# Canada to say 'No' to U.S. missile defense



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/22/939137-cp.html


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

According to Frank Mackenna..who is Paul Martin's hand picked choice for ambassador to the USA. and who is a former Premier, no less...

We Canadians have already said "Yes" to North American missile defence. Done deal, according to him.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Lot of confusion over who said what regarding what. It won't happen because most Canadians do not want to be part of a plan that's patently a failure and has dangerous implications.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

The news says Canada said " No". Didn't stop to think what the implications of this decision will carry, but , on a gut feeling, my belief is that Canada did the right thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying " scru uu americans" from a culprit, it's just the whole idea of eventually needing more guns doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, all this is a gut feeling, not an informed opinion.


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

My gut feeling is the Canadian government will end up saying "yes". The US government gets what they want anyway.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm inclined to believe McKenna. We will be in, it's a done deal.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i think the government will keep telling us they've said 'no' for as long as possible, then we'll find out after the fact that we're a part of missile defence.

it's funny to hear Steve Harper rage against the government after Frank Mckenna's comment, when we all know he'd be chomping at the bit to lick Bush's Nuttsack, were he in office.

okay macnutt, here's your queue to unleash your neocon diatribe.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

I believe that Canada should stear clear of anything that the US has cooking. This new Star Wars program is only going to start a new arms race and it's something that Canada should avoid getting involved in it will be expensive and we have enough problems here without getting involved in the problems of others.

Laterz


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

somebody pointed to me that, being an heterosexual, i had no way of knowing, but, that "gut" feeling, is actually zee Americans scruing us. so.....

i learned something today, and it dont feel good!


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

K_OS said:


> I believe that Canada should stear clear of anything that the US has cooking. This new Star Wars program is only going to start a new arms race and it's something that Canada should avoid getting involved in it will be expensive and we have enough problems here without getting involved in the problems of others.
> 
> Laterz


I almost agree, as it won't even stop the real problem which is terrorism. When did anyone ever shoot a missile at the USA or Canada? The only problem I have though, is we'll be stuck in the middle. We could end up being accidentally hit by any enemy of the USA - just like Manitoba is/was almost guaranteed to get hit by anything targetting the USA missile silos that are/were in North Dakota (are there still active missile silos in North Dakota?).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*From what I have read on the topic...*

the Bush administration's BMD plan will not work (see the recent Scientific American issue with an extensive article on the technology, physics and testing results of the proposed (and partially deployed) systems). So, politics aside, spending Canadian tax dollars on this project is an unmitigated waste. Of course, politics are never 'aside'.

The thing to recognize, therefore, is that whatever resources are allocated to this plan are being expended exclusively for the purpose of sucking-up to the Bush Administration. Most Canadians, I think, don't see this as a useful expenditure of our money.

As the folly of the BMD plan becomes more apparent and more widely known, the political value of signing onto this program is evaporating. So, while our PM may have said yes to Bush in the past, unless there is something on paper, given the instability of his minority government, I think he'll simply apologize and tell Bush that it's not politically viable at this time. 

Martin and Bush are both politicians, and they know that promises aren't worth a pair of dingo's kidneys until there is a signed agreement, and not much more even then.

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The Scientific American article was an excellent treatise of the BMD program and its inherent problems. Indeed, the scientific case against deployment is so well made (albeit implicit), that we might see the White House demanding the publicaiton change its name to Scientific Un-American (seeing what's happening to science south of the border, the current name is becoming oxymoronic). Have faith, it'll work, trust me on this.....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Missle defence - hmm, I wonder who's getting rich with this one? It will be interesting to follow the money. With the Bush Administration it's always interesting to follow the money.


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

mrjimmy said:


> Missle defence - hmm, I wonder who's getting rich with this one? It will be interesting to follow the money. With the Bush Administration it's always interesting to follow the money.


This is probably far-fetched but maybe having Canada spend our money on this wasteful system is another way to keep the Canadian dollar down? I too hope we say no to it, but like someone already said, politicians' promises aren't worth a pair of dingo's kidneys. 

As for Canada getting stuck in the middle, it's not only Manitoba, but Toronto and Montreal are smack dab in the middle of Chicago, New York, Washington, and Detroit and Vancouver is on the West coast like California (China, North Korea). This shield won't protect anyone from a dirty bomb or a nuclear suitcase.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

the only conceivable way america can protect itself from terrorist attacks is not through heightened security, crazy technology, or invading other countries, but by changing its disastrous foreign policy. it seems obvious but apparently 51% of americans don't recognize this very simple truth.

if canada were to invade a muslim nation, or pump money into israel, we'd be a target too.


----------



## elmer (Dec 19, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> According to Frank Mackenna..who is Paul Martin's hand picked choice for ambassador to the USA. and who is a former Premier, no less...
> 
> We Canadians have already said "Yes" to North American missile defence. Done deal, according to him.


And Harper agrees with him:


Globe and Mail said:


> Opposition critics charged yesterday that it is now clear the NORAD amendment gave Washingtonthe essence of what it needed from Ottawa on missile defence. "I think the truth now should be obvious, which is that we've entered missile defence but we've done so in a way that gives us no influence and no benefits," Mr. Harper said. "This is an unfortunate consequence of dithering around on a major decision."
> link


Listening to him, one kind of gets confused about what happened. This kind of clarifies it:


Canada.com said:


> Boucher noted Canada and the U.S. amended an agreement last August to allow Norad to track any incoming rogue missiles.
> 
> Washington had hoped Canada would would go further and participate in building the continental defence shield, an elaborate system that some worry could lead to weapons in space and an international arms race. link


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

according to this Toronto Star Article Canada has already said 'NO'

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...968793972154&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

Laterz


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

so, it's not "yes", and it's not "no".

Politicians said "YO", so typical.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

-Canada is already an integral part of NORAD. Correct?

-NORAD is the NORth American Air Defence system. Correct?

-The Americans percieve that there may be a threat from rogue nations like North Korea...who have missiles that could reach North America, and apparently also have nuclear weapons that could be carried by these missiles. Correct?

-Other rogue nations like Iran are busily extending the range of their existant missiles and are also working on nuclear weapons technology. Correct?

-There are STILL A whole whack of ICBM's in what is left over from the old Soviet Empire. Lord knows who might get their hands on them at some time in the future. (Muslim extremists from Chechnya. perhaps?)

-There are at least five nations who are slightly shaky in their intentions towards the rest of the world who have some sort of long or medium range missile right now. Or are working hard to build same. There are a whole bucketload of radical groups who are working hard at obtaining either nuclear material or chemical/ biological weapons which could be delivered by such a missile. Correct?

(Want to hope that they never ever get their hands on BOTH of these components? And that nothing unforseen ever happens in any of the other places that already have this deadly combo in their inventory?)

-The Americans are building a defence sheild to stop any incoming missiles from WHEREVER. This will happen no matter what we Canadians sign on to, or refuse to go along with. This sheild will be built, even if some say it cannot work. Correct?

So...I just _GOTTA _ ask....

Are we Canadians telling the Americans NOT to protect us in case of an incoming ballistic missile? (IF so..the give your head a shake and reset your brain.)

Or are we telling the Americans that we don't want to be consulted about whether to blow up an incoming missile over Canada? Are we telling them that we would prefer to be blissfully unaware of any such activity? Left out of the decision loop? (If so...then give your head TWO Shakes and reset your brain TWICE).

There are a whole lot of people around here who are loudly celebrating the fact that we Canadians have just DECLINED to be a part of a system of continental defence that a friendly neighbor is building...and great expense mind you...during a time of major conflict. Despite the fact that this inclusion would have cost us squat.

Man...some of you guys just crack me UP! Where the heck does this stuff COME from, anyway?? Are you all on drugs??


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

well you know what they say:

"if everyone around you seems insane, maybe you're the crazy one".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Insanity depends upon where you are standing at the time of the decision.

My money's on the guys who are putting up the fence. Just in CASE some nasty person decides to fling themselves at us.

I'm NOT backing the guys who are loudly claiming that "...we do not _NEED_ a fence!! Because no one is likey to ever attack us!!"

Yeah. Right.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

even if the fence is made of tissue paper and spit?

sounds sane to me.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

"Tissue paper and spit?"

I suspect it's somewhat more substantial than that. Besides, who CARES?

If the other guy is willing to put it up, and pay for the maintenance of this fence...then why would you want to tell him to "leave a gap around MY place!"

And also tell him that "I will not EVER want to be even consulted or notified should some stranger try to breach this fence. Just leave me OUT of it all!"

Because we NEVER expect to be attacked. By anyone. We are a peaceful race...and the bad guys honestly respect us for this.

Is that right?

Famous last words.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well if it's ineffective, then, well...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You know this "for sure"
You also know that no one will EVER attack us..."for sure"?

Give your head a shake.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

We're telling the Americans that we do not wish to be a part of an arms escalation. Personally, I doubt that the escalation will occur because it would require the system to actually work. Meanwhile, the US pours more good money into a ballistic missile technology that an errant state could side-step for 0.1% of the cost of the BMD program.

Who is insane? I can understand the paranoia of the US, but burning money on this fantasy is nuts. And you worry about money wasted on AdScam?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I realise that most of the left/lib handlers are spoon feeding this "arms escalation" pap out to everyone who will listen right now. It's been all over the news. Ad nauseum. It's the standard party line...and is characterised by the uniformity of the terms that the soft-minded use to spew it back at us on a regular basis.

Odd about that, eh? You'd almost think that some of them had been brainwashed! (naawww..say it isn't SO!) 


" Space based Arms escalation" between whom, pray tell? The USA and what other entity?

Or...is it really just about a sheild against incoming grief? From whatever direction? From whatever source?

Some people out there would apparently like us to abandon this sheild. To refuse to participate in any part of it. "WE don't need no stinking missile defence!! Who would ever shoot a missile at us anyway??? We are the GOOD guys!"

Nice. Hold that thought. It'll look good on the gravestone.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Question: Since mutually assured destruction (MAD, the perfect acronym) is indeed a reality when it comes to things like ICBMs and other weapons and strategies of such magnitude, how worried should anyone be about anyone actually using one of these previously mentioned weapons?

Tawk amungst yerselfs.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> You know this "for sure"
> You also know that no one will EVER attack us..."for sure"?
> 
> Give your head a shake.


Give your own head a shake...show us the success rate that this system has had in testing...come on...trot out the test results and tell us with a straight face that this system works.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Or...is it really just about a sheild against incoming grief? From whatever direction? From whatever source?


Only an idiot would be stupid enough to pay billions of dollars for an insurance policy that is not guaranteed to work and, even then, only covers one type of eventuality. Sorry, that's the sort of ROI that should get you laughed out of any business school...even Harvard's.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

IronMac said:



> Only an idiot would be stupid enough to pay billions of dollars for an insurance policy that is not guaranteed to work and, even then, only covers one type of eventuality. Sorry, that's the sort of ROI that should get you laughed out of any business school...even Harvard's.


