "have a change of heart" and give it all back? don't be silly...


Canada is not a perfect country, we have our problems, but with your new president scaring the living hell out of us (trips to the US have dropped by 2/3rds considering our currency rise against the greenback) we have found more unity, even with a minority government in power.

We are a land which keeps up with social change, which accepts the inevitabilty that homosexuals will have equal rights, just the same as women got the right ot vote... It will be without question, it simply has to be. To be otherwise would be unequal. If we are not equal to ourselves, then all the British North America Acts or Declarations of Independence are simply something that should be dismissed with utter repugnance. They are not worth the paper they are printed on.

We are a land that cannot sit by why a lone mother starves to death in an alley. We are a land where the injury or illness comes first, and comes free, for someone to die because I get a small tax break is inexcusible and repulsive. We are a land where the news does not try to sensationalize everything, where ethics in journalism are more important than the "story". We are a nation which will hold a national public inquiry as to why ONE MAN named David Millgard was sent to prison for 23 years for a crime he did not commit, or why ONE MAN named Maher Arar was on a vacation, passed through a customs gate, was detained in America, without trial, without due process and was sent to Syria for torture for over a year. We understand it only takes one thing to make things unqual and unjust.

Our countries are not that different, I only hope that Americans do eventually embrace the great gift of wealth and dismantle their huge corporations and spend the money making their society alive and vibrant again. We have less than 1 tenth, and we are doing just fine. Thank you.

I was thinking more along the lines of the UK's army. It's has a large army, sure, but it spends nothing on it.
It's gun, the SA80, doesn't work, niether do our tanks, radios or boots. There arn't enough rations to go around in Iraq, forcing our lads to beg of the Americans, and not a lot of troops even have body armour.
For a country that claims to have the fourth biggest econemy in the World it's a ruddy disgrace!

I can't speak to the other stuff but I was under the impression that the Challenger II was even better than the newer abrams?

"Sir, the Canadians have opted out."

"Good, good. Ready the missiles... Canada will be conservative whether they like it or not! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

<- is a Republican

I'm sorry. I hope you get better.

why would Iran or North Korea ever launch a missle at Canada? I'm not defending them but thats the equivelant of someone running over a kitten in front of a peta rally, and no one is that stupid.

Well what if there accuracy was off. Instead of hitting NY the miscalculated and aimed for Ottawa? Maybe a strike on Seattle's massive naval base wound up a bit further north in Vancouvers backyard. Ya never know. But dont worry, big brother is looking out for our little sister.

I can't speak to the other stuff but I was under the impression that the Challenger II was even better than the newer abrams?


The Challanger II is top of the line. The problem is that it's control systems as a bit trickey, and the main gun is just on par with the M1A2's main gun.
Unlike, say, the Leopard 2A6, which has a more powerful gun, and easier controls.


At least the Challanger II s better then the Cheiften, which was utter crap.

Well what if there accuracy was off. Instead of hitting NY the miscalculated and aimed for Ottawa? Maybe a strike on Seattle's massive naval base wound up a bit further north in Vancouvers backyard. Ya never know. But dont worry, big brother is looking out for our little sister.
Chances are, if it's inaccurate, it'll fall in the Pacific. Which is probably what would happen anyway, so why spend so much money on a failure-prone system to help prevent problems from your enemy's failure-prone system?

Sorry, we pride ourselves not being Americans. Around the world, America says they believe one thing, and that they are free and value freedom, this is a good thing. Also that many americans are thougthful caring people and want people to be well taken care of.

Unfrotunately thats only on TV. In reality, your corporations rule you with an iron fist. Telling you what to wear, what to drink, who to act like... People who do not conform to the costumer way of life are absolutely publically evicerated. .

Guess maybe thats better than being lap dogs to those French Canadians in Quebec.

Yea, Canada doesn't need to participate for many reasons. Most have been stated, but insane countrys like N Korea and Iran would still attack Canada too just for no damn good reason. And we wouldn't only come up to Canada and help defend them just because of material objects such as electricity ( That may be a fraction ) but there our neighbor to the north, the UN would make us anyways, a lot of Americans ( despite popular beliefe ) still don't mind Canada at all ( and no matter what Canada says about Americans ) and just many other reasons, and there are a lot of familys who have family members in Canada and America.

Anyways, were apparently making plans to assault Iran next. And even if we don't, Iran will attack Iraq regardless if we are there or not. N Korea will do something to piss everyone off anyways, so N Korea will eventually get blown the hell up. I kind of think everything is going a little steady.

I think you should realize that both countries have been saying "We only are getting edgy because the US is threatening us in about 2 speeched a week for the last 3 years."

I honestly feel that no one in either country wants to die. But I bet you millions would die to repel your upcoming invasion.

snip

This is very well-written, and a better post than I see most make here. However, I find a couple of points that I disagree with..

Firstly, are you suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were engineered by companies and the U.S. government?

Secondly, you mention that we caused wars where thousands died who didn't have to. I assume that you are referring to the war in Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. You also said countries run when they see us coming. What about the thousands of innocent people that Saddam Hussein would have killed if he had stayed in power, not to mention the tens of thousands he killed while in power? What about the Iraqi people holding their ink-stained fingers in midair, proud of having the right to vote that would have only come with invasion?

Just curious.

So Hitler had a reason to go to war with Poland starting WWII? Austria-Hungary against Serbia that started WWI? North Korea invading South Korea starting the Korean War? North Vietnam invading South Vietnam? How about Queen Victoria's Wars? Napoleon's?

Hitler used the same strategy as president Bush used... Bomb your populace, they become frightened, point the finger at some bad people an attack. war is on!

Chances are, if it's inaccurate, it'll fall in the Pacific. Which is probably what would happen anyway, so why spend so much money on a failure-prone system to help prevent problems from your enemy's failure-prone system?

The airborne laser system is highly accurate. Here is a linkhttp//:spacedaily.com/news/laser-04f.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04f.html)

Hitler used the same strategy as president Bush used... Bomb your populace, they become frightened, point the finger at some bad people an attack. war is on!

He didn't bomb his populace. He dressed his soldiers up in Polish Uniforms and called it an invasion.

And when did Bush bomb us?

I will be blunt, i dont like Canada, I dont like socialized countries, and I dont like their veiwpoint on pretty much every issue, I will be joining the Marine Corps in two years (im 17), BUT, in the event that canada got attacked by another country, even though i odnt like them I would help defend them, because I unlike most other Americans knows how pride works, and even though i dislike the country i will still help defend it from foreign enemies.

The airborne laser system is highly accurate. Here is a linkhttp//:spacedaily.com/news/laser-04f.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04f.html)
Well they aren't building an airborne laser system, now are they? Interceptor missiles are the top priority, not lasers. Mind explaining what those bases in Alaska are being upgraded for, then?

Besides, as that website so obviously points out even in its name, that's borderline weaponisation of space. Which, as we should all know = Satan.

