|
Look at what these Americans have to say about Canada on national television (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| bass drive |
I don't understand how Canada got to be in the G8 :conf:
are there many world-class Canadian products?
I don't know many (not including those produced under American name)
don't get me wrong though, Canada still rocks  |
|
|
| Superstar |
| quote: | Originally posted by alexmorlo
Can anyone name me a couple of Canadian corporations that are known worldwide ? |
Celestica, Nortel, ATI, Alcan, RIM, MD Robotics, Ballard, Bombardier, McCain, HBC and BCE (both not really well-known worldwide, but huge revenues)
I'm sure there's more, can't think of them all right now. Obviously it's nowhere near the number of known American corporations worldwide, but given our population I would say it's a good amount. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by alexmorlo
Famous beers "worldwide" not just in the American market = Amstel, Heineken, Carlsberg, none are Canadian |
Certain regions of the US drink more Canadian beer than US beer.
| quote: | | Big banks = Citibank, HSBC, UBS, ABN-Amro, Barclay's, Deutsche Bank |
Agreed, but the top 4 Canadian banks are in the top 75 of the world in terms of total assets. 2 of them were once in the top 20.
| quote: |
BellGlobeMedia, just checked their website, they don't seem to operate or own anything outside of Canada. |
They own many publishing companies in the US. West, etc.
Other well known Canadian companies are Research in Motion and ATI. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by bass drive
I don't understand how Canada got to be in the G8 :conf:
|
Canada was once a great country. Heck, it was integral in defeating the fascist powers in WWII.
Then Trudeau took over and destroyed everything. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Superstar
Celestica, Nortel, ATI, Alcan, RIM, MD Robotics, Ballard, Bombardier, McCain, HBC and BCE (both not really well-known worldwide, but huge revenues)
|
Compare with Sweden or Switzerland. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Canada was once a great country. Heck, it was integral in defeating the fascist powers in WWII.
Then Trudeau took over and destroyed everything. |
Yep.
There is so little out there that can justify Trudeau's image. If only more people would learn history from historical sources, like archived news and journals and their own ancestors, rather than mawkish and bombastic textbooks written by sciologists with an agenda to push. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
How these people (Tucker and Coulter) claim to be intellectuals is beyond me.
"We could have invaded them at any time and taken over" (paraphrase). Hmm...so why didn't they? Because the mighty British lion would have had something to say about it, that's why. They tried in 1812 and failed miserably, and that's when 90% of Britain's forces were engaged against 19th Century's Hitler, Napoleon.
Unbelievable...ing unbelievable idiots who live there. How can those people even question why EVERYONE hates them? |
|
|
| Spike |
| im just glad they're allowing us (canada) to coexist on the same continent as the untired states, phew :rolleyes: |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...NStory/National
Canada can't afford not to be part of NORAD, defence chief says
Canadian Press
POSTED AT 4:35 PM EST Saturday, Dec 18, 2004
Ottawa — Canada couldn't afford to defend its airspace without its 46-year-old NORAD partnership with the United States, says the chief of defence staff.
So regardless of Ottawa's decision on the Americans' new continental ballistic missile defence plan, Ottawa has no choice but to remain in the North American Aerospace Defence Command, says Gen. Ray Henault.
Gen. Henault strongly rejected critics' claims that NORAD will wither and die if Canada does not participate in missile defence.
"NORAD will endure because the defence of our aerospace will always be a requirement," Gen. Henault said in an interview.
"The shared defence of our aerospace — Canada-U.S. — is, in my view, something that will not change.
"We could not afford to do aerospace surveillance and control of Canadian airspace without being involved in NORAD."
The general, who heads to a NATO post in Brussels next summer, said his American counterparts have given him every indication NORAD will survive, regardless of Canada's decision on ballistic missile defence.
In year-end interviews, Prime Minister Paul Martin appeared to give short shrift to a parliamentary vote on Canadian participation in a continental missile shield system.
He refused to directly answer repeated questions about the timing of the vote and whether it would precede the government signing on to the controversial program.
Any Commons vote will be taken "at a time when the government is ready," he told an interviewer.
"We'll bring it when, in fact, we can lay the facts before Parliament and before the Canadian people."
Gen. Henault said his office has continued to brief the government on the issue, but it has not formulated an opinion. He said he has a special assistant devoted to missile defence, NORAD renewal and homeland security.
Meanwhile, Gen. Henault said Canada will continue to provide expertise that will be critical to any missile defence plan — an early-warning system known as the integrated tactical warning and tactical assessment function.
The decades-old monitoring system keeps a lookout for missile launches, trajectories and possible targets.
An agreement signed last summer will allow Canadians to continue in the role for years to come, including providing information gleaned from the system to missile defence operators, said Gen. Henault.
He suggested a Canadian commitment to missile defence is not required for the early-warning system to be of use.
"That decision-making structure [of missile defence] is still U.S.-only in my estimation, and it will only change when and if the government makes a decision on missile defence," he said.
Gen. Henault said it remains to be seen whether space-based weapons, which Martin has said he opposes, are technologically feasible or affordable.
In the latest missile defence test last week— the first in nearly two years — an interceptor missile failed to launch.
The U.S. Missile Defense Agency has attempted to conduct the test several times this month, but scrubbed each one for a variety of reasons, including weather and a recovery vessel malfunction.
A target missile carrying a mock warhead was successfully launched as scheduled from Kodiak, Alaska.
However, the agency said the ground-based interceptor "experienced an anomaly shortly before it was to be launched" from Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific.
The U.S. military is in final preparations to activate the missile defences designed to protect against a small-scale ballistic missile attack from North Korea or elsewhere in eastern Asia.
The latest test was to have been the first in which the interceptor used the same booster rocket that the operational system would use.
In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.
Gen. Henault said problems are to be expected in a system as complex as this.
"The failure of a test like the one we just saw is not something that would lead me to say the system is not going to work," he said.
"That's what these testing regimes are all about." |
|
|
| TheNeonAlien |
What a bitch!
i want their sking and cowboys???
what a dumb bitch.
hope she dies
merry christmas |
|
|
| dallastar |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNeonAlien
What a bitch!
i want their sking and cowboys???
what a dumb bitch.
hope she dies
merry christmas |
bah humbug..
loves it |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| Shadowolf... why dont you just walk into the oval office, take monica's position on your knees and suck Bush's cazzo off. |
|
|
|
|