Only one eventuality and that's if they're are any country's that are enemies of the US with ICBMs or even long range missiles that are capable of reaching NA airspace.

North Korea has 3 long range missiles the 1st is called the No Dong it has a range up to 1300km's witch would be able to hit anything in Japan, the TD-1 has a range of 2000km's but it's only test was unsuccessful, the TD-2 has never been tested and it's range is still being determined.



> The possible range of the TD-2 is also controversial. The December 2001 NIE projected that a two-stage TD-2 “could deliver a several-hundred-kg payload up to 10,000 km—sufficient to strike Alaska, Hawaii, and parts of the continental United States.” It further projected that including a third stage could increase the range to 15,000 km, which would allow it reach all of North America.


Also note that a multi stage missile like the TD-2 needs a heat shield for re-entry back into the atmosphere and so far the North Korean's haven't tested one in there missiles.

So yeah all this BS about this missile defense shield is probably another reason for the US government to try and put weapons in space like Reagan's Star Wars program in the 80's.

Laterz


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*This is a no-brainer*



IronMac said:


> Only an idiot would be stupid enough to pay billions of dollars for an insurance policy that is not guaranteed to work and, even then, only covers one type of eventuality.


I concur. But it's even worse than that. The proposed BMD 'shield' is not just 'not guaranteed', it's not even remotely plausible. There are some trivial techniques that will completely evade the proposed system, so any investment in such a system is utterly futile. The American taxpayers should be rioting in the streets over the fact that their tax dollars are being spent on such a white elephant. The fact that our government has opted-out, in the face of such pressure from the US government to sign-on, shows what an unequivocal failure the proposed system will be. Even the Liberals, masters of the boondoggle that they are, won't go near that one.

As for what we should be doing, in my opinion Canada's security needs are best served by distancing ourselves from the hated American imperialists, and strengthening our ties to the international community, increasing our contributions to foreign aid, peace-keeping and international development. The fringe-extremists throughout the world are best able to attract 'freedom-fighters' 'martyrs' and support from 'rogue-states' for actions against a widely despised enemy. So far, Canada is not widely despised, and we can keep it that way by being good global citizens. The US has a big problem in that they are widely despised for being global bullies. When the citizenry of the US elects a government that changes it's foreign policy from it's current "we're the global superpower, so we can do what we want and we don't care what anyone thinks" to one of respect for the rights and choices of people elsewhere, their problems may begin to diminish.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction is a cold war term that has little viability in this time period. The Soviet Empire no longer exists. The Chinese are unlikely to respond to the US missile defense system by building bigger and better weapons...they are too busy getting rich by trading with the States. That was never the case with the Soviet Union.

So...the claims that this will simply "escalate the arms race" is pure nonsense.

And anyone who claims to know just how good North Korean ot Iranian or even Pakistani or Indian medium to long range missiles really ARE is talking through his hat.

Question here:

-THe above countries all have both medium range missiles and nuclear capabilties. How good will they be in...say...five years? How about ten?

-Then ask yourself what any of those countries intentions might be, in five years. Or ten.

Are you _SURE_? You'd better be, if you are one of the people who are claiming that we won't need any sort of effective defense against incoming missiles. You'd better also hope that no terririst group ever manages to get ahold of a few of these. (North Korea would LOVE to seell off a few. For much needed bucks).

As for the effectiveness of the anti-missile system?

Have a look at today's news. They just had another sucessful test of the short range sea-based system. This is the fifth kill in six tries for the sea based system. Not bad, eh?

Now...any who are still claiming that we don't need this...give your heads a shake, and go to the back of the class.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

n. korean: ok here's your missile.

terrorist #1: ok here's your money. [looks at missile] ummm...how does it er...ahhh...how does it work?

n.korean: well, first you've got to find a plot of land somewhere where you're not going to be disturbed. also, it's got to be under some sort of cover so that you avoid those pesky american spy satellites and drones. if you manage to do that, dig a big hole, make a concrete silo, place the missile inside...oh yeah you're going to need electricity, a few people to operate it, and some sort of building to house them; food and clean water to support them, some sort of sanitation/toilet facility. oh, and when you fire it off, the u.s. is going to know exactly where you are, so you'd better be ready to haul ass and get out of town to avoid a retaliatory strike.

terrorist #1: [to terrorist #2]...maybe we haven't thought about this enough...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction is a cold war term that has little viability in this time period. The Soviet Empire no longer exists. The Chinese are unlikely to respond to the US missile defense system by building bigger and better weapons...they are too busy getting rich by trading with the States. That was never the case with the Soviet Union.
> 
> So...the claims that this will simply "escalate the arms race" is pure nonsense.
> 
> ...


I see absolutely no convincing arguments from you that shows why such a system is both needed, and will be absolutely effective. None.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> As for the effectiveness of the anti-missile system?
> 
> Have a look at today's news. They just had another sucessful test of the short range sea-based system. This is the fifth kill in six tries for the sea based system. Not bad, eh?
> 
> Now...any who are still claiming that we don't need this...give your heads a shake, and go to the back of the class.


The one that was tested today is the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense wich is being deployed later this year, the one that is being touted by the US to Canada is a land based missile defense system with the help of orbiting sattelites, according to the Washington Post the land defense system is not doing all that well in tests so far the last 2 tests have been failures.



> Since 1999, the Pentagon has conducted 10 tests of the missile defense system, five of which have resulted in hits. But only the last two tests have used the actual interceptor designed for real-world missions; earlier tests employed surrogates.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23242-2005Feb14.html

There are even rumblings in congress that it's just a pipe dream and they should cancel the whole program.

Laterz


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Most of what I heard on the news today was critical of Canada's decision. Martin has made a major diplomatic no-no is the common theme. We belong at the table when missiles are being fired through our air space. Seems the PM is an air head regarding that simple fact. We don't have to condone it, but we sure as hell should be at the table expressing our views.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

The Americans only wanted us to sign on so that they could legitimately call it a North American defence system. We were to provide cover so no one could say the emperor had no clothes.

We already gave them what they really needed and wanted as a minimum when we agreed to let them use NORAD to track missiles.

And as for having a say in shooting down a missile should any one decide to attack North America in such a fashion -- pullleeze, what's there to discuss in the limited amount of time there would be for such a discussion?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There is much to be discussed before it ever gets to decision time, and we are now left out in the cold is the point most pundits are making.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Precisely. The US has just expressed public amazement that Canada would decide to give up soverignty over it's own airspace when it comes to missle defence. They are also wondering what I am wondering, which is "Why don't these guys want to be a part of a sheild? Do they think that nothing is ever going to be launched at them?"

The utterly lame counterarguments I've been hearing.."It won't work...it isn't proven...no one is actually going to shoot at us anyway...it's all just a coverup for another evil American plot..." sound to me like the results of brainwashing. And very poor planning for any eventuality that might come our way in the future.

The States is going ahead with this. We Canadians are already an integral part of NORAD, and this missle defence system will be a VERY integral part of NORAD.

So...what? We Canadians are now going to tell whatever technicians and ranking RCAF officers that are parked in front of the radar consoles in Cheyenne mountain to kust "turn their backs and ignore the screens if they see an incoming missile?"

Or be left out of the decision making loop when it does? Just turn the whole thing over to the Americans and walk blissfully away?

More Liberal dithering. More utter stupidity from the left/lib crowd.

What a crock.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Mom look!!!!!!!

fireworks!!!!!!!



Mom: those ain't fireworks, those are Americans Missiles saving our Ass.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*All that education must make us stupid, eh?*



MacNutt said:


> The utterly lame counterarguments I've been hearing.."It won't work...it isn't proven...<snip>" sound to me like the results of brainwashing.


I guess all of those physics Ph.D.s (mostly Americans, BTW) who say it won't work are brainwashed. We should all attend more closely to bottled water vendors when it comes to making these decisions, lest we be lead astray by folks who've spend decades studying these issues and have proven the merits of their arguments in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Nothing personal, MacNutt, but I don't think you know what you're talking about on this issue.

And even if it were the case that a multi-billion-dollar space-based missile defence system could work, is that really the best way to spend you limited tax dollars, even if 'security' is your highest priority? If the US spent half of what it dose on 'The War on Terrorism' on solving some of the problems the people of the world face due to US foreign policy, it wouldn't have a security problem. 'Course, that wouldn't make any money for Haliburton, but it would certainly serve the American citizens better.

Cheers


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction is a cold war term that has little viability in this time period. The Soviet Empire no longer exists. The Chinese are unlikely to respond to the US missile defense system by building bigger and better weapons...


Are you _SURE_? Are you absolutely positively sure? The fact is the Chinese have been gearing up since 1949 to seize Taiwan and they are still preparing for that eventuality. There was an article in the WSJ a couple of weeks back where the Chinese are trying to get a Japanese "island" designated as something else so that it would not be entitled to an economic zone. This means that the Chinese will be able to enter the area in order to map the sea floor for their submarine fleet to hide in.

Why is this so interesting? It's because the "island" chain is smack dab in the middle of the shipping lanes where the US fleet would have to go through in order to come to the defense of Taiwan. So, you still sure now?



> You'd better also hope that no terririst group ever manages to get ahold of a few of these. (North Korea would LOVE to seell off a few. For much needed bucks).


Really? You think that the North Koreans are stupid enough to sell precious nukes (assuming that they even have them...it may all be a bluff to get the U.S. to the bargaining table) to some religious fundamentalists? LOL!
If those nukes were used, they could easily be traced to North Korea..I believe that nuclear material have a certain "signature"...selling them would be an act of suicide.




> As for the effectiveness of the anti-missile system?
> 
> Have a look at today's news. They just had another sucessful test of the short range sea-based system. This is the fifth kill in six tries for the sea based system. Not bad, eh?


I suggest you do a bit more reading on the system. The U.S. has a nifty pdf on the system. What you're describing is the part of the system that is only effective during the launch phase of an ICBM attack...a system that can only work if it is placed within 500 km of the launch site. Out of all of the countries that you point out...how many will allow the U.S. to station Aegis cruisers (the most sophisticated cruisers in the world) within 500 km of their coastlines? Yeah, I thought so.

I'd say that you deserve detention at this point.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

SINC said:


> Most of what I heard on the news today was critical of Canada's decision. Martin has made a major diplomatic no-no is the common theme. We belong at the table when missiles are being fired through our air space. Seems the PM is an air head regarding that simple fact. We don't have to condone it, but we sure as hell should be at the table expressing our views.


I think that we've expressed our views quite clearly. What can we do at the table as the interceptors are being launched? Say "no"? Yeah...right...