It is my opinion that we don't need to worry about airborne nuclear attacks. No country with self-preservation goals in mind would attack the U.S. with nuclear missiles, as they would be reduced to a parking lot in less than an hour. What I am scared of is the briefcase-sized nuclear bombs that can be taken into cities by terrorists, instantly killing hundreds of thousands.

I will be blunt, i dont like Canada, I dont like socialized countries, and I dont like their veiwpoint on pretty much every issue, I will be joining the Marine Corps in two years (im 17), BUT, in the event that canada got attacked by another country, even though i odnt like them I would help defend them, because I unlike most other Americans knows how pride works, and even though i dislike the country i will still help defend it from foreign enemies.
Why, because we show that socialism can actually work? Boo hoo.

Why, because we show that socialism can actually work? Boo hoo.

Actually Canada isn't socialist!

I will be blunt, i dont like Canada, I dont like socialized countries, and I dont like their veiwpoint on pretty much every issue, I will be joining the Marine Corps in two years (im 17), BUT, in the event that canada got attacked by another country, even though i odnt like them I would help defend them, because I unlike most other Americans knows how pride works, and even though i dislike the country i will still help defend it from foreign enemies.


No one would ever try to invade Canada, least of all the US.
No nation in the world wants to deal with 32 million people, in a huge nation where 70% of all homes have at least one gun, all screaming for social healthcare like we have now.

1)Still no reason to go to war, and you never did answer it
2)Again no real reason but meh, I'll grant it to you.
3)Granted but why?
4)Queen Victoria was a socialist? Explain Queen Victoria's Wars
5)Napoleon wanted to take over the world. Much like Queen Victoria!

1) After WWI, parts of germany were handed out to it's neighbours. One of Hitler's goals was to bring all 'german' (german speaking, belonging to german kingdoms in the past) in the german reich. This is one reason.
2) If the son of an emperor is killed because of political reasons the emperor will usually declare war on the opponents that did this because of revenge and because it's a way to get rid of said opponents.
3) Note that USSR communist philosophy saw the rest of the world as tirannical and wanted to 'liberate' the people from capitalism. Add to this that a succesfull revolution by the people against their rulers is dangerous for other rulers (regardless of it being a communist revolution, people might copy the idea of a revolution). This is why a lot of countries attacked the USSR. You can see how both sides had reasons to go to war.
4) scanning through a site describing these wars, i see the following recurring themes: power, wealth, alliances, trade, resources, 'humanitarian missions' (bringing civilisation; nowadays it's 'bringing democraty').
5) One thing was that - like with communist revolution - the nobility ruling other countries was afraid of the french revolution. I believe Napoleon also had the idea of a 'united europe' plus he too liked power.

The main argument is: If a leader/country gains nothing (this does not have to be material gain) from attacking, he will not attack. This is an economic law.

Actually Canada isn't socialist!
Social democracy, it's the same difference. We just don't go as far as the Europeans do. Call it socialism with the occasional capitalist cowering in the corner.

Guess maybe thats better than being lap dogs to those French Canadians in Quebec.

Sir, thats rude, Whether French, English, Chinese, Iranian, or Uzbekistanian, we all humans.

1) After WWI, parts of germany were handed out to it's neighbours. One of Hitler's goals was to bring all 'german' (german speaking, belonging to german kingdoms in the past) in the german reich. This is one reason.
2) If the son of an emperor is killed because of political reasons the emperor will usually declare war on the opponents that did this because of revenge and because it's a way to get rid of said opponents.
3) Note that USSR communist philosophy saw the rest of the world as tirannical and wanted to 'liberate' the people from capitalism. Add to this that a succesfull revolution by the people against their rulers is dangerous for other rulers (regardless of it being a communist revolution, people might copy the idea of a revolution). This is why a lot of countries attacked the USSR. You can see how both sides had reasons to go to war.
4) scanning through a site describing these wars, i see the following recurring themes: power, wealth, alliances, trade, resources, 'humanitarian missions' (bringing civilisation; nowadays it's 'bringing democraty').
5) One thing was that - like with communist revolution - the nobility ruling other countries was afraid of the french revolution. I believe Napoleon also had the idea of a 'united europe' plus he too liked power.

The main argument is: If a leader/country gains nothing (this does not have to be material gain) from attacking, he will not attack. This is an economic law.

The Ayahtolla prolly isn't too concerned with money, nor bin laden

Instead of this missile defence business, the money should be put forward by both countries to create a database for known and suspected terrorists, and ways to prevent them from entering either countries to reap havoc. Cooperation is the goal, and I believe this is something both countries can agree upon.

1) After WWI, parts of germany were handed out to it's neighbours. One of Hitler's goals was to bring all 'german' (german speaking, belonging to german kingdoms in the past) in the german reich. This is one reason.

Then why invade Poland? It poised no threat to him!

2) If the son of an emperor is killed because of political reasons the emperor will usually declare war on the opponents that did this because of revenge and because it's a way to get rid of said opponents.

I already said that I can buy it. No need to give me a history lesson on events that I already know.

3) Note that USSR communist philosophy saw the rest of the world as tirannical and wanted to 'liberate' the people from capitalism. Add to this that a succesfull revolution by the people against their rulers is dangerous for other rulers (regardless of it being a communist revolution, people might copy the idea of a revolution). This is why a lot of countries attacked the USSR. You can see how both sides had reasons to go to war.

Hey, sounds like the revolutions that took place after the American Revolution. :D Anyway, yea I can see how both sides had a reason to go to war.

4) scanning through a site describing these wars, i see the following recurring themes: power, wealth, alliances, trade, resources, 'humanitarian missions' (bringing civilisation; nowadays it's 'bringing democraty').

Nice how you through that bringing democracy out. Iraq was already civilized, just had a despotic dictator. As for Queen Victoria and her wars, several of these people were already civilized to some degree. She just wanted to extend the empire against low tech of the time troops. They were a superpower at that time point too.

5) One thing was that - like with communist revolution - the nobility ruling other countries was afraid of the french revolution. I believe Napoleon also had the idea of a 'united europe' plus he too liked power.

He wanted a united Europe alright. He also lust for power. Succeeded except for the fight with Russia that tossed him out of the territory that he conquered.

The main argument is: If a leader/country gains nothing (this does not have to be material gain) from attacking, he will not attack. This is an economic law.

True enough :)

Sir, thats rude, Whether French, English, Chinese, Iranian, or Uzbekistanian, we all humans.

Here here!

Comin up on your 5000th post, eh? We should throw a party ;)

Comin up on your 5000th post, eh? We should throw a party ;)

WOW! I didn't realize Iwas that Close! LOL!!

Anyway, I don't really care if Canada has a shield or not. It really is up to them but Martin should put it up for a popular vote. That is my opinion.

The only reason it would be necessary was if nuclear war ever developed, but if that happens, I think something a little more powerful (and perhaps supernatural) than a missle shield is going to save us.

Hitler invaded Poland to united Germany... remember, Germany was split to give Poland access to the Sea.

