TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- martin tells the Yanks to stick the missile shield up thier arse
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by crazedcanuck Still lacking any intelligent points, or proof to back yourself I see. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by crazedcanuck Islamists yes, paramilitary radicals opposed to Israel's existance and partnership with the US, not so much. Certainly not all Islamists are paramilitary, or are you foolishly lumping them all under one umbrella? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by swilly How many times have china and North Korea invaded another nation in this century? Then add up the times america has invaded another a nation or supported a coupe. I can think of a handfull in latin america alone. With them overthrowing a democratcially elected president in Hati and veneyzeula(spelling). Honestly, that China is viewed as a major threat is a joke same as Iran. Its just fear mongering. If you scare society enough they will allow you to do anything because they are scared the " yellow men" " or " Moors" are coming to attack. Honestly swilly |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by swilly wiiiiiiiiiicked !! I did an exchange there. Is base at space still going? What about harveys buy one pint get 3 free deal? we used to go to sundissential every month. Man i loved my time there. I had a pretty wicked flat in the summer around hyde park. We used to go Barrish this little club in the hyde park area were you can buy weed from the owner and smoke it inside. Awsome times!!!!!! Also revolution vodka bar was fun too |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by crazedcanuck Still lacking any intelligent points, or proof to back yourself I see. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by crazedcanuck Considering China has the world's largest population, one of the largest and more agressive militaries, and has no qualms about invading it's neighbours, (google Tibet), I'd say they are hardly a meek lamb on the international stage. This is a fact, as opposed to your arrogant rhetoric. Still waiting for you to assemble a mature point by point argument that states that opting out of the BMD actually benefits Canada. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by swilly N i am more interested in speaking about Leeds Uni and Leeds in general. Dont worry not all canadians are as daft as crazed cannuck. Sadly, we have alot more american media in canada then in the UK so eventually the propoganda machine works on some of the population. Hell we even have fox news here now. Hey you ever do the otely run? When we did we made it to dry docks and i was too pissed to go any further. It was mostely because we drank some wine before. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley To be honest I dont really go out in the town centre much (far far too expensive!) I live in Headingley so we mainly go to the bars there. The only "proper" club I've been to is Mission when BK was djing (all the other clubs are just cheesy stuff, but fun when drunk!!) Where bouts is that Barrish?! Sounds cool! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Nah we were gonna do it the other week for someones birthday but we just went to Ark, the Box, Skyrack then to Halo (still, acheived the same level of pissedness!!) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Ok, opting out of BMD saves Canada a lot of money, there is no threat, BMD has the potential to create the threat it seeks to defend against, and it doesn't work... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by crazedcanuck Swilly, I competely agree with you on the uselessness of the system. I'm not even for it. But I am for our government supporting it politcally. If the Amreicans are going to spend billions to try to develop it, including research and development grants to Canadian corporations, then what does it hurt us? It already been agreed to by Martin that we only require our current NORAD level of staffing and funding once it's been developed on the data collection stations using the current radar net that forms our defensive perimeter. As for cranking up a threat, during the coldwar, nukes were fought with nukes. So if you are using the cause and effect argument for an arms race, they all will create a multi-billion dollar usless BMD as opposed to more viable weapons. I'd think you'd be happy with that. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by swilly fair enough |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ShadoWolf Bush offered to pay for the whole thing and Canada still turned it down!! lol stupid |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley No a decade ago they missed all the scuds!! |
Let's have a reality check...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by auujay The PATRIOTs were not perfect but they did shoot them down ("70 percent success rate for Saudi Arabia and a 40 percent rate for Israel" source). The AEGIS Cruisers in Desert Storm were able to detect and track SCUD launches (source). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by igottaknow Let's have a reality check... http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html "Part of the reason the success rate was 30% higher in Saudi Arabia than is Israel is that in Saudi Arabia the Patriots merely had to push the incoming Scud missiles away from military targets in the desert or disable the Scud's warhead in order to avoid casualties, while in Israel the Scuds were aimed directly at cities and civilian populations.The Saudi Government also censored any reporting of Scud damage by the Saudi press. The Israeli Government did not institute the same type of censorship. " "The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ns/patriot.html "After a 10-month investigation in 1992 by the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, the subcommittee concluded there was little evidence to prove the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq. Another 1992 investigation done by the General Accounting Office found that only 9 percent of the Patriot-Scud engagements "are supported by the strongest evidence that an engagement resulted in a warhead kill." (The GAO defined "the strongest evidence" as instances in which Scud debris or radar data indicated that a Scud was destroyed or disabled after a Patriot detonated near it.) Except in 9 percent of the cases, the GAO report said the Army could prove only that "the Patriots came close to the Scuds, not that they destroyed them" Patriots were just wounding Scuds or pushing them off course; big chunks of both missiles then fell to the ground. In Israel, the amount of damages and casualties increased after the Patriots were deployed there. edit: i forgot to mention they're really good at locking on to friendly aircraft and shooting them down. Just ask the Brits. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus like what? uncovering why the universe was formed? how species were created? What exists beyond the current known smallest layer of an atom? Why the literature of Shakespear is better than the literature Charles Dickens? Why chimpanzes have sex? How come mosquites have a virus from Egypt? Or why the greek odyseey is the origin of Roman foundation lure? Most science is useless if you want to look at it that way... At least this science can shoot down something in the air. That's not bad. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley The Patriots used in the first Gulf War were the PAC-2s and were not all that successful. However, the upgraded PAC-3 system acheived a very high success rate against Iraqi ballistic missiles during the recent Iraq war. Altho it failed to intercept modified Chinese made anti-ship cruise missiles (which the 'advert' for the PAC-3 claims it is capable of) But it should be noted that the PAC-3s were used as theatre missile defence in Iraq, not strategic missile defence (as in the BMD) so a comparison may not be as relevent |
It's increasingly apparent that the liberals on this board don't have the balls to try anything that they don't think they can finish by tomorrow evening. Technology development takes time.
There have been numerous successful tests of the ballistic missile defense system - something that numerous think tanks didn't think would ever happen, just 10 years ago. Plus, the PAC-3 has lived up to its design, and the US/Israeli Arrow system is performing fantastically.
Here is the latest on the Canadian decision, from the Canadian Press! Some funny quotes in there, Canucks.
| quote: |
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._defence_martin Canada's historic missile snub will have unpredictable consequences: analysts Fri Feb 25, 10:23 PM ET ALEXANDER PANETTA Canadian Press OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's rejection of missile defence is a historic shift in its relationship with the United States and could have deep unforeseen consequences, analysts warn. This week's announcement is more significant than Canada's refusal to join fighting in Iraq or Vietnam because, some say, this time the country has rejected a domestic defence plan. One military analyst in Washington says Canada has turned its back on a 67-year-old agreement signed by then-prime minister Mackenzie King and president Franklin Roosevelt to jointly defend North America. "This is a significant policy change, and it will clearly have consequences," says a briefing paper released Friday by Dwight Mason. He served for eight years as chairman of the American section of the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defense and was a diplomat in Ottawa. The first impact, he suggested, will come next year when the Norad agreement comes up for renewal, but it could also have economic consequences as yet unknown. "The decision to opt out of missile defence is an abandonment of some Canadian sovereignty," he writes. "This brings the basic partnership policy underlying the U.S.-Canadian defence relationship into question. These developments will have long-term consequences that will take time to be revealed fully." One immediate consequence could affect Prime Minister Paul Martin's role on the international stage. If he had any hope the United States would help him create his cherished G-20 group of world leaders, those hopes may have been extinguished permanently. One U.S. official emitted a deep, extended laugh when asked for an assessment of the prime minister and said Canada no longer qualifies as a trusted ally. While wary of speaking on the record, the Americans are particularly annoyed with Martin over what they perceive as weak leadership. They say he expressed support for missile defence, then did nothing to refute misconceptions about it, and finally pulled out when public opinion mushroomed against it. Most analysts believe the Canada-U.S. trade relationship will continue unhindered because the countries rely heavily on each other's goods and services. But Canada's refusal to sign on to the missile plan could further marginalize its concerns and interests when trade-related issues like softwood lumber appear before U.S. Congress, said one Calgary observer. "This is one more issue that goes into the balance scale, one more reason to say, 'Screw Canada,' " said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. "There's a lot of precedent for us not participating (in military operations) overseas. "To my knowledge, this is the first time we've said no to the United States on what the Americans consider a crucial matter of continental defence." He said the missile-defence snub was more significant even than the debate over whether to store nuclear-tipped Bomarc missiles on Canadian soil. Thursday's announcement already has both countries debating some of the consequences. A defiant Martin declared again Friday that the United States must seek permission before firing any missile over Canadian airspace. He was responding to warnings that Canada has abdicated sovereignty by refusing to take part in the U.S. project. The top U.S. envoy to Canada - Ambassador Paul Cellucci - says Canada would be "outside of the room" when his country decides whether to fire at incoming missiles. But Martin said Friday: "We would expect to be consulted. "This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission." Martin repeated Friday that Canada reaffirmed its sovereignty this week with a $12.8-billion investment over five years to help rebuild the military. But critics said the prime minister is deluding himself if he expects a heads-up. Bercuson said only military officials involved in missile defence would be in on any strike. "Somebody has obviously not explained to the prime minister how these arrangements work," Bercuson said. "The reason you put these arrangements in place beforehand . . . is that you don't have to run back to your respective government every time you have to make a decision. "The White House would be informed that there was a missile launch against North America. It would not be asked for its permission to shoot the missile down." One Conservative critic openly mocked the idea that Martin would get a phone call. "What, are (the Americans) phoning a 1-800 number on missile consultation?" said Conservative foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day. "These missiles are coming in at, you know, four kilometres a second." But the leader of the NDP said the only delusion is in the minds of people imagining scare scenarios of some potential missile attack. "These are the kind of hypothetical questions that (George) Bush has tried to create in the minds of people to elevate a sense of fear," said Jack Layton. "The fact is that if Canada is a part of a program like this, then we become a target." |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by imokruok It's increasingly apparent that the liberals on this board don't have the balls to try anything that they don't think they can finish by tomorrow evening. Technology development takes time. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by imokruok It's increasingly apparent that the liberals on this board don't have the balls to try anything that they don't think they can finish by tomorrow evening. Technology development takes time. |
| quote: |
| There have been numerous successful tests of the ballistic missile defense system... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by igottaknow Would you concede that the 'Star Wars' missile defense system was a waste? Or is billions of dollars and over 20 years later too 'early' to tell? lol |
| quote: |
I don't put much faith in rigged 'tests' that the military conducts to justify funding for expensive inept weapon systems we don't need. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by imokruok It certainly wasn't a waste for science. But you are free to opine that the research wasn't necessary for our defense. The military laser programs, like the THEL and the ABL all had their start in 1980s research. In addition, the new Oak Ridge technology for neutralizing nuclear waste with high-powered laser beams came from the chemical laser research that began during SDI. |
| quote: |
| Would you rather we take all new technologies straight from the factory to the front lines? Skip the whole "testing" charade, and hope the thing works if we see some real action? |
| quote: |
| Once again, you can argue that the system isn't necessary, but each test serves a purpose. They've already accomplished what some believed couldn't be done - hitting a "bullet with a bullet." They'll only get better at it. The tests may be expensive, but for those who believe in the future of the system, they're absolutely necessary. |
A bit immature there, Condoleeeeeeeeeeza:
| quote: |
| The ripple effect created when Canada said 'no' to signing on to U.S. missile defence seems to have penetrated deeper south of the border than first believed. CTV News has learned that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was so displeased by Canada's decision to opt out of the program that she's postponed a planned visit to Ottawa in mid-April. This contradicts Ottawa's official line that U.S.-Canada relations are proceeding smoothly after Prime Minister Paul Martin announced last week that Canada won't be a part of the controversial ballistic missile defence (BMD) program. ...A senior U.S. State Department official, who was on board a London-bound flight with Rice, confirmed to CTV News that the cancellation of the Canadian visit was a direct consequence of Martin's decision. Washington State Department spokesman Adam Ereli took a softer line, saying there's still discussion going on about the timing of the meeting, and that "it'll happen when the stars are all aligned in the right way." http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...?hub=TopStories |
| quote: |
| Canadian diplomats requested a short meeting Tuesday with Rice on the sidelines of an international conference on Palestinian reform, a Bush administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. As to whether the meeting in Ottawa, once tentatively set for mid-April, was canceled out of pique, deputy State Department spokesman Adam Erili said that scheduling conflicts were the paramount concern. "We want to meet the Canadians and they want the meeting," Erili told The Associated Press by telephone Tuesday. "The Canadians are important partners and we're just nailing down the dates," he said. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto..._eu/us_canada_6 |
Canadian smackdown on Condi
Needless to say, I think Condi's in over her head as head of the State Dept., esp. in lieu of UN hater John Bolton being nominated by Bush as the new UN Ambassador (I'll save that topic for another thread). But this smack across her cheek by the former Canadian foreign minister really doesn't help her much either:
| quote: |
| Missile Counter-Attack Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Thursday, March 3rd, 2005 By LLOYD AXWORTHY Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more. I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results. But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game. As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence. Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children. Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny. Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence can be made openly. You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations. Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience. Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire. If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond. Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies. Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter). I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world. These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states. To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto. To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan. And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices. On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will. This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means. There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water. Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree. Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power. In friendship, Lloyd Axworthy (Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister) http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/we...p-3026695c.html |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.