Where Martin is an airhead is assuming that a nation has sovereign powers over its airspace...you only have sovereignty over your airspace if you can defend it. Canada does not have that capability nor would the U.S. care if it came to defending itself.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> The States is going ahead with this. We Canadians are already an integral part of NORAD, and this missle defence system will be a VERY integral part of NORAD.
> 
> Or be left out of the decision making loop when it does? Just turn the whole thing over to the Americans and walk blissfully away?


Again, what decision making loop? The U.S. will go ahead whether or not Canada agrees to it. Don't be so blinded by your politics to not see where the real power is. Brainstrained is absolutely right...the Bush government only wanted us in to provide a modicum of legitimacy to a project that will suck in money and effort instead of figuring out *WHY* people want to shoot nukes at the U.S.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction is a cold war term that has little viability in this time period


Terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre, and the USA invaded a country in response.

That's how Mutually Assured Destruction works. You kill us, we kill you back, nuclear or otherwise.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> Terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre, and the USA invaded a country in response.


Two countries, actually...one of which had nothing to do with it, but it since they'd been meaning to invade Iraq for a while anyway, and they were in the neighbourhood...

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not like the US has any legacy of misdeeds to concern itself about that people might want to "correct" at some point by lobbing something nasty their way.
A little taste from their own "pond".



> The United States then made some 30 military interventions in and around the Caribbean in the next 30 years, many of them under Smedley Butler, a marine corps general, who summed up his career thus:
> 
> I helped make Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903.
> I helped make Mexico...safe for American oil interests in 1914.
> ...


http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3666271

The US has been sowing the wind internationally for much of the last century and now the new one. Concerned about reaping the whirlwind they be.
Little wonder............


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Nothing but blather and old twisted anti-American history bites as seen through the eyes of your wacko lefty professor in university. How long ago WAS that, macdoc? I'd have thought you'd have recovered from the political brainwashing you recieved as a young pup by now.That was back in the sixties! Aren't you over it yet?

Apparently not.  

To those here who say that "it is a waste of precious tax dollars that could be better spent elsewhere"...

Perhaps. But those tax dollars WILL be spent on the US missile defence system. Of that there is no question. Whether Canada signs on or not. Our contribution would have been minimal. The Americans are footing the bill for all of this.

So...let's attempt to cut through the leftist rhetoric and slogans by posing two very simple questions here:

1)-Would you prefer that Canada is NOT sheilded by any sort of anti-missile system? If a bit of rocket propelled nastiness should be flung our way...would you prefer that the Americans simply let it get through?

2)-Would you prefer that the Americans simply make their own decisions on whether to shoot down an incoming missile? Without any Canadian input at all? How about if that missile is over Canadian airspace when it is destroyed? What then?

Note here: I suspect that most of our more strident left/lib types will simply dodge the questions and refuse to answer them. Or suddenly fall silent and find some other thread to reply to.

That's the usual drill when they are faced with hard questions based in logic...especially when those hard questions conflict with their ideological programming.  

Should be interesting. Watch and see.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> 2)-Would you prefer that the Americans simply make their own decisions on whether to shoot down an incoming missile? Without any Canadian input at all? How about if that missile is over Canadian airspace when it is destroyed? What then?


Let's not be stupid here...the Americans would not care about asking anyone on whether or not to shoot down an incoming missile. Again, you have not looked into what the system really is. It proposes destroying the missile through it's three different "stages".




> Note here: I suspect that most of our more strident left/lib types will simply dodge the questions and refuse to answer them. Or suddenly fall silent and find some other thread to reply to.


How ironic that you describe your own _modus operandi_ so perfectly.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

At least IronMac stepped up to the plate here. (The rest seem to have fled...as per my prediction.)

But he only dealt with question number two...and "answered" it with another question, instead of a real response.

We should note that he totally dodged question number one. 

About what I expected.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> At least IronMac stepped up to the plate here. (The rest seem to have fled...as per my prediction.)
> 
> But he only dealt with question number two...and "answered" it with another question, instead of a real response.
> 
> ...


ok. Let's cut the crap. I've only read nothing but horses*** from you in this thread and "give your head a shake".

Now let's see you step up to the plate.

I am not convinced that this is an endeavor worth getting involved with. I, as a layman, an internet connection, and a tv, have read plenty of disturbing reports that this missile defense system is at best, a failure.

Now I want to see what it is that convinces you, oh master of the missile defense system, that this, is a thing that is worth spending billions, and billions, and countless billions of dollars on, and how this will ensure a ROI and protect all of us from, well, you can also detail *what* the threat is. Detailed mind. 

Convince me.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Have you actually read any of what has been written here?? 

Billions and billions and billions _ARE_ being spent on this missile defense system. It's a done deal.

We Canadians are just being asked to sign on and be a part of an existing program. We are almost a part of it already, due to our commitment to NORAD.

If Canada actually says "no"...and if Paul Martin isn't slinging horsepoop yet again...then billions and billions of tax dollars will STILL be spent. The system is a go. Canada's monetary participation would have been minimal at best. 

Clear? Good. Now go ahead and answer my two posted questions and you will either become convinced, or will have to fall back on your idealism and lie to yourself. Once again.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Have you actually read any of what has been written here??
> 
> Billions and billions and billions _ARE_ being spent on this missile defense system. It's a done deal.
> 
> ...


ah. I see. You're just yet another lamer crapping BS with no facts, no idea, and no intention of making a strong argument for your position.

So I'll take this as, you haven't a clue of what you're talking about. A complete waste of time.

Just as I thought.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> 1)-Would you prefer that Canada is NOT shielded by any sort of anti-missile system? If a bit of rocket propelled nastiness should be flung our way...would you prefer that the Americans simply let it get through?


Yes. I would prefer it. Canada does *NOT* need a missile defense system. The simple fact of the matter is... who would even be remotely interested in dropping a bomb on us by way of intercontinental ballistic missile in the first place? Seriously, If an organization (country, terrorist group... take your pick) had one of these do you really think they would go out of their way to drop it on us. Don't you think they have other people/countries out there that they hate more than us?

What you are missing here is the whole point of why a missile defense system in the long run is a bad idea. To defeat a missile defense system you have to do one of two things.

A/. Overwhelm said system with a massive barrage of missiles hoping that some will get through. In case you don't know what that means it is simply the requisite for a very nasty arms race. Thanks, I'll pass.

B/. Ship the bomb in a cargo container and don't include the return address. Last I heard missile defense systems don't work well taking out ground based container units in a ship, train or 18 wheeler. More likely approach.




MacNutt said:


> 2)-Would you prefer that the Americans simply make their own decisions on whether to shoot down an incoming missile? Without any Canadian input at all? How about if that missile is over Canadian airspace when it is destroyed? What then?


What makes you think that in the unlikely event of someone lobbing a missile at the US that the US will in anyway respect anyone's sovereignty in the first place. Haven't you been watch the news recently? Do you really think that they care about sovereignty of other nations? 

Besides in the event that you get say 15 minutes warning that a missile is inbound, do you really think that they will go out of their way to "inform" us before hand? or do you think they'll do what they think they need to do and tell us after the fact.

Be serious. The missile defense project is the product of a very powerfull and influential special interest group in the US. Canada (forgive the pun) is not even on their radar so to speak. Other than the fact that we are in the flight path for most of any missiles headed their way they give a rats ass about Canada. While having Canada on board certainly would lend some legitimacy to their plan, our participation is not required.

So there... answers to you two questions. Feel better?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Groovetube....

What part of this do you not comprehend??

Okay...once more from the top. I'll try to make it simple as posssible, okay?

1) The USA is builing a continental missile defence system. They ARE doing it and will continue with it, no matter what Canada says or does.

2)The USA is paying for virtually all of it. Canada's contribution would have been more sybolic than monetary. The cost to Canada is almost the same, even if we say "no".

3)Saying "no" means we Canadians no longer have any part in the planning or decison making process while this defence system is being set up. The Americans offered us a seat at the table....but we apprently refused. Bright, huh?

4)Saying "no" does NOT mean that billions and billions of dollars won't be spent on this system. The Americans are going ahead with it...no matter what we do.

I hope that helps.

Now I invite you to take your best shot at my two previously posted questions. If you can.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> At least IronMac stepped up to the plate here. (The rest seem to have fled...as per my prediction.)
> 
> But he only dealt with question number two...and "answered" it with another question, instead of a real response.
> 
> We should note that he totally dodged question number one.


That's because the question is nonsensical. The U.S. response to an ICBM launch in its first stage would be to shoot the missile down. They would not care where it was flying over. And, once again, the system does NOT work in that first stage if an AEGIS cruiser is not within 500 km of the launch site. Questions and points that you did not respond to in the first place.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> 1) The USA is builing a continental missile defence system. They ARE doing it and will continue with it, no matter what Canada says or does.
> 
> 2)The USA is paying for virtually all of it. Canada's contribution would have been more symbolic than monetary. The cost to Canada is almost the same, even if we say "no".
> 
> ...


You're finally getting the idea that the Americans are going to go ahead. Good for you.

It seems that the biggest problem with Canada saying "no", according to you, is that we do not get a say in the planning or decision making process. But, all of your other points clearly shows that no matter what we said it would happen anyways. So, what are you whining about?

Are you simply here to critique whatever the Liberals do even if doing so shows how illogical your arguments become in your attempt to twist things around?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

DaJonesy..

Bravo! Someone who finally takes a shot at the questions.

Too bad you came up with the answers you did, though. Let me explain why...

In answering question number one, you claim, as so many others have, that "we don't need a missile defence sheild because no one would ever want to launch a missile at Canada anyway".

a)-You SURE about that? DEAD sure?? Cause you are betting our lives on it, after all.

b)-This reminds me of a guy with a camera who was standing right next to a cop. The cop was dealing with some bad guys and was wearing a bulletproof vest. The guy with the camera was asked why he didn't wear one too, especially considering the fact that he was right beside the cop. "Why would I need one? They aren't shooting at ME!"

Care to imagine what happened next? 

Your answer to question number two ignores the fact that Canadian air force personnell sit side by side with US personnell at NORAD headquarters in Cheyenne mountain. They see what the Americans see for every incoming object, and have a real say in what;s done about it.

This would cease in the case of incoming missiles, if we say "no".( I suppose they would be asked to leave the room or something equally ludicrous.)

We Canadians are already a part of the early warning and defense systems that cover all of North America. To opt out of one segment "because it might not work" or "because it's too expensive"...even though someone else is actually paying for it is simply ridiculous.

Left/lib crapola at it's very stinkiest.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> 3)Saying "no" means we Canadians no longer have any part in the planning or decison making process while this defence system is being set up. The Americans offered us a seat at the table....but we apprently refused. Bright, huh?