The Ayahtolla prolly isn't too concerned with money, nor bin laden

Bin laden does not run a country - the ayahtolla does. He has a lot of power and a life that he can lose. He might attack iraq (iran and iraq have a history for those that know even less than me on this subject) but he wont lose everything by nuking a country. And i think even bin laden might qualify to be 'reasonable' to some extend. Note that while his organisation finds people willing to die for his cause, it is important for his cause that he and the important people in his surroundings stay alive (as well as important for the rich man himself). If he is capable of setting off a nuke in a US city, chances are the US will invade the region he is in in a way unseen (and aided by anything nato), if they don't decide to use a second strike on said region.

Well they aren't building an airborne laser system, now are they? Interceptor missiles are the top priority, not lasers. Mind explaining what those bases in Alaska are being upgraded for, then?

Besides, as that website so obviously points out even in its name, that's borderline weaponisation of space. Which, as we should all know = Satan.


Its an intergrated system. One system doesnt get em the second will. Its called redundancy. Used often in dealing with military systems.

Weapons in space will happen. Just a matter of time. If they havent already.

Call it what you want. It just might save your ass someday. Hopefully someone doesnt try such a thing.

It is my opinion that we don't need to worry about airborne nuclear attacks. No country with self-preservation goals in mind would attack the U.S. with nuclear missiles, as they would be reduced to a parking lot in less than an hour. What I am scared of is the briefcase-sized nuclear bombs that can be taken into cities by terrorists, instantly killing hundreds of thousands.


Even still the US would turn some terrorist friendly nation into a parking lot because of it. They would just take there pick.

I'd just like to point out that, contrary to what a lot of people early in this topic said, NK doesn't have the ability to launch a missile across the Pacific. It doesn't have an ICBM's.

We wouldn't be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons on a terrorist-harboring nation, especially with such a large "conventional" army. I really hope you don't believe that. To use nukes on a nation such as Iran or Syria would instigate worldwide nuclear war.

I'd just like to point out that, contrary to what a lot of people early in this topic said, NK doesn't have the ability to launch a missile across the Pacific. It doesn't have an ICBM's.

Not 100% true. They actually have a missile that can theoretically hit the West Coast of the United States.

I'd just like to point out that, contrary to what a lot of people early in this topic said, NK doesn't have the ability to launch a missile across the Pacific. It doesn't have an ICBM's.


Again for the ill informed, here you go
[http//:nyu.edu/globalbeat/asia/Niksch020599.html (www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/asia/Niksch020599.html)

This kind of thing has already happened back during teh cold war when canada did not want US nuclear weapons inside their borders. I think they were callded BOMARC and this is very close to that situation.

www.northkoreahasicbms.com could not be found?

The link's not working.

www.northkoreahasicbms.com could not be found?

The link's not working.
Here it is again. This is from '99. 6 full years ago.

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/asia/Niksch020599.html

Not 100% true. They actually have a missile that can theoretically hit the West Coast of the United States.

Is it big enough to carry a nuclear payload, though?

Heres another link for the "peace loving Iranians" missle programs.

http//:aoreport.com/news51.htm (http://www.aoreport.com/news51.htm)

Is it big enough to carry a nuclear payload, though?

Actually, yes it is.

WOW! I didn't realize Iwas that Close! LOL!!

Anyway, I don't really care if Canada has a shield or not. It really is up to them but Martin should put it up for a popular vote. That is my opinion.


Why? I mean - it's not like many decisions anywhere else (including your country) are done my referendum?

If anything, the fact that Martin is leading a minority government forces him to make decisions that he knows would pass muster in the house of commons or he would be sure to have a vote of no confidence threatened on the next issue to force the point.

Is it big enough to carry a nuclear payload, though?
With some downsizing in there warheads they can be fitted. Remember that article is from 6 years ago. They are far more along then that suggested

This is very well-written, and a better post than I see most make here. However, I find a couple of points that I disagree with...

Firstly, are you suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were engineered by companies and the U.S. government?

No sir, I am stating is as fact.

The only unofficial public examination of the incident was held in Toronto, Ontario, with 6000 or so attendees (please forgive me if my number are imperfect) from around the world. They concluded that the United States Government planned this act.

The other cases which failed to produce the desired result were the 93 Tower Bombing, unfortunately the Times reported that the only reason the tower still stood was because the terrorist the FBI hired deliberately parked the van 12 feet from the main pillar, he said he didn't understand why, if this was a drill, he was given authorization to set off the bombs...

The 94 OK City bombing was caught on the local news (Channel 4) with 2 extra bombs and the FBI dismantling them, written affidavits from Firemen saying that the other bombs that did not go off were removed. The witnesses who said the Riot guys all got beeped to not go into work today and to be dressed in full gear, which they were moments after the explosion. (Bomb removal gear takes 30 minutes to put on.) You can argue with me, but I watched 3 hours of "Live as it happens" news footage of Channel 4, and I invite every human to see it. Or you can download some Alex Jones off WinMX.

Secondly, you mention that we caused wars where thousands died who didn't have to. I assume that you are referring to the war in Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. You also said countries run when they see us coming. What about the thousands of innocent people that Saddam Hussein would have killed if he had stayed in power, not to mention the tens of thousands he killed while in power? What about the Iraqi people holding their ink-stained fingers in midair, proud of having the right to vote that would have only come with invasion?

Just curious.

Certainly, I cannot answer what we should have done with Saddam because nothing was really tried. He was a CIA plant for the majority of his life, and I view his overthrow as "getting rid of the old Terror-guy" and elevating Osama as the key CIA plant to watch. However, the incident with the Kurds, where 60,000 died by gassing was done for 3 billion dollars the US government gave during the 80's for Saddam. The condition of this was he was to buy Tractors and other Farm equipment from John Deer and other US Corporations. Unfortunately he needed land which could be developed quickly, and which was not owned by anyone. Then he had to get them off the land.

Those pictures of "happy iraqis" given the right to vote, ink laden thumbs in the air is not part of my collage of Iraq pictures. I watch the news from other countries, not the US. I find when I do, I am presented with a series of soundsbites and vidclips designed to inspire emotion and provide very little real data. Outside I only hear of the facts, see the numbers and see the "real" pictures from Iraq.

In Kofi Annan's opinion, and mine, Iraq was defined as "a terrorist act" and unlike Kofi Annan is a clear cut case of "Armed Aggression". If we held the US up to Nuremburg standards, every post war American president would be hanged. Personally, it offends my sensibilities and the very core of my being to have, in any way, tolerated this type of behaviour. This is no different from the invasion of Poland in 1939, or Yugoslavia. In fact, right now, the US is doing exactly Germany did in Poland during that time, focused on "work camps" and "anti-terrorism". Which is unfortunately the term used when a country rolls over another, takes over its leadership by proxy, installs a low price workforce and conducts "low-intensity warfare" against a determined resistance movement.

This is the same type of movement you helped strenuously in World War II. The Free French, the Free Polish... What I don't understand is how can a country go so downhill as to be the thing it hates and fears the most.

canada rocks so there

canada rocks so there
Well as an American I agree. Good beer, Cool chicks, bunch of good comedians... Who needs a missle shield?!