Yeah, politically is was very bright. Martin is no dummy. Martin has the center and can get the center right in any election at this point (provided that they continue to run balanced budgets). The Conservative party has the right... they have to move to the left to appeal the the center and center right to win (and when they do that the risk alienating the right which is their base). Martin needs the left support in this country come the next election plain and simple. Or haven't you been noticing the emphasis on politically left based issues such as gay rights and missile defence.

So giving up a symbolic seat (which meant nothing in the long run) at an already predefined table was a pretty bright thing to do.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> a)-You SURE about that? DEAD sure?? Cause you are betting our lives on it, after all.


Dead sure. With crystal clarity of assuredness. As sure as I know that the world will keep on spinning tomorrow, that the sun will rise and set. You could not find anyone more sure on this subject.



MacNutt said:


> b)-This reminds me of a guy with a camera who was standing right next to a cop. The cop was dealing with some bad guys and was wearing a bulletproof vest. The guy with the camera was asked why he didn't wear one too, especially considering the fact that he was right beside the cop. "Why would I need one? They aren't shooting at ME!"


I hate that analogy as it makes the US appear as the police, the authority in the situation. I would have used another analogy given the subject. 

Regardless, the fact is we are very likely in the flight path of any inbound missile. If they come, and if the US manages to shoot them down... no matter what, they are falling in our back yard. No matter what we say or do nothing will stop that. 

The issue here is that a defense system will very likely increase the likelyhood of a new arms race. And trust the last thing the world needs is MORE weapons of this nature.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> This would cease in the case of incoming missiles, if we say "no".( I suppose they would be asked to leave the room or something equally ludicrous.)
> 
> We Canadians are already a part of the early warning and defense systems that cover all of North America. To opt out of one segment "because it might not work" or "because it's too expensive"...even though someone else is actually paying for it is simply ridiculous.


Clearly you have no idea about how military operations are carried out. To think the in the unlikely situation that missiles are being fired at the US that Canadian operators would be asked to leave the room at NORAD in a hot situation is ludicrous at best.

Hey if the US wants to spend billions of dollars on a indeffensible plan and technology... all the power to them. Go ahead, they'll have to answer to their public not us.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah...and deciding to turn our backs on our best friends and biggest trading partners in the removal of Saddam was a really bright thing to do as well. Especially since we were the ONLY part of the english speaking world to do so. And sitting back while a bunch of brain-dead polticians hurled crude insults at them was really bright too. Now we claim to not want any part in the continental defense sheild that they are building.

Better hope they all have a really great sense of humor. "Friendly Canada" is starting to sound a bit strained to our powerful southern neighbor.  

I can't figure out what it is about people in southern Ontario. Something in the pollouted water, perhaps? Or the smog-laden air, maybe? One thing is certain...logic and reason seem to take a back seat to ideology in that neck of the woods.

Too bad.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Da-jonesy...I'm really glad you are DEAD sure that no one will ever launch a missile at Canada. Even if it happened to be a crudely made one that came from North Korea, and is so far off of it's flightpath that it hits us, instead of the States. Or something cobbled together from old SCUD parts and lauched from a container ship just offshore. Or shipped into Canada in parts and set up and launched right here at home, from a modified semi trailer truck.

In that case you would no longer be sure. Just DEAD.

As for your statement that the Americans would not likely make our NORAD personnell "leave the room" if a missile appeared on their screens headed for Canada.

Precisely my point.

So why aren't we backing this expensive system that our best friend and biggest trading parnter is building? Just in case we need THEM to back US on something truly important in the near future?

Like seperatism or terrorism from any of the many terrorist groups that calll Canada their second home? Or perhaps help in patrolling our incredibly long coastlines...now that we can no longer do that ourselves.

Finally, whether you like it or not, the USA are the "Cops" right now.

Be thankful it isn't the Soviet Union or China. Or Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.

It could have been any of those. Thank goodness it isn't...because I think it would be unlikely that we would be allowed to have this debate had any of those countries enede up as the world's sole superpower.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Groovetube....
> 
> What part of this do you not comprehend??
> 
> ...


I think you misunderstood my post.

I'm interested in the why this missile defense system is a good idea. If it's not a good idea, then what does it matter if we join or not?

So let's hear a convincing argument. Beyond "dem crazies got some big bombs eh... so give yer head a shake".


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Yeah...and deciding to turn our backs on our best friends and biggest trading partners in the removal of Saddam was a really bright thing to do as well. Especially since we were the ONLY part of the english speaking world to do so.


Nice... real nice.

So lets use another analogy. Lets say that your neighbour and friend is a big tough guy... no the biggest toughest on the block. Now lets say he gets it in his head that he is going to beat the **** out of someone in the neighbouring block because he think's that guy's a dick. What do you do? Do you think it's right to help him cause he says so? You don't try to stop him and talk him down?

What's wrong with you? What kind of world do you live in?

I have lots of friends in the US (more than you, trust me) and many if not most of them are Republicans. Most of them know that what is going on in Iraq is wrong. Their problem is the lack of real leadership. They are given a choice of bland A or bland B in their politics, so in effect they have no real choice in the end.

These people are mostly fiscal republicans, the hate being taxed and they hate the fact that their party is running record high deficits, but to whom do they turn? Neither party can put forth real leadership so they vote for the devil they know.


----------



## blueangel2323 (Nov 20, 2004)

This is good news. No-one will attack us unless we bother other people, which we don't do anyways. Unlike the Americans, who have invaded countries (including Canada) ever since its creation.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So the States is analogous to a "Big Bully who is beating the crap out of his neighbors because he doesn't like them?" Is that correct?

And you claim to have friends in the USA? Oh really...

I'm bettin that you've just lost a few over that statement.

That "Big Bully" is rightfully interested in building a sheild to protect them from incoming mayhem. Especially after 9/11. I don't blame them one bit.

In what way can you possibly twist that into a scenario involving a big bully beating the crap out of his neighbors?

(Yep..something in the water out there, fer sure...)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We should also note here that Al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden himself have publicly identified Canada as a target. We are just as much a part of the infidel as the States is.

And we are the only country in the top five Al Qaeda hit list wich hasn't actually been nailed.

Yet.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There is NO defense against ICBMs. The sooner people realise that, the more likely it is that they'll think before doing something that would increase the risk of one being launched. If, as most scientists agree, the system doesn't work, its a pure waste of billions of dollars. That's for US tax payers to worry about. However, if the system is proven to work, the BMD program will be seen as an aggressive act because it would shift the balance of MAD to the point where the USA could launch weapons around the globe without fear of retaliation.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Final note to da-jonesy before I get back to my daily chores...

I wonder if removing an evil tyrant and inflicting a welcome democracy on Iraq would be considered a "bad thing" that was done by some tough guy spoiling for a scrap. It certainly won't be for future generations. They'll be able to see the results as clear as a bell. Most people already can...even here and now.

So...what sort of a world do YOU live in pal?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> In that case you would no longer be sure. Just DEAD.


Cleary you ARE MISSING the point... Nobody who has a bomb is after me, or you for that matter. they will not go out of their way to do anything to us. If we get in the way the will likely not shed any tears, but we aren't in their crosshairs.

I think it is time to remove the foil hat from your head, the space aliens have gone, it is safe to come out now.



MacNutt said:


> So why aren't we backing this expensive system that our best friend and biggest trading parnter is building? Just in case we need THEM to back US on something truly important in the near future?


Like what? Back us on what? on healthcare? on gay right? on gun registration? 

In the unlikely event that Russia or China decide to invade us, trust me they are comming through Alaska first and by that time no matter what we are in the same bed aren't we.



MacNutt said:


> Like seperatism or terrorism from any of the many terrorist groups that calll Canada their second home? Or perhaps help in patrolling our incredibly long coastlines...now that we can no longer do that ourselves.


The first sentence is just outright ignorance and borders on racism. I won't dignify that with a response. 

The second sentence is a very real issue. I fully support a military from the standpoint that we need to be able assert our national sovereignty from the standpoint of defending our boundries. To this end we need things like CF-18's, frigates, icebreakers and submarines. Where we fail is probably in things like in air refuelling capabilities for those CF-18's so that they can range across all of Canada east to west and north to south. 



MacNutt said:


> Finally, whether you like it or not, the USA are the "Cops" right now.


No I don't think so. The US is pretty well extended to the max at this point. If Korea heats up the US will be hard pressed to do anything about it (Hence all the stupid land mines)

Also if they are "the cop" as you say... they are doing a ****ty job if you ask me. Nice work in Africa guys, thanks for comming out.



MacNutt said:


> Be thankful it isn't the Soviet Union or China. Or Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.


And on that subject I guess you forget that we went into the fray first and it took them two years to decide to jump in during WWII 



MacNutt said:


> It could have been any of those. Thank goodness it isn't...because I think it would be unlikely that we would be allowed to have this debate had any of those countries enede up as the world's sole superpower.


You see that's it isn't it. Being a superpower isn't all that it is cracked up to be. I see that it has worked for so many in the past. And now the US is starting to fall behind China in it's economic output.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> I wonder if removing an evil tyrant and inflicting a welcome democracy on Iraq would be considered a "bad thing" that was done by some tough guy spoiling for a scrap. It certainly won't be for future generations. They'll be able to see the results as clear as a bell. Most people already can...even here and now.


I am not going to be an apologist for Saddam or any other dictatorial regime. Time will tell, nobody lives forever and their places in Hell are reserved for them.

I was about to call you an SOB... But I'll do this instead. Check out this...

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=52018170&cdi=0 

If you can in any way defend that, you truely are a dick and don't get it. Take a look their faces... TAKE A LOOK! You tell me who is experiencing terror.




MacNutt said:


> So...what sort of a world do YOU live in pal?


I live in Canada my friend. The true north, strong and free.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Final note to da-jonesy before I get back to my daily chores...
> 
> I wonder if removing an evil tyrant and inflicting a welcome democracy on Iraq would be considered a "bad thing" that was done by some tough guy spoiling for a scrap. It certainly won't be for future generations. They'll be able to see the results as clear as a bell. Most people already can...even here and now.
> 
> So...what sort of a world do YOU live in pal?


Pardon me for being just a little cynical. I've seen the way the US has performed in the past in "installing" democracy, or coerc.. er helping governments come into power.

If you want to be this optimistic, perhaps you can share your dope.

Because it must be damn good.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Groovetube...

Wake up. The USA has been instrumental in helping to install brand new free democracies in countries that didn't have them before, all thru history.

A short list:

Japan
Germany
South Korea
Russia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Rumania
Croatia
Bulgaria


and, most recently, Afghahnistan and Iraq.

China is rapidly remaking itself into a prosperous capitalist market-driven country. Free elections cannot be very far away for them either. And the USA was instrumental in making this huge positive change happen, as well.

More are to come. We should note here that NONE of these countries are wholly-owned colonies or subsidiaries of the American State, BTW. And the top two names on the list....countries who used to be sworn enemies of the USA and who actively attacked the USA in anger...are now two of the biggest and most sucessful economies on the whole planet.

Does all of that that tell you something?

It should.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay....

I have posted two very pertinent questions on this subject here. Only da-jonesy has even attempted to answer them. All of the rest have just ignored the questions or dodged the subject entirely. Which is exactly what I predicted would happen, BTW.

Okay....so I'll post the questions once again, just to refresh everyone's memory. Plus I'll add one more.

1)-Would you prefer that Canada is NOT sheilded by any sort of anti-missile system? If a bit of rocket propelled nastiness should be flung our way...would you prefer that the Americans simply let it get through?

2)-Would you prefer that the Americans simply make their own decisions on whether to shoot down an incoming missile? Without any Canadian input at all? How about if that missile is over Canadian airspace when it is destroyed? What then?

3)-Many have commented that this new missile defence system would just "create a new arms race".

Oh really? In what way?

The Americans are vastly superior in arms technology when compared to ANY other nation at this particular point in time. And there is NO other major and modern nation that is actively in conflict with them.

So...where would this new "arms race" actually come from?

The Americans are building a missile defence shield. In the old Cold War days, that would have spurred the Soviet Empire to build bigger and better missiles that could penetrate this new shield. Then, the USA would have had to spend time building a bigger and better shield...and so on, and so on...

But these days there is no Soviet Empire and communism is effectively dead. None of the terrorists who are taking a run at the states has even a ghost of a chance of matching or exceeding US weapons technology. Not even CLOSE.

China is certainly not likely to answer the new American missile shield with bigger and better missiles. They are far too busy getting rich while trading with the States to even think about attacking them. Russia is a wasted joke these days. Japan is on the same side as the States. So is most of Europe.

So...who, pray tell, would be "escalating this brand new arms race?" And how would they even attempt to force the USA to go on to the next expensive step?

This is a static solution to an obvious potential problem in this time of uncertainty. No escalation is indicated at all. NONE! No matter how you look at it. (just so long as you are using logic and not ideological programming in order to draw your obvious conclusions.)

I anxiously await your replies to this new question.

And am STILL awaiting any and all replies to my previous ones.

Tick tock, tick tock.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> So...where would this new "arms race" actually come from?


china?

edit: nevermind, should have read the whole thing first.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dealt with that, troutmaskreplica. See above.

I have no idea what China would stand to gain in building bigger and better misssiles that could penetrate the American defense system. Especially since they are worlds behind the Americans on all of this stuff. Decades behind, really.

And do they really want to attack the fountain of money that is catapaulting them into the modern world right now? Do they want to kill the golden goose? Or even antagonise it?

I think not.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Dealt with that, troutmaskreplica. See above.
> 
> I have no idea what China would stand to gain in building bigger and better misssiles that could penetrate the American defense system. Especially since they are worlds behind the Americans on all of this stuff. Decades behind, really.
> 
> ...


Obviously, you've ignored my previous post about Chinese intentions. Typical but let me push it forward again...probably ignore it but what the hey.




> Are you SURE? Are you absolutely positively sure? The fact is the Chinese have been gearing up since 1949 to seize Taiwan and they are still preparing for that eventuality. There was an article in the WSJ a couple of weeks back where the Chinese are trying to get a Japanese "island" designated as something else so that it would not be entitled to an economic zone. This means that the Chinese will be able to enter the area in order to map the sea floor for their submarine fleet to hide in.
> 
> Why is this so interesting? It's because the "island" chain is smack dab in the middle of the shipping lanes where the US fleet would have to go through in order to come to the defense of Taiwan. So, you still sure now?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Taiwan is a dicey area, to be sure. The Americans have never actively recognised Taiwan as a seperate entity...despite what many of us might have wanted or thought about this subject.

And, what's more, Taiwan itself has recently elected a government that is openly sympathetic to the re-unification of Taiwan and mainland China.

Now that China is pretty much on a capitialist market-driven track, there are no longer any really big differences between China and Taiwan. The Taiwanese feel quite safe embracing the new Chinese reality these days (all they will have to do is convert to Mandarin.)

Had China continued it's old Marxist/Socilaist ways, it might have been a different outcome.

Glad they wisened up. Just like pretty much all of the other countries on this planet. Communism and marxism and even hard line socialism is deader than a doornail.

No question about it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So Ironmac....

You going to take a few moments out of your busy life to actually answer my previously posted questions?

Or are you just going to keep on dodging them?

Just wondering.

Your reply...or your continuing careful dodge of the questions....will speak volumes, all on it's own. To a great number of our more shy and silent readers.

Trust me on this.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

Hey guys.. this is my first post on ehmac.ca so bare with me 

The only reason the Americans (public) even go with this idea is because they are scared to death. It's not because of terrorism, but because their government/media "same thing" has completely waged war on the public's sanity. Nothing good could ever come of more missles, guns, war's, etc... The US people have to start thinking for themselves and tell the government that they want solutions to problems.. not more guns.. it's as far as it ever gets because no one voices their opinion. I think every Canadian should whole heartedly say "NO F#@KING WAY!!" to this meager excuse to get more power. The damn defence would probably misfire and take out a major city here or something.. lol. 

Anyway.. that's my 2 cents,

Vexel


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> 1)-Would you prefer that Canada is NOT sheilded by any sort of anti-missile system? If a bit of rocket propelled nastiness should be flung our way...would you prefer that the Americans simply let it get through?


As you've pointed out, I've already answered that question. Over done, my argument is irrefutable.



MacNutt said:


> 2)-Would you prefer that the Americans simply make their own decisions on whether to shoot down an incoming missile? Without any Canadian input at all? How about if that missile is over Canadian airspace when it is destroyed? What then?


And again as you've pointed out, I've already answered that question. Over done, my argument is still irrefutable.



MacNutt said:


> 3)-Many have commented that this new missile defense system would just "create a new arms race".
> 
> Oh really? In what way?


Look clearly you didn't read my argument as I clearly stated that a missile defense system serves one purpose. That is to be defeated. So there are a number of ways to defeat said system. The traditional way would be to overwhelm the system with massive numbers of incoming warheads. 

So lets think about this. Your enemy has a so called "shield" defending them, how do we defeat it? Well your frugal terrorist/rogue nation will likely circumvent said shield by sending the bomb via UPS (or FedEx... whoever can ship 200 lb unmarked boxes fairly readily). 

Bingo, so now you have every whacko with some plutonium understanding that they can't lob a surplus soviet era missile across the arctic. Sounds like plan B boss.




MacNutt said:


> The Americans are vastly superior in arms technology when compared to ANY other nation at this particular point in time. And there is NO other major and modern nation that is actively in conflict with them.


Ohhh yeah... vastly superior. Works well for the initial combat period, they can go wherever they want, however all it takes is a $20 leftover howitzer shell to make an IED that will effectively take out any piece of armour the US has that happens to pass by it.

I knew the US was in trouble in Iraq as soon as I started hearing that M1 Abrams were being taken out by teenagers with suicidal tendencies and RPG's at point blank range. 

So yeah, you can have the most technologically superior armed forces in the world without a doubt, but a bunch of teenagers with homemade bombs and ak47's seem a little hard to defeat don't they?



MacNutt said:


> So...where would this new "arms race" actually come from?
> 
> The Americans are building a missile defense shield. In the old Cold War days, that would have spurred the Soviet Empire to build bigger and better missiles that could penetrate this new shield. Then, the USA would have had to spend time building a bigger and better shield...and so on, and so on...


See above... the arms race will come from everyone creating newer means of delivering the device without having to place it on top of a missile.



MacNutt said:


> But these days there is no Soviet Empire and communism is effectively dead. None of the terrorists who are taking a run at the states has even a ghost of a chance of matching or exceeding US weapons technology. Not even CLOSE.
> 
> China is certainly not likely to answer the new American missile shield with bigger and better missiles. They are far too busy getting rich while trading with the States to even think about attacking them. Russia is a wasted joke these days. Japan is on the same side as the States. So is most of Europe.
> 
> ...


Escalation is not only indicated... it is required in this situation. The USS Cole ($750 million dollar weapon system) was effectively taken out by a $50 dollar boat jammed full of semtex (or whatever cheap efficient explosive is readily available). Just because the terrorist don't have their own military industrial complex to support their efforts don't think for a second that they aren't planning ways to overcome billion dollar weapon systems.

You really should stop thinking in 1980's geo-political notions, the new millennia will/has shown that the arms race is not about who spends more on weapons systems, but who can be the most creative in killing their enemy. And that can be in conventional ways through armed conflict or in more subtle ways. Have you seen how much US Debt China holds these days... someone is letting that great big wooden horse through the gates. Do you have any idea how much "secure" software is written in foreign nations?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> You going to take a few moments out of your busy life to actually answer my previously posted questions?


I, along with others, have more than answered your questions. When are you going to stop dodging our's?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> there are no longer any really big differences between China and Taiwan.


If that was the case, how do you explain China's continuing drive to map the ocean floor and develop a naval capability that would be able to fend off U.S. carrier battle groups? C'mon...let's see you answer this question without rhetoric, another question or blaming the socialists or the Canadian Federal Liberal party.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Groovetube...
> 
> Wake up. The USA has been instrumental in helping to install brand new free democracies in countries that didn't have them before, all thru history.
> 
> ...


ah. I see ppppphhhhhhhhttttt... yea man.
The US has always been on the up an up man. ppphhhhhhtttttttttttttt. *snort snort*
yea. *cough* *cough*. 
No reason *at all* to be cynical.


riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm still interested in a complete argument for this missile defense system.

Or, are you, gonna dodge that one?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

It's laughable how MacNutt has dodged my repeated examples of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia as client states of the U.S. that are hardly shining examples of democracy. And this is only in the Middle East!!!

I'd love to see what sort of commentary he has on these three countries, if any.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vexel said:


> Hey guys.. this is my first post on ehmac.ca so bare with me
> 
> The only reason the Americans (public) even go with this idea is because they are scared to death. It's not because of terrorism, but because their government/media "same thing" has completely waged war on the public's sanity. Nothing good could ever come of more missles, guns, war's, etc... The US people have to start thinking for themselves and tell the government that they want solutions to problems.. not more guns.. it's as far as it ever gets because no one voices their opinion. I think every Canadian should whole heartedly say "NO F#@KING WAY!!" to this meager excuse to get more power. The damn defence would probably misfire and take out a major city here or something.. lol.
> 
> ...