Canada is being incredibly idiotic. It would provide them with plenty of jobs, increased security, as anyone that nukes America...you can bet Canada will get affected by the Nuclear Fallout. Plus I'm sure Canada would not have to pay much, if Bush was pressuring them to pay for it, when they can't afford it, that's one thing. But if Canada can pay for it's share, they should go for it.

snip

Wow. To think that I thought you had an ounce of sense. First, to get me to buy any of those statements, you are going to have to find some proof. Second, I am offended that you believe our government would order attacks against our own people and would plant a ruthless killer like Hussein in Iraq for so many years.

Find some proof to back up those outragous statements, and then we'll talk.

I will be blunt, i dont like Canada, I dont like socialized countries, and I dont like their veiwpoint on pretty much every issue, I will be joining the Marine Corps in two years (im 17), BUT, in the event that canada got attacked by another country, even though i odnt like them I would help defend them, because I unlike most other Americans knows how pride works, and even though i dislike the country i will still help defend it from foreign enemies.


Not bad. You manage to insult all of Canada and "most other Americans" all in one post. IT must be tough on you planning to defend people you have so little respect for - on both sides of the border.

Wow. To think that I thought you had an ounce of sense. First, to get me to buy any of those statements, you are going to have to find some proof. Second, I am offended that you believe our government would order attacks against our own people and would plant a ruthless killer like Hussein in Iraq for so many years.

Find some proof to back up those outragous statements, and then we'll talk.

He will but I'm sure its so full of crap, you can drive a space shuttle through it. :D

I didn't know where to start to debunk it. Thanks for responding in a nicer tone than I was going too.

Not bad. You manage to insult all of Canada and "most other Americans" all in one post. IT must be tough on you planning to defend people you have so little respect for - on both sides of the border.

Give it too him Zeppistan. I feel bad that he is joining my nation's defense. Alwell, he'll get what's coming when he got to the Island (and you know what Island I mean too I'm sure)

True. Partly out of friendship, but partly because the US can't tell whether any missile heading in the direction of Canada is intended for Canada - or the United States. Missiles don't usually announce their intentions.

All Bush really wanted was permission to shoot missiles down over Canada. Now he'll just do it without our permission.

No. He wont do it without our permission because Canada gave up our Sovereignity over our airspace to the states so they COULD fire at missles coming from our general direction

Wow. To think that I thought you had an ounce of sense. First, to get me to buy any of those statements, you are going to have to find some proof. Second, I am offended that you believe our government would order attacks against our own people and would plant a ruthless killer like Hussein in Iraq for so many years.

Find some proof to back up those outragous statements, and then we'll talk.

Like I said, I'm calling it like it is. You can find all your "Ruthless killer: Saddam!!" Material in any news broadcast prior to 1989. He was recruited by the CIA to do an uprising back in the 50s an 60s, He tried for several years until he finally produce a coup, and the US rejoiced. I think there is even a small segement of him on "Bushflash.com" under animations, its called "Thanks for the Memories" ( I wanted you to find it )

I'm sorry you are offended. I also, believed that you would not be an American with "The Denial" syndrome. I do hope you find the truth. You may write to me at anytime, I will try and help you with whatever information I can. I have about 20 hours of documentaries, films an raw footage.

I must remind you that the belief that your government or your corporations are innocent of wrongdoing is a belief. I suggest you prove that believe to yourself. A simple search of "UN Security Council Vetos" should help you. I particularly like #230. A simple search of "The Memory Hole" will yield good results. The "Memory Hole" is an expression activists use to describe information that is "embarrassing" and thusly never reported on again.

Remember, outside your country, we are not indoctrinated. Picture most of the world looking at what is going on through the eyes of the Daily Show, with Jon Stewart. Thats pretty much how alot of people not in the US see it. For good or ill.

Good luck.

Come on man...you will take care of that well before they have long range ballistic missile....
North Korea already does.

Give it too him Zeppistan. I feel bad that he is joining my nation's defense. Alwell, he'll get what's coming when he got to the Island (and you know what Island I mean too I'm sure)

Yep. People with attitudes generally have an entertaining time in Basic.... lol. Although correct me if I'm wrong but there is no guarantee he would go to Parris. The MArines DO still run the Training Depot at San Diego as well don't they?

Is it big enough to carry a nuclear payload, though?
There's no reason to build an ICBM that only can carry a conventional warhead.

Like I said, I'm calling it like it is. You can find all your "Ruthless killer: Saddam!!" Material in any news broadcast prior to 1989. He was recruited by the CIA to do an uprising back in the 50s an 60s, He tried for several years until he finally produce a coup, and the US rejoiced. I think there is even a small segement of him on "Bushflash.com" under animations, its called "Thanks for the Memories" ( I wanted you to find it )

I'm sorry you are offended. I also, believed that you would not be an American with "The Denial" syndrome. I do hope you find the truth. You may write to me at anytime, I will try and help you with whatever information I can. I have about 20 hours of documentaries, films an raw footage.

I must remind you that the belief that your government or your corporations are innocent of wrongdoing is a belief. I suggest you prove that believe to yourself. A simple search of "UN Security Council Vetos" should help you. I particularly like #230. A simple search of "The Memory Hole" will yield good results. The "Memory Hole" is an expression activists use to describe information that is "embarrassing" and thusly never reported on again.

Remember, outside your country, we are not indoctrinated. Picture most of the world looking at what is going on through the eyes of the Daily Show, with Jon Stewart. Thats pretty much how alot of people not in the US see it. For good or ill.

Good luck.

Like the man said. Where is your proof that the government bombed ourselves. You have no proof otherwise you would've put it out. State it and show it. You completely dodged that issue and I can't help but wonder why. Care to provide the proof that we attacked ourselves?

snip

I ask you to bring me credible evidence that the U.S. organized the 9/11 attacks, and you tell me to search within myself and discover the truth? No...that's not how debate works. Until you bring me proof, news articles, links, etc., backing up your points, all your statements are worth nothing more than crap.

Yep. People with attitudes generally have an entertaining time in Basic.... lol. Although correct me if I'm wrong but there is no guarantee he would go to Parris. The MArines DO still run the Training Depot at San Diego as well don't they?

Yea they do! Doesn't matter anyway. He better lose that attitude or the drill Sargeants will be all over him.

Like the man said. Where is your proof that the government bombed ourselves. You have no proof otherwise you would've put it out. State it and show it. You completely dodged that issue and I can't help but wonder why. Care to provide the proof that we attacked ourselves?

Ooh, I'm a second too late.

3) Our government spent TWELVE times their estimated cost of the program failing to create a database listing the names of gun owners. Let's not whine about money.
Actually, the costs overran by more than 500 times. ;)

This is gonna make many Canadian angry but I must.

In the past Canadians had a true national identity and so they were comfortable living next to the United States, they didn't feel the need to constantly disagree with the US simply for the sake of doing so.
Now, however, with US culture being so dominant and with heavy and largely unassimilated immigration, Canada has lost much of its national identity and now as a nation it defines itself mainly by what it is not, part of the US. (I know you like beer and hockey and that counts for something) So, Canada now as a kneejerk reaction rejects whatever the US does. It does not actually matter what the US is doing, Canada will reject it simply because it is a US action.
Missle defense, much malaigned, will cost Canada nothing so whether it would work or not is irrelevant. They know if it does not work they can feel good about themselves for so smartly rejecting it and that if it does would the US will use it to protect Canada whether they rejected it or not. Canada is part of the homeland defensive sphere of the US because of its proximity to us.
Canada doesn't have to have a military because the US military is the defacto defense of Canada. I feel bad Canadian soldiers, it must be a bit humiliating for them to know how outdated and pathetic their equipment is. Sure, they have pride and will say, " We don't need all that fancy gear! We can do a good job with circa WWII ships and 1960's armaments." My point is not to insult the Canadian military at all, I have great respect for them because at least they care about the defense of their nation enough to try and not leave it up to another country.

I realize the use of "they" is a generalization and I do not believe all Canadians feel this way, but enough of them do to have allowed their nation to become this weak. If Canada wants to reject the missle shield that's just fine and dandy because all their talk of rejecting it will make not one whit of difference to the situation. The US has to defend them to defend itself.

Ok i am a Canadian in the military reserves and we do not have outdated equipment. Our equipment may not be as high-tech with stealth technology as the american army and we do have a rather large army, We dont want the missle shield defence due to one fact. It will eventually lead to weapon in space, and we do not want to be apart of that because MOST of us are strongly against it. The government was actually thinking of putting the Missle shield to vote about if we should join or not in july but the US pushed for an answer so they were given one, and the most of the people i know would have said no to the shield anyway. And it was going to cost canada alot of money, which we cant pay because we are in debt as it is, and the provinces are asking for more money which needs to be provided.

And it was going to cost canada alot of money, which we cant pay because we are in debt as it is, and the provinces are asking for more money which needs to be provided.

And here I thought that Canada was running a Surplus. At least that is what most Canadians have been saying on this board. I guess that isn't true after all.

BTW: Thanks for serving in your nation's Armed Forces.

If Canada was the U.S., the provinces wouldn't have to ask for money, and they could raise it themselves. ;) Just kidding...to each his own.

And here I thought that Canada was running a Surplus. At least that is what most Canadians have been saying on this board. I guess that isn't true after all.

BTW: Thanks for serving in your nation's Armed Forces.


We ARE running a surplus. And we have a debt - largely thanks to a previous conservative government under the stewardship of a man we affectionaly refer to as Lyin' Brian. The two are not mutually exclusive. Plus, as has been mentioned, we are about to plough about 13B back into the military on things that we feel are of greater benefit to our defence than a missile shield.

And here I thought that Canada was running a Surplus. At least that is what most Canadians have been saying on this board. I guess that isn't true after all.

BTW: Thanks for serving in your nation's Armed Forces.

<shrug> Yes, we're running a surplus, we just aren't choosing to spend our money on missile defense. He's still right about the debt (as opposed to deficit) though - by law most of the budget surplus has to go towards paying down the debt. You know, so we don't have to keep paying so much interest and all that.

If Canada was the U.S., the provinces wouldn't have to ask for money, and they could raise it themselves. ;) Just kidding...to each his own.

So, you are saying that the Federal Government of the US does NOT redistrubute tax dollars from richer states to poorer ones?

I think you are incorrect on this.....

We ARE running a surplus. And we have a debt - largely thanks to a previous conservative government under the stewardship of a man we affectionaly refer to as Lyin' Brian. The two are not mutually exclusive. Plus, as has been mentioned, we are about to plough about 13B back into the military on things that we feel are of greater benefit to our defence than a missile shield.

I don't know about you but you cannot run a surplus AND a debt at the sametime. Which is it?

As for plowing money into your military, ABOUT TIME!!!

If Canada was the U.S., the provinces wouldn't have to ask for money, and they could raise it themselves. ;) Just kidding...to each his own.

Huh? It works the same way, more or less, as the States. The federal government collects taxes then doles them out.

Much the same way as the 'blue states' pay more tax money than they receive in return, and the 'red states' receive more than they pay. Or something like that. I don't have a link, but I recall seeing the arguement made here on this forum.

I don't know about you but you cannot run a surplus AND a deficit at the sametime. Which is it?



A surplus.

Deficit =/= Debt.


Running a current budgetary surplus does NOT indicate that the government has not got a previously accumulated debt to pay off.

Canada does not rely on the US to protect it, if anything Canada has closer defence ties with the UK and Australia for simply being in the Commonwealth.

So what? Pakistan is as well, and Zimbabwe. The Commonwealth is a not a defense arrangement. We most certainly do have closer defense arrangements with the United States, being not only NATO allies, but sharing a continent and both being part of NORAD>

Canada is, and always has been, willing to work with the US and Mexico in the mutual defence of the North American continent, hence NORAD, but only on projects that will work, and do not go against Canadian policy.

Mexico is not a member of NORAD.

So, you are saying that the Federal Government of the US does NOT redistrubute tax dollars from richer states to poorer ones?

I think you are incorrect on this.....

We pay state taxes, and the states regulate this, not the federal government. So if Michigan needs money, it can raise it's taxes, while if Ohio has a surplus of money (which rarely, if ever, happens) it can give a tax break to it's citizens. The redistribution you are talking about is more among the classes than it is the states, taking taxes from wealthier people and giving it to poorer and older people through welfare and social security.

I don't know about you but you cannot run a surplus AND a debt at the sametime. Which is it?

As for plowing money into your military, ABOUT TIME!!!

Deficit - account for the year. Are you paying out more than you're taking in this year?

Debt - overall account. Do you have debt from previous years?

Surplus - account for the year. Are you bringing in more money than you're paying out?

Remember Clinton? The US had a tax surplus under him, although the US still owed debt from previous administrations. Then Bush cut taxes and upped spending and suddenly you had a current account deficit AND a debt. Current account deficits (and interest) are what make debts bigger.

I don't know about you but you cannot run a surplus AND a debt at the sametime. Which is it?

As for plowing money into your military, ABOUT TIME!!!


Consider this:
Current Canadaian Defence Budget = $8 Billion
Defence Budget with extra cash = $21 Billion


Maybe we'll either get a whole uber-kickass fleet of Leopard C3's (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v322/Dostanuot/MCA-6C.jpg), or buy some new ones? I heard some Stratcona guys saying they'd like to get their hands on some Merkavas.

The American Neo-Conservatives want terrorists to attack them so they can have an excuse to get people to vote for them so they can keep invading countries and get scare people into voting for them. Way to go Canada, you just saved yourself billions of dollars that can be spent on making Canada better instead of wasting it on something that makes the world more dangerous. Bush isn't stupid, he knows what he wants and he knows how to get it done. That doesn't make it right though.

Bush :fluffle: BinLaden
You're an idiot.

Hitler used the same strategy as president Bush used... Bomb your populace, they become frightened, point the finger at some bad people an attack. war is on!
You're also an idiot.