Absolutely. And welcome to ehmac.
The US administration has clearly gotten incredible mileage out of scaring the living crap out of it's citizens, it has given continued support through a war that has now, gone past the original reasons. No one remembers the wmd thing in Iraq anymore. Or the fact that Iraq didn't have any ties to 9/11. But, now we are smoking the "liberty" joint and everyone is high as a kite off of it. Perfect example, is macNutt. I mean, that dude will go pages and pages in a thread screaming about some missile defence system that he knows zero about really, will never give a complete and detailed argument as to why he even thinks it's a good idea, other than the "they got dem there big bombs over there and they might use 'em eh!" scardey cat crapola that has a good deal of North America gripped in fear. And as long as the "fear factor" (pardon the reference) is high, it will effectively neutralize any sort of rational thought that dares questions or presents some facts that may cause anyone to think twice about whether this is a worthwhile endeavor.
And now the argument has denigrated to "well the US will do anyway, so why not join them if it don't cost us a cent?" That's pretty telling...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

groovetube said:


> And as long as the "fear factor" (pardon the reference) is high, it will effectively neutralize any sort of rational thought that dares questions or presents some facts that may cause anyone to think twice about whether this is a worthwhile endeavor.



It's all about "Manufacturing Consent" baby...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*missile defence - sifting thru the 'spin'*

my analysis - to sift thru the political speak / spin

martin says NO to missile defence
salucci (US ambassador to Canada) goes on a little very public tirade
makes martin look like he's "standing up to the americans"
canadians feel good that their PM stood up to the evil yanks

martin says; "i would EXPECT that Canada would be consulted if missiles were launched into our airspace by the US"

martin also says that Canada will remain part of NORAD

any american plan for shooting down incoming missiles calls for their missiles to be in Canadian airspace launched from US missile silos 
the US will "consult" ( i.e. tell Cdn. military at NORAD to rubber stamp any missile launch) either before or AFTER the launch

this is just political blah blah blah

martin had his meeting with bush
they already discussed this
Canada agrees to not make a big stink if missiles are fired or plans are leaked as such and Canada gets to sell Alberta beef and maybe softwood lumber to the US

martin gets to keep his election promise and his job re: missile defence
the US gets to aim their missiles northwards as if they were going to care if we said YES or NO anyways

"duck and cover"

missile defence is a crock
N. Korea is under China's sphere of influence and China has far too much economic investment in the US to allow N. Korea to screw things up

The Chinese would be into N. Korea so fast if they even dared to fire a missile
it's just sabre rattling by the N. Koreans and it helps keep a US military presence in S. Korea and all those landmines that the rest of the world has said NO to but the US claims they need them there or else the evil N. Koreans would overrun S. Korea in a New York minute - yeah, like China would stand for that

military-industrial complex is very good at keeping everyones' eye off the ball like a cheap slight of hand trick - don't watch this hand, watch this one

call your broker - buy us military hdw. manufacturer stock - it is and it's gonna be a bull market

/end rant


----------



## Liberty_mi (Feb 21, 2005)

Speaking as an american who lived through the cold war, and is a student of the american Civil Defense movement, the mere discussion of "missile defence" is madness. 

There is not an acceptable level of losses that would be incurred in nuclear war 

There were studies done during the cold war, that something in the order of 80% of americans favored "better dead than red" whereas in europe the figure is more like 20%.

These passive defenses (fallout shelters, radiological effects training etc) and active missile defenses were not done to protect americans from destruction. They were there to pose the fact that americans WERE WILLING TO USE THE BOMB. I say the civil defense movement was akin to wearing kevlar and riot gear and trying to cross the border. They make you appear to everyone that you are perfectly willing to do something insane. I dont think that anyone in the government who actually knows the job of nuclear war, would ever think that these defense systems would ever work.

We Americans even thougth that the detonation of nuclear missles over our own soil was a good way to knock out incoming ballistic missiles, (actually it would technically probably work) 

http://www.webpal.org/d_resources/arktwo/

Like this guy, who I am dying to meet, hes a very interesting fellow, lives about an hour from here. 

And if any of you guys live near Ottowa and want to make a very great and interesting day trip go check out the diefenbunker, one of the largest holes the canadian government threw money into during the cold war, now a museum. http://www.diefenbunker.ca/

Some more fun websites if you are interested in the topic

http://www.civildefensemuseum.com/

An interesting book on the topic is 'one nation underground'

Also, weather .ca will join the defense pact or not, the only sane defense from a nuclear war is to prevent it from ever occurring in the first place.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

"It's all about "Manufacturing Consent" baby..."

yeah! let's hear it for chomsky!

this thread is a shining example of why i don't bother arguing anything on the internet. people have their opinions and there's no way you're going to change someone's mind by figratively jumping up and down and telling them how stupid, crazy, short-sighted, or [insert insult here] they are. assuming, of course, that they're not trolling.

of course, when it gets to the point of insults, it usually means that the debater has nothing else to go on...

i must admit though, i do get a kick out of reading this stuff. it's one of my guilty pleasures.

now...on with the show!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

it's not about winning a nuclear war
it's about making the weapons and huge profits


----------



## Liberty_mi (Feb 21, 2005)

I would avoid absolutes like that. Not all american are motivated by greed. I just believe that alot of americans are motivated by good intentions and not their intellect. 

If you say " we can make a thing that will make all the bad people go away" Saying yes doesnt mean that you are greedy, just sadly idealistic. 

Personally I feel this money would be better spent making the world a better place, (again sadly idealistic  ) and or buying a better deterrent, IE fast attack nuclear sub force with fast MIRV capabilities. Deterrent has worked in the past, defence has not (except possibly in being a deterrent, not actually working). Until we can develop a way to shoot cannonballs out of the sky, we arent going to be able to stop incomming ballistic missiles, and we can just not prove to be able to knock out launch sites fast enought to prevent launch, especially in the days of solid fuel rocketry. 

I read somwhere that a sub launched missile takes 6 minutes to arrive. How can you defend yourself in 6 minutes. especially with the very real possibilty of a large 5-10mt EMP blast totally screwing up communications.

Nuclear defense is a big happy sweet pipe dream.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I would avoid absolutes like that. Not all american are motivated by greed


i was referring to the powers that be, the US gov't and the military-industrial complex

i actually get along very well with most americans i meet in person


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I read somwhere that a sub launched missile takes 6 minutes to arrive.


that's because subs are usually prowling off the coastline in int'l waters
200 miles is peanuts for a sub launched missile
they [nuke missile subs] are a first strike weapon

i agree that talking about defending against or winning a nuke war is insane

if only the people realized how much further their tax dollar goes when using it to win friends and support popular movements - see recent peaceful revolutions in Slovakia, Georgia and Ukraine rather than by military hardware methods
what;s the war in iraq up to now? 100 billion and climbing?
how many deaths? 100,000+ iraqis
1300+ us soliders never mind 10,000 or so wounded
and for what?
so dick cheney and his cronies make more money
it's downright criminal

follow the money usually answers the question, but the problem is you may not like the answer

and politicians know that they had better play ball
see JFK, RJK and MLK
all under the nose of a "free media" lapdogs that they are now being shown to be


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

First he demands sources from others, something he's pretty much never done. Now he's bemoaning that others aren't answering his questions!

The comedy never ends with MacNutt


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> *Standing up to U.S. will gain us respect abroad*
> 
> It's now clear how the Bush administration sees things: Canadian sovereignty exists only at its pleasure. If we do what Washington wants, we retain our sovereignty. If we don't, all bets are off.
> 
> ...


Paul Cellucci is an ill-informed arrogant jerk and should have been sent packing by our government long ago. His constant lecturing to the Canadian public is damned insulting. It's sad that Canadians will put up with this kind of behaivour from a foreign diplomat on our soil.

The fact that Canadians in recent months let Martin and his people know in no uncertain terms that we did not want any part of this stupid scheme is what has accounted for his recent "backbone". Someone also probably informed him how popular Chretien's non-aquiescence to joining in with the Iraq folly was with Canadians too. If Harper and the other neo-con types ever cured their chronic rectal-cranial inversion issues they might realize this also.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*MacNutts questions and a few other observations...*



MacNutt said:


> Okay....
> 
> I have posted two very pertinent questions on this subject here. Only da-jonesy has even attempted to answer them. All of the rest have just ignored the questions or dodged the subject entirely.


Actually, I tried to answer them, but I was on a bad modem connection and they never showed up  So now I'll try again. Sorry to be so slow...I didn't know there was a time limit.



> Which is exactly what I predicted would happen, BTW.


Yes, and we all know what a Nostradamus you are...almost as good as my magic 8-ball! 



> Okay....so I'll post the questions once again, just to refresh everyone's memory. Plus I'll add one more.
> 
> 1)-Would you prefer that Canada is NOT shielded by any sort of anti-missile system? If a bit of rocket propelled nastiness should be flung our way...would you prefer that the Americans simply let it get through?


Yes, I would prefer that Canada was shielded. However, as has already been pointed out ad naseum, the proposed system simply won't work as a shield, so this is really irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the proposed system will make a dandy _offensive_ space-based weapons platform, and that's what this initiative is all about. 



> 2)-Would you prefer that the Americans simply make their own decisions on whether to shoot down an incoming missile? Without any Canadian input at all? How about if that missile is over Canadian airspace when it is destroyed? What then?


I'd rather they not stop and argue...if there's a missile headed for Canada, or Easter Island, and the capacity exists to shoot it down, then go for it. The same would be true if anyone else was running the system.

But, seriously, do you really think the Americans are going to care what Canada or anyone else has to say about this?

Our declining 'a seat at the table' is exactly what you do when you know there's no negotiation - the decisions have been made - and you want to keep some of your integrity and dignity. As a citizen of Canada I would have been ashamed if our government agreed to participate in this boondoggle. 



> 3)-Many have commented that this new missile defence system would just "create a new arms race".
> 
> Oh really? In what way?


As I have already alluded to above, the BMD program will have essentially zero utility in a defensive mode...if they get really lucky, they may knock down the odd warhead, but all of the ICBMs likely to be launched at NorthAmerica deploy as thousands of decoys, and there is no effective way of targeting them. What this program will do, is allow the US to deploy weapons in space (in violation of many international treaties, but hey, treaties are made to be broken, right?). And space-based weapons platforms will be very difficult to defend against. Any agency (from nation-states to small groups of 'freedom-fighters') who feel that they may become the targets of American aggression (something that the world has seen can happen both quickly and without provocation) will need to develop and deploy weapons that are effective in this new context. I can think of several avenues that might be explored by such people, and none of them are things I'd like to see.

Do we want people thinking about this and working on this problem? Or would we rather people expend their efforts solving their differences without missiles or car-bombs?



> The Americans are vastly superior in arms technology when compared to ANY other nation at this particular point in time. And there is NO other major and modern nation that is actively in conflict with them.