We pay state taxes, and the states regulate this, not the federal government. So if Michigan needs money, it can raise it's taxes, while if Ohio has a surplus of money (which rarely, if ever, happens) it can give a tax break to it's citizens. The redistribution you are talking about is more among the classes than it is the states, taking taxes from wealthier people and giving it to poorer and older people through welfare and social security.

And we, like you, pay provincial taxes as well as Federal ones. The programs that these taxes serve may overlap, but the system is not so different as you seem to think it is.

And yes, you have what are considered "donor" states who - by virtue of their wealth - cover many programs in poorer states. It is just not quite as formalized as we do through what we call "Equalization payments", However this actuall gives MORE autonomy to the provinces in some matters - not less.

And we, like you, pay provincial taxes as well as Federal ones. The programs that these taxes serve may overlap, but the system is not so different as you seem to think it is.

And yes, you have what are considered "donor" states who - by virtue of their wealth - cover many programs in poorer states. It is just not quite as formalized as we do through what we call "Equalization payments", However this actuall gives MORE autonomy to the provinces in some matters - not less.

My bad. I concede.

Yep. People with attitudes generally have an entertaining time in Basic.... lol. Although correct me if I'm wrong but there is no guarantee he would go to Parris. The MArines DO still run the Training Depot at San Diego as well don't they?
Yes.

And we, like you, pay provincial taxes as well as Federal ones. The programs that these taxes serve may overlap, but the system is not so different as you seem to think it is.

And yes, you have what are considered "donor" states who - by virtue of their wealth - cover many programs in poorer states. It is just not quite as formalized as we do through what we call "Equalization payments", However this actuall gives MORE autonomy to the provinces in some matters - not less.

To bad it isn't going to the Municipalities of Canada:

http://www.fcm.ca/newfcm/Java/deficit/counter_e.asp

To bad it isn't going to the Municipalities of Canada:

http://www.fcm.ca/newfcm/Java/deficit/counter_e.asp

At least the new budget addresses this issue to some degree - the municipalities will be getting some gas tax from the federal government.

At least the new budget addresses this issue to some degree - the municipalities will be getting some gas tax from the federal government.

Are they instituting a gas tax or are they distributing the gas tax money? I don't think the money from this tax will will generate the 600 billion needed.

My bad. I concede.

No probs. Actually, Wikipedia has a pretty good entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_economics_compared) that compares the two countries economies if you are interested, not to mention a pretty good comparison of our politics which is linked from that page.

To bad it isn't going to the Municipalities of Canada:

http://www.fcm.ca/newfcm/Java/deficit/counter_e.asp

While there are some allowance in the new budget to add this measure regarding gas taxes, it's not as if the US Federal Government directly funds municipalities either is it? I mean, what city was that in California that went bankrupt a few years back?

You pay local property taxes to your city, plus state and Federal Taxes.

We pay local property taxes to our cities, plus provincial and Federal taxes.

There are some differences between us as to which taxes fund which programs - but the differences are VERY slight.

Are they instituting a gas tax or are they distributing the gas tax money? I don't think the money from this tax will will generate the 600 billion needed.

Redistributing it. And no, it won't solve the whole problem, but at least they're finally acknowledging the problem.

Municipalities are at the low end of the totem pole. Nobody wants to see their property taxes going up, but our cities are growing rapidly. Additionally, much of the problem is that because of our huge debt the federal government starting offloading responsibilities on the provinces who offloaded stuff onto the municipalities, all without handing over more transfer payments to help pay for stuff.

It's ugly stuff, I tell ya.

I think the U.S. tax system needs a major overhaul. A "fair tax" bill is being written that, if enacted, would change the tax system to tax the things you buy, not your income. I don't understand it completely, but you can find more info at http://www.fairtax.org/ .

Redistributing it. And no, it won't solve the whole problem, but at least they're finally acknowledging the problem.

That's always the first step. Recognize the problem then find ways to fix it.

Municipalities are at the low end of the totem pole. Nobody wants to see their property taxes going up, but our cities are growing rapidly. Additionally, much of the problem is that because of our huge debt the federal government starting offloading responsibilities on the provinces who offloaded stuff onto the municipalities, all without handing over more transfer payments to help pay for stuff.

Always a problem. Sounds like a problem that we have here. Its funny what governments do to shift the Burden.

It's ugly stuff, I tell ya.

Very Ugly. At least we can agree on this! :)

Back to the subject. Didn't mean to get it off track.

At least we can agree on this! :)

Oh, I'm sure we agree on other things as well. :fluffle:

I think the U.S. tax system needs a major overhaul. A "fair tax" bill is being written that, if enacted, would change the tax system to tax the things you buy, not your income. I don't understand it completely, but you can find more info at http://www.fairtax.org/ .

Good! Hopefully it passes. I'm tired of my parents income being taxed the way it is. Its unfair. Its Unconstitutional (not really thanks to the income tax amendment), it violates my freedom and right to spend my money. I'll right my Congressmen to pass this legislation.

Oh, I'm sure we agree on other things as well. :fluffle:

Oh I'm sure we can but how often will it occur? :fluffle:

Oh I'm sure we can but how often will it occur? :fluffle:

Well, I admit it gets boring talking to people who agree with you all the time. I like a little spice.

Well, I admit it gets boring talking to people who agree with you all the time. I like a little spice.

I'll drink to that and I don't even drink. LOL

Yay! Our prime minister got it right! He isn't as stupid as people make him out to be! He did what's best for Canada! Go Paul Martin!

I ask you to bring me credible evidence that the U.S. organized the 9/11 attacks, and you tell me to search within myself and discover the truth? No...that's not how debate works. Until you bring me proof, news articles, links, etc., backing up your points, all your statements are worth nothing more than crap.

Thank you kindly for your words.

Like the man said. Where is your proof that the government bombed ourselves. You have no proof otherwise you would've put it out. State it and show it. You completely dodged that issue and I can't help but wonder why. Care to provide the proof that we attacked ourselves?

Well, I could give you 1000 websites. I could give you 100 professional opinions. They are all available anytime you want to look. I typed in three words and was engulfed in information regarding 911.

Unfortunately, for me to show you won't do any good. A critics ability to deride debate by calling upon proof and information that does not come from "sanctioned" news sources is a common thread. The ability to quash debate like this is probably the most used tool in American politics today. Once I provide you 1000 websites and so on, your ability to denouce me only means I have to provide more or you ask me questions over and over until something doesn't mesh perfectly, then you can call me "insane" or "notball" ot "idiot" and feel assured you have won the battle for the greater good.

So, instead I will provide one link. All the questions that bother me:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_questions.htm

Answer all those, and I would think you an I would be on the same page.


And the US as it is now:

http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

Not my country. Its up to you guys to fix it.

Thank you for your response.

You're an idiot.

Actually the links between BinLaden dynasty and the Bush dynasty are well documented. the Bin Ladens got paid for their sons actions with a countract to build 12 bases in Iraq. That way they are in 4 countries in the middle east.

You're also an idiot.

Thank you for your kind words.

OF COURSE Canada doesn't want anti-missile protection. Why should they, there's nothing worth shooting at up there. If you were N Korea, would you waste your precious few nukes irradiating the frigid tundra of Alberta? I think not.