That's because if you conflict with them openly, you're dead. Yet, if you step back and look at the world objectively, you will see that, in many ways almost everyone in the world is 'in conflict' with the US at some level. Most of us don't want to fight, and don't want to see anyone hurt, but we do want to see changes in US foreign (and internal) policy. Unfortunately, with so many people feeling so aggrieved, many of them see no alternative but to turn to violence. That is the source of the 'security problem' facing the US, Canada, and the world. Giving people and alternative to death and violence is the best way of solving this problem. Space-based missiles are just more death and violence, and it serves no one but the bastards that sell these perversions of technology to politicians without the wisdom to turn it down.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_chronic rectal-cranial inversion_ :clap: ..........classic.

Trudeau stood up to both the US and Britain and was popular for it.

That said Celluci is a reminder and better him than a seductress.........

Y'know the classic lines form the Guess Who



> American woman, I said get away
> American women, listen what I say
> Don't come hangin' around my door
> I don't wanna see your face no more
> ...


Rings true every time I hear it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The USA right now is a country heading full-bore down the road of imperialism. The contemptuous statements of their ambassador clearly state how they regard Canada, more or less like Puerto Rico.


> Corporate elites in Canada, many of whom work for foreign-owned transnationals, no longer want Canada to be a separate country in North America. They continually pressure Canada to support US aggression abroad, so they can maintain access to the US market. Corporate elites and their political allies, pressure Canada to adopt US-style, private-for-profit health care, US immigration and refugee policies, and guaranteed exports of Canadian energy resources to the US, even when Canadians face shortages. But Canadians very much want an independent, more ‘caring and sharing’ country than they perceive the US to be. From a talk by James Laxer given to the Fifth World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, Jan 29, 2005


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Man, you guys need to get a life. Why are you so obsessed with the U.S.?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Another article from The Toronto Star


> *Problem isn't the missiles — it's Bush*
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*US obsessed?*

Sinc, that question has been answered numerous times here, I think.

The USA is like the Roman Empire, and we sit next door, with a tenth of the population and way fewer guns. Everything that happens there has a huge amount of importance to us especially, as well as to everyone else in the world.

As the above article explains, they have been acting crazy lately. It makes me nervous, I don't know about you. The fate of the world hinges upon what they may decide to do. I also have friends, customers and relatives who are Americans. I think I have more than enough reason to have some concern.

Especially when they are trying to arm-twist our country into getting involved with one of their insane schemes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah, now I understand. I think.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yeah Gratuitous Applesauce, The "Americans have been acting a little crazy lately"..

Which is probably why the following "crazy" things have been happening since George W. came on watch:

-Democratic elections in Afghanistan. No more 1500 year old religious artifacts that AREN'T muslim being blow up or destroyed in that country by an unelected tyrannical "government". No more women being beaten in the streets for wearing the wrong sort of shoes. No more public exectutions in the soccer arena for the slightest infractions in islamic laws. Bit of an improvement, I'd say.

-Libya has sued for peace and opened up all of it's long-term WMD programs for public inspection. They have paid out a few billion in damages for their previous terrorist activities and sworn to commit no more mayhem. They are also no longer handing over huge amounts of their oil wealth to North Korea for weapons. They are no longer supplying other terrorist groups like the IRA with the tools of destruction. I'd say that this was a bit of an improvement, as well. To say the least.

-North Korea has had to shut down a whole bunch of their many weapons factories because of the sudden lack of middle eastern buyers for their biggest single export...which has always been equipment for death and destruction. Now they are flipping out a bit and asking for unilateral meetings with anyone who will listen. While starving to death at an even faster rate than they were before, when all sorts of middle eastern tyrants were shopping in their particular mail order catalog of mayhem.That's not on nowadays. Kim Jong Il is teetering. BIG improvement.

-The Israelis and the Palestinians are actually getting very close to an agreement on a true and lasting peace. For about the first time in living memory. The death of that evil gnome Yassir Arafat had a lot to do with this big sea change...but the groundwork for the peace process was laid out by George W. and it will be recorded that he was the real key to this giant improvement toward a final end to that horribly violent and destructive struggle.

-India and Pakistan were at each other's throats at the beginning of George W.'s Presidency. They were actively fighting each other in the disputed Kashmir region. They were both armed with nuclear weapons and many experts thought that it would only be a matter of months before there was a nuclear war between them. But no one seems to think that any more. Only silence from this former battleground these days. Odd about that,eh?

-Iraq has actually had VERY popular democratic elections just last month, and looks to be headed toward a sucessful self-determining future in the coming years. (If they can just get the foreign Islamic fanatics to stop blowing themselves up in crowded Iraqi market squares in order to kill as many fellow Arabs as possible.) This is a HUGE improvement over the previous situation, where a psychopathic tyrant ruled over them with an iron fist while actively seeking new weapons and attacking all of his near neighbors. And regularly murdering many of his own family members as well (along with tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis every single year) . Oh yeah..he was also actively corrupting top members of the United Nations with the promise of unlimited oil...just so long as they vetoed any UN attempts to dethrone him and worked towards relaxing the UN sanctions against him. Which they were doing, just before the Americans removed him from power.

There are now ongoing major investigations into top level corruption at the highest levels of the United Nations. About TIME, I'd say.

-Syria is about to finally pull out of Lebanon. A smaller country that it has forcefully occupied for more than a dozen years. American pressure on Syria has been unrelenting, ever since the terrorist bombing of a very popular former Lebanese leader a few weeks back. Lebanon is likely to be the very next completely free democracy in the middle east and Syria may be the very next after that.

Iran is looking increasingly isolated and will probably tip over into a full democracy rather soon as well. Even Saudi Arabia will make this change soon enough.

Wow! What a difference a few years make, eh? Nothing at all like this after almost a decade of Bill Clinton rule! (quick note here: It wouldn't have happened even if Clinton had run the show for thirty years straight.)

And NO new terrorist attacks on major US targets since 9/11, either! Compare that to numerous terrorist attacks on American targets during the previous US administration.

Funny about that, eh?  

Yep..the "states has gone CRAZY recently!".

Hope they keep it up. Peace and democracy will be breaking out all over the place.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

One quick note to macdoc here:

Macdoc....you actually and honestly believe that "North Korea is in the sphere of influence of China" 

?????????

That's tooo funny. Beyond your usual level of comedic old-left 1960's simplicity, really. You ARE kidding aren't you? If so...keep em coming. I almost fell off of my chair when I read that post by your august self.

If not...then I suggest you read a book. Or pick up a newspaper. Or just poke your head up out of your Toronto enclave and sample the wind. Or something.

Just get out a bit more, okay?

(I find I have sooo little time to spend replying to macdocs silly musings these days...but I just couldn't resist this one. Our resident ivory tower of misinformed pompocity needs a little friendly smack in the chops once in a while...just to bring him back down to earth.)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So...to sum up this thread so far....

After three days away from here, and after countless angry replies and much in the way of personal attacks....guess what?

No one is even attempting to answer my two basic questions. Or the third one, either.

Just lots of dodges and insults and ridicule. But NO real answers to the three basic questions I've posed.

Which is about what I predicted.

What's the matter...you guys scared of what you might have to admit to yourselves, while attempting to answer my questions?

_OOOOHHHHH_....scary canary!   

I feel for you. I really do.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> So...to sum up this thread so far....
> 
> After three days away from here, and after countless angry replies and much in the way of personal attacks....guess what?
> 
> ...


Actually, we have answered your questions despite how nonsensical or illogical they may be. You have simply chosen to ignore those responses much in the same way that you have ignored our many questions and responses in the past. Typical but wholly expected.

As I've pointed out before, it's not worthwhile responding to you, MacNutt, because you're not here to debate which is a give and take activity. You seem to be here simply to vent your diatribes and then leave. No wonder there is a thread where people deliberately ignore you.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oh _REALLY_ Ironmac?...

Please indulge me and point out exactly where and when YOU have even attempted to actually _answer_ my three simple questions, Ironmac.  

All I have seen from you is attacks against the person posing the questions and further questions in reply. Which is hardly satisfactory, really. 

This is hardly unexpected. Especially since we have all seen how badly you've done on the situation in the middle east (which, as you've frequently pointed out, is an area of "expertise" for you).

Tell you what...use whatever you've got, and feel free to dodge or squirm or avoid the issue entirely, if you'd like. Or even fling insults.

We'll all understand. Really we will.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> No one is even attempting to answer my two basic questions. Or the third one, either.


Actually, a few people have, you've just been ignoring them.

2 questions I'd like you to answer:

Since you rarely (if ever) answer questions posed to you, how do you not feel like a hypocrite when you demand answers to your questions?

Since you rarely (if ever) back up your statements with evidence (other than your own <del>rhetoric</del> "experience"), how do you not feel like a hypocrite when you demand someone else back up their statements with evidence?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We've been over this many times before, PB.

My questions on this subject are simple ones. The answers to same will be very illuminating for everyone who is reading this thread, no matter which direction they come from. It is pertinent to this argument.

The answers you demanded from me on a previous subject missed the point entirely. They were simple nitpicking on minutae...and had no real relevance on the bigger picture.

And the two or three half hearted "answers" that I have recieved on THIS point on THIS thread...after several long pages of insults and regurgitated pre-packaged left/lib ideology...have done NOTHING to actually support the shaky stance of my opposition.

I, and many others, are STILL waiting patiently to hear from the other side.

Or not.

Either way, it will speak volumes.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Why don't YOU show us where you've addressed our questions and points? Come on...why don't we start a new thread...in it, we will go over THREE recent threads...we will ask everyone to gather those questions that they feel that you should have answered in those threads and let's see.

We'll set some ground rules...such as straight answers with verifiable/referenceable facts.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> The answers you demanded from me on a previous subject missed the point entirely.


No, they missed <i>your</i> point entirely. There is a difference.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Lots and lots of posts on this ever growing thread.

But we STILL have not gotten any brave fountains of left/lib wisdom to even attempt to answer the three simple questions.  

Speaks volumes, guys. It really does.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Here are my questions:





MacNutt said:


> Okay....one more time...
> 
> I have posted two very pertinent questions on this subject here. Only da-jonesy has even attempted to answer them. All of the rest have just ignored the questions or dodged the subject entirely. Which is exactly what I predicted would happen, BTW.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

What's the bet that, five pages from now, we will STILL not see any of these three pertinent questions being answered by the louder members of the looney left/lib crowd around here?

What's the bet that they won't even ATTEMPT to answer them?

Instead, they will likely fling insults and attack credibility and bring up other threads from many months ago...or something else that could be equally termed as a dodge.

When it would be soooo easy just to deal with the actual questions.

Trouble is...then they'd have to deal with the answers.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

1- Canada not shielded

2-the Americans are going to do whatever the hell they want so why bother even talking to them.

3-the reason why it would create a new arms race is that the system does not work as a defense platform but with the technology in hand it can easily be turned into a 1st strike weapon from space.

Answered all of them, now where's my prize? 