^
^

Actually Alberta is not a Tundra (Frigid, yes) most of it is grassy prarries. Alberta also has oil reserves 2nd to Saudi Arabia.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp

^
^

Actually Alberta is not a Tundra (Frigid, yes) most of it is grassy prarries. Alberta also has oil reserves 2nd to Saudi Arabia.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/89.asp

LOL the only problem is, it costs more to extract a barrel of oil from the surrounding minerals than it does to just buy a barrel of oil. I'm afraid the Canadians are out of luck.

That missile shield is solely intended to further cement the US' military superiority in the world, so that nobody can retaliate against US aggression in any form. If Canada sees through the propaganda of the US i.e. that the Canadians are in danger (laughable, since the Canadians are well-liked in the world) then this is good news to me.

What a load of crap. Article 5 of the NATO treaty states that an attack on one NATO member nation is an attack on all. Which means that the missile defense shield WILL extend to Canada, and I suspect Paul Martin knows this fully well.

NATO should be dissolved anyway. It's long overdue since the USSR is gone.

Ein Deutscher']NATO should be dissolved anyway. It's long overdue since the USSR is gone.

Actually, it still has purpose. Its Mission just changed because of the USSR Falling. It shoudn't be desolved.

Well...it just came in.

Premier Martin said that Canada will not participate in the Missile sheild.


And why should it? Canada doesn't need to spend billions on protecting itself from missiles for the same reason I don't need to spend billions protecting myself from the Shining Path Guerillas. They're never gonna come looking for me. Who's going to launch missiles at Canada?

Well, I could give you 1000 websites. I could give you 100 professional opinions. They are all available anytime you want to look. I typed in three words and was engulfed in information regarding 911.

That's the problem. You typed in 3 words. You have to narrow your search to relevent information to cut out the needless junk from websites that spout conspiracy theories.

Unfortunately, for me to show you won't do any good. A critics ability to deride debate by calling upon proof and information that does not come from "sanctioned" news sources is a common thread. The ability to quash debate like this is probably the most used tool in American politics today.

Having a reliable source is necessary. If you don't have a reliable source, your going to get berated and denounced. Just take alook all across these forums. That's proof of enough that it isn'tjust Americans that do it.

Once I provide you 1000 websites and so on, your ability to denouce me only means I have to provide more or you ask me questions over and over until something doesn't mesh perfectly, then you can call me "insane" or "notball" ot "idiot" and feel assured you have won the battle for the greater good.

Nice of you to make assumptions of me when you don't even know you since I've never seen you. When I asked you for proof or the other guy asked you for proof regarding the government and 9/11 you went off on a tangent about Saddam Hussein! Why shouldn't we have asked you for proof? You didn't provide any to the question we asked regarding the US Government and 9/11!

So, instead I will provide one link. All the questions that bother me:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_questions.htm

Took alook at it. Tons of questions, no answers. It doesn't provide anything. I could answer one of them though regarding debris being found 8 miles away? It went straight down yes but an explosion on impact is enough to send debris flying. The plane was fully loaded with fuel too.

Answer all those, and I would think you an I would be on the same page.

Doubtful! There are alot of Questions there. It'll take me forever to get through them all. I'm sure you probably have answered them already to suit your fancy.


And the US as it is now:

http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

Now that was funny! There are so many things wrong with it, I don't even know were to begin. Oh yea, the soldiers, they are being punished for their crimes. The Elections were not fraudulent. It was free and fair and the better person won. Just because Gore lost doesn't make the election fraudelant. What is wrong with having a strong Military? You must be from Europe. What is wrong with meeting the Pope? Nothing. I could go on about all 14 points but I won't because its just to funny to go on.

Not my country.

Damn straight it isn't your country. It is mine however and I like being here. I like living here. I love our military. I love everything about this Country.

It's all moot really. Canada has clearly said it would uphold all of her agreements to NORAD. Therefore the Americans could still use the missile over Canadian air space in a time of emergency. All this did was to say, Canada won't help pay for it and the Americans can't test it in Canadian air space. But during a time of war or emergency the Americans can still use the missile over Canadian air space because of Canada's partnership with NORAD.

And why should it? Canada doesn't need to spend billions on protecting itself from missiles for the same reason I don't need to spend billions protecting myself from the Shining Path Guerillas. They're never gonna come looking for me. Who's going to launch missiles at Canada?

Angry Rednecks. :D

Of course Canada would sit on their behinds while watching American TV and drinking American soda onthis one. You have the luxury of being the neighbor the the most powerful nation in the world. We providie all the military protection you could want simply because of your location. In fact you should completely disarm because you know the good 'ol red white and blue won't let anything happen to you anyway.

You should probably get over the idea that your television is superior that ours. Most of us only need hockey, news and cartoons, anyway.

And why should it? Canada doesn't need to spend billions on protecting itself from missiles for the same reason I don't need to spend billions protecting myself from the Shining Path Guerillas. They're never gonna come looking for me. Who's going to launch missiles at Canada?

Angry Rednecks. :D

I just thought of another - militant islamists protesting the bacon trade, eh?

You should probably get over the idea that your television is superior that ours. Most of us only need hockey, news and cartoons, anyway.

Seconded, I'd kill for a stars game right now.

I just thought of another - militant islamists protesting the bacon trade, eh?

If they make a sequel to Canadian Bacon, count me in, hoser.

If they make a sequel to Canadian Bacon, count me in, hoser.

hoser? what's that all aboot? eh?

hoser? what's that all aboot? eh?
Ah, take off.

If they make a sequel to Canadian Bacon, count me in, hoser.

I"ll take Canadian Bacon as well. Great Movie :)

It's Canada's choice.

Considering the long litany of defense expenditures that Canada has been talked into (by the US and the UK) over the past fifty years, and considering how useless and worthless most of those came to be, and considering the fact that some of those contracts resulted in the closing of local Canadian companies or the loss of Canadian jobs, one wonders how any Canadian politician could possibly agree to any foreign defense contract - any.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

I mean, even if the missile defense system works perfectly and even if a nation like North Korea openly stated that they intend to strike Canada - why would any Canadian spend the money?

Anyone remember the Avro Arrow project?

EVERYONE up here remembers the Arrow.... and most especially Dief's complete capitulation over it. Not a proud moment in our political history.

NASA did quite well by it though. Many of the Avro engineers fled south and wound up developing critical systems for the Space Shuttle.

Ein Deutscher']That missile shield is solely intended to further cement the US' military superiority in the world, so that nobody can retaliate against US aggression in any form. If Canada sees through the propaganda of the US i.e. that the Canadians are in danger (laughable, since the Canadians are well-liked in the world) then this is good news to me.


Now if you were a prize fighter. You just gave someone an upper cut. Would you then leave your guard down so they could hit you back?! Maybe a Canadian fighter would. But not here in US. You best throw up a good solid defense. Because if you dont. You may not win the fight

Here is a link to some anti-Canadian news stories. Maybe these people are confused?
http//:www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2001/02/12/beef_ban010212.html

Well I was going to put more up. But couldnt choose out of the 10k anti-Canadian web pages I pulled up on Google.

Dont get me wrong I love Canada. Always have always will. But as a friend I got to tell you guys. Not everyone loves Canada. Wish it were true, but.....

Here is another good one.

http://list.haifa.ac.il/pipermail/alef/2004-December/009185.html

It is not terribly hard to find anti-anything pages on the web. Nor do I frankly care if everyone loves us. We are who we are, and that includes having made our fair share of mistakes.

On the whole though, I think that we manage to walk a pretty good line regarding our actions and responsibilities in the world.

EVERYONE up here remembers the Arrow.... and most especially Dief's complete capitulation over it. Not a proud moment in our political history.

NASA did quite well by it though. Many of the Avro engineers fled south and wound up developing critical systems for the Space Shuttle.


I'm not even remotely Canadian, and I REMEMBER THE ARROW o.o

the only reason they said no was because they know that the USA will protect them

they are merely piggy backing off the US

wait.
isnt this the thing that wouldve protected ( or at least be supposed to protect) Canada and cost you nothing?
I thiught it was all at the US' expense
why did you reject it?

It would indeed have 'cost' us something - it would have created in the mind of this and future American admins a sense that we would be somehow indebted to the US for 'protection'. Kinda like Mafia protection, as I see it... :rolleyes:

It is not terribly hard to find anti-anything pages on the web. Nor do I frankly care if everyone loves us. We are who we are, and that includes having made our fair share of mistakes.

On the whole though, I think that we manage to walk a pretty good line regarding our actions and responsibilities in the world.

Good point. Just wanted to point out that not everyone loves everyone from Canada.
One thing the US has going against it. People find it easy to blame the US. I have travelled alot in my life. Been to many nations. But I do engage them in political discussions. Most will say "We love the America people" But we hate the president. This has been over 4 presidents now. Its always the same. Republican or Democrat. Now I always remind them that the president is elected by the people. They almost always dont have a response to that. Anyway the whole point in talking to these people is because they blame the US for things that are totally out there. I heard a villager in Africa blame the US for no clean water in her village. How can we be responsible I say? Guess we owed it to them to clean there water.
I find that the US is often the scapegoat in many situations or problems these people bring up. These people dont want to look in the mirror or at there own governments for blame. Wish they would because I hate having to defend the US where I go. Biggest Anti-US crap I have heard is in Europe. Not everyone. The vast majority has good feelings towards the US. But the most hate speech that would rival a terrorist recruiting tape is from our fellow Europeans. Its been interesting though to discuss politics throughout the world. Wish more could do this. Then we would all figure out that we all want the same thing. Peace happiness and prosperity. Simply put.

the only reason they said no was because they know that the USA will protect them

they are merely piggy backing off the US
Protect us from what? Are we seriously a target for missiles? Let's be realistic...

You know how it is Sinuhue....Some people just can't resist repeating the same old rhetoric....

Here is another good one.

http://list.haifa.ac.il/pipermail/alef/2004-December/009185.html
Oh really good...some guy who supports missile defense because in his experience everyone hates Canada. Uh-huh...well since we're falling back on anecdotal evidence, I'd like to counter with my own experiences of travelling in which the only time anyone has been hostile towards me based on my nationality is when they though I was American. As soon as the mistake was pointed out, they were friendly again.

Of course Canada would sit on their behinds while watching American TV and drinking American soda onthis one. You have the luxury of being the neighbor the the most powerful nation in the world. We providie all the military protection you could want simply because of your location. In fact you should completely disarm because you know the good 'ol red white and blue won't let anything happen to you anyway.

This Canadian drinks Canadian 'pop' not American 'soda', watches CBC news, ignores the rest of the fare on television, and never asked for one bit of 'all the military protection (I) could want' - in fact, we never asked to have you as neighbours. That you choose to overspend on your military means absolutely nothing to me, other than that you bear close monitoring...

...And the jury's out on whether the "good ol' red white and blue" would let anything happen to us. If the powers-that-be in the Bush admin thought it might get us Canadians onboard with their emergent Police State, I'm sure they'd allow another 9/11 to occur, this time north of the border...

You know how it is Sinuhue....Some people just can't resist repeating the same old rhetoric....
Over and over and over again it seems...

I didn't bother to read through the whole thread today...does anyone ever manage to explain why this missile defense system would be a good idea? Or it all just, "We think it would be...but then again, we may be wrong, but damn you Canadians! You didn't support us in Iraq, and now you hate our idea and nuts to you!"?

Oh really good...some guy who supports missile defense because in his experience everyone hates Canada. Uh-huh...well since we're falling back on anecdotal evidence, I'd like to counter with my own experiences of travelling in which the only time anyone has been hostile towards me based on my nationality is when they though I was American. As soon as the mistake was pointed out, they were friendly again.

I dont think he was talking of his trip to a hockey game. But nice one anyway.

...And the jury's out on whether the "good ol' red white and blue" would let anything happen to us. If the powers-that-be in the Bush admin thought it might get us Canadians onboard with their emergent Police State, I'm sure they'd allow another 9/11 to occur, this time north of the border...
I agree. By reason or by force...the US administration just wants us to give them what they want...they cajole, they promise, they threaten and bluster...they call us names and say we have no national identity and that our military sucks, but they can not present a shred of evidence that this 'missile defense system' would in any way benefit Canada. No wonder our relationship is going to pot.

Get it? Pot? hahahahahahahaaaa....

As a Canadian I'm rather pleased my PM didn't agree to this one as...

1) It doesn't work, it's been proven not to work in many, many tests (And Canada doesn't need to import nonfunctional military equipment when we have enough already)

2) It's not useful, for who in their right mind would lob a missile at Canada? You'd have to have a violent dislike for trees, rocks and water.

3) There's no reason to show cohesion with the US, short of capitalistic and with the US dollar looking so shakey it's in the nation's best interests to pretend to be European. Tying into reason number two, showing cohesion with the US -increases- the chance of being added to the list of hated nations.

4) We do enough already, having spent our budget surplus on making the US feel safer with useless border security circa the 9/11 aftermath.

I dont think he was talking of his trip to a hockey game. But nice one anyway.
That's really weird...I could have sworn this quote originally said WalMart...did you just change it? Freakish:)

Anyway, *rolls eyes*...I HATE hockey. And I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over who has travelled abroad more. Of course not everyone loves us...but it is also silly to say everyone hates us. No one is planning to attack Canada...and even if they were, this system has limited capabilities of 'protecting' us from such attacks. Limited use. In fact, useless.

It's true that we do not need closer ties...our economies are already so intertwined you can't tell one from the other sometimes. We share the same language, much of the same media, (I'm talking books, movies, music etc here, not just news outlets), there are numerous familial ties between the countries and so forth. Cripes...how close do you want to get? I can hardly roll over in my own bed without bumping into a yank...

Ok...that's not true...I'm bumping into a Chilean, and he'd be a bit surpised to find a yank had taken his place, so anyway...you know what I mean :D