Laterz


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> credibility


Do you still have any?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Do my answers not count?!?*



MacNutt said:


> But we STILL have not gotten any brave fountains of left/lib wisdom to even attempt to answer the three simple questions.
> 
> Speaks volumes, guys. It really does.


My answers are on the bottom of page 10. Did you read them? Do you not understand? Do they not count for some reason?

Or, is this a simple case of someone who's arguments have been refuted continuing to repeat them over-and-over in the hope that someone will be hypnotized by the monotony? I've dealt with Creationists that were more able to respond to rational argument. Sheesh!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

There is a very eloquent and powerful letter (the first one on the page) from John Polyani in the Letters to Editor section of the Globe and Mail today that applauds Canada's decision to refrain from the BMD boondoggle. I can't post it as its in the insider/paid internet section. Polyani is a nobel laureate in chemistry and highly respected scholar.

He points out that the last time Canada showed such backbone was when Mulroney declined to joint the Strategic Defence Initiative of Reagan, despite pressure. SDI subsequently died due to the realisation of the infeasibility of the program. Polyani notes that the Pentagon has reduced its budget request for BMD by a billion dollars this year (from $10 billion to $9 billion). $9 billion/year could go a long way to reduce the terrorist threats to the USA through more conventional and rational means.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

We should all pay more attention to bottled water vendors than the thousands of physicists and Nobel Laureates (a.k.a. 'lefty-loonies') that say the proposed BMD system won't work.

After all, the Sage of Saltspring knows of what he speaks...trust me on this.


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> One quick note to macdoc here:
> 
> Macdoc....you actually and honestly believe that "North Korea is in the sphere of influence of China"


I'm going to keep this post short since you tend to glaze over points made through more drawn out posts.

North Korea may not be China's lapdog, but the Chinese brass definitely know to manipulate Kim much like a lion-tamer. (insert lion eating tamer reference where appropriate) North Korea's stance on multi-lateral talks points definitively to this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Would you prefer that Canada is NOT sheilded by any sort of anti-missile system? If a bit of rocket propelled nastiness should be flung our way...would you prefer that the Americans simply let it get through?


Given that pretty much all of Canada's big targets are close enough to the US border that any major missle strike is going to have fallout (nuclear or otherwise) south of the border, I'd be willing to bet that they are going to shoot it down anyway.

Of course no one would prefer they not shoot it down, the problem is that the system as it is currently proposed is not effective.



MacNutt said:


> Would you prefer that the Americans simply make their own decisions on whether to shoot down an incoming missile? Without any Canadian input at all? How about if that missile is over Canadian airspace when it is destroyed?


If there is a missle in the air, there is barely going to be enough time to say "oh ****" and launch coutermeasures, let alone call us and ask "you want us to get that?"



MacNutt said:


> Many have commented that this new missile defence system would just "create a new arms race". Oh really? In what way?


I am not concerned that it will create a "new arms race," but given that the system as proposed is not really effective as a defensive measure and could easily be modified to work as an offensive measure, I do have reservations about it.

There you go, questions answered.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*I seems that there is a consensus...*

Well, MacNutt, it seems that many of us 'looney-lefties' have answered your questions.

Superficially, there appears to be a divided opinion as to whether we want Canada shielded, however, I posit that this apparent divide is simply a divide over whether we want to be shielded _by the US_ which may be like having a shield (that won't work) with a bulls-eye painted on it.

Nobody cares if we 'have a seat at the table' because nobody believes that the US gives a rat's arse what we think.

And the reasons we're worried about this space-based BMD program starting an arms-race is that it's a crappy defensive system, but a dandy offensive system optimized for first-strike capability.

So now do you understand why we're all happy that Canada hasn't signed-on to this program? Can we make it any more clear for you? How about letting us know you understand by posting something like "I guess you lefties aren't going to answer my questions, just like I predicted."

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Looks like there is a way to please everyone - through strengthening NORAD not through the BMD madness. It's interesting that the panel did not consider BMD since it falls under the remit of the US Northern Air Command, not NORAD.

Joint panel recommends Norad be replaced

CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA — A comprehensive Continental Defence and Security Agreement could replace Norad, closing critical gaps in coastal and other Canada-U.S. defences, says a civilian-military panel.

Such an agreement would contribute to defence and security strategy on both sides of the border, says the Bi-national Planning Group, headed by the Canadian deputy commander of the North American Aerospace Defence Command, Lt.-Gen. Eric Findley.

"There is an opportunity to make bold and meaningful strides towards streamlining continental defence and security policy," says the group's interim report, released to The Canadian Press today.

"Norad has (had) bi-national success in reducing the seams and gaps within the aerospace domain over the last 46 years. It is now recognized that the end state for the future is a command that can address all domains."

The group, established by the two governments in December 2002, suggests replacing Norad with a new deal that would integrate land, sea and air defences in a coherent military strategy.

"An expanded, multi-domain North American Defense Command could be established before the end of 2005" if a comprehensive agreement is adopted by both the Canadian and U.S. governments, it says.

The document, filed in November, does not address the contentious issue of ballistic missile defence, which is outside the group's mandate and falls under the purview of the U.S. Northern Command, not Norad.

But in the wake of Ottawa's decision to opt out of missile defence, Dwight Mason, a senior associate at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., says it would be "a smart Canadian move to capitalize on this recommendation . . . by endorsing it strongly."

"Expanding Norad at least to the coastal maritime domain is clearly in the interests of both countries," said Mason, former chairman of the U.S. Section of the Permanent Joint Board on Defense.

He suggested that Canadian action on this front "might take some of the edge off the missile defence debacle," particularly since the panel that recommended the move is headed by a Canadian.

Any new arrangement must address a plethora of shortcomings in continental defence and emergency response, says the Colorado-based advisory group, whose two-year mandate has been extended to May 2006.

"Critical mechanisms that could contribute to detecting or sensing in the maritime domain are not as robust as those serving Norad," it says.

"Maritime sensors that would emulate Norad and (commercial) detection and identification are limited in quantity, capability and availability."

The report notes that Canadian and U.S. naval fleets do not routinely train for joint homeland defence. Existing agreements "do little to facilitate defending, defeating, or acting against asymmetric (terrorist) threats."

Likewise, joint land defences are "not robust and mechanisms do not currently exist to facilitate bi-national implementation of critical tasks."

Policies and procedures are not well defined, says the report.

"Although Canadian Forces and U.S. military have worked closely together in Afghanistan, there have not been brigade-level joint training or exercises between Canadian Forces and the U.S. military in over a decade."

This is partly due to the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from Germany in 1993, the study says. There have also been no rehearsals of transborder movements by either land force.

"The seams and gaps are significant," says the report. "It is time to expand our thinking."

The report says a comprehensive security agreement should also address "a lack of formal, bi-national plans, policies, and procedures to act in support of civil authorities."

The most significant conclusion is that command is "the key, critical enabler for all other functions."

The study says that, without agreement at the political level on command and control arrangements between Canada and the United States, it will be difficult to achieve military collaboration against either traditional threats or terrorist actions."


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> No one is even attempting to answer my two basic questions. Or the third one, either.
> 
> Just lots of dodges and insults and ridicule. But NO real answers to the three basic questions I've posed.
> 
> Which is about what I predicted.


Not true... I did answer your questions and then some.


----------



## iBrodie (Sep 11, 2004)

Ok I have to jump in on this one. First off at the present moment I am living in England but have been following this as closely as I can. 

To answer the 3 MacNutt questions:

1) We already are shied by a missile defense system its called NORAD, also who is really going to nuke Canada (as directed towards me from of my British friends) What point would it make? 
Does anyone really believe that the next nuclear attack when ever that is (if ever) really is going to be some conventional nuclear missile? Or is it going to be some terrorists in a large ship/truck willing to kill themselves to set off a nuke. 

Like seriously if anything its going to be "Mr. Osama" floating into New York Harbor or Vancouver and pressing a button before the coast guard can do anything. How is the missile system supposed to stop that? Can anyone say modern day Maginot Line?

I would love to have something to protect us. But why bother fear mongering when its pointless. 

2) No, I would think we should be able to control our airspace and I think I already answered that in the above question.

3) As many have commented this system doesn't work, and yet it very easily can be used as a weapon. Also if we had said yes did we have a say in anything? No, the only reason the US wanted Canada to go along was to use our good name with the international community. Canada has been a big supporter of a new treaty to ban space based weapons, it just so happens our friends down south did not sign it.

Also can anyone really so any threat to Canada aside from the US as we have oil,lumber,water, and its a lot closer to home than the current conflicts they are in.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Polyani is a nobel laureate in chemistry and highly respected scholar.


And _that_ is exactly why I wouldn't trust his opinion.

Take the common man over the over the_"enlightened"_ every time.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Lots and lots of posts on this ever growing thread.
> 
> But we STILL have not gotten any brave fountains of left/lib wisdom to even attempt to answer the three simple questions.
> 
> Speaks volumes, guys. It really does.


Yes I did... here it is again...

Answer to your first question.


da_jonesy said:


> Yes. I would prefer it. Canada does NOT need a missile defense system. The simple fact of the matter is... who would even be remotely interested in dropping a bomb on us by way of intercontinental ballistic missile in the first place? Seriously, If an organization (country, terrorist group... take your pick) had one of these do you really think they would go out of their way to drop it on us. Don't you think they have other people/countries out there that they hate more than us?
> 
> What you are missing here is the whole point of why a missile defense system in the long run is a bad idea. To defeat a missile defense system you have to do one of two things.
> 
> ...


Answer to your second question.


da_jonesy said:


> What makes you think that in the unlikely event of someone lobbing a missile at the US that the US will in anyway respect anyone's sovereignty in the first place. Haven't you been watch the news recently? Do you really think that they care about sovereignty of other nations?
> 
> Besides in the event that you get say 15 minutes warning that a missile is inbound, do you really think that they will go out of their way to "inform" us before hand? or do you think they'll do what they think they need to do and tell us after the fact.
> 
> ...


And as far as I'm concerned your third question doesn't count but I did answer it anyways. 


da_jonesy said:


> Yeah, politically is was very bright. Martin is no dummy. Martin has the center and can get the center right in any election at this point (provided that they continue to run balanced budgets). The Conservative party has the right... they have to move to the left to appeal the the center and center right to win (and when they do that the risk alienating the right which is their base). Martin needs the left support in this country come the next election plain and simple. Or haven't you been noticing the emphasis on politically left based issues such as gay rights and missile defence.
> 
> So giving up a symbolic seat (which meant nothing in the long run) at an already predefined table was a pretty bright thing to do.


More importantly why did you not answer my question to you?



da_jonesy said:


> I am not going to be an apologist for Saddam or any other dictatorial regime. Time will tell, nobody lives forever and their places in Hell are reserved for them.
> 
> Check out this...
> 
> ...


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

UTBJW said:


> Polyani is a nobel laureate in chemistry and highly respected scholar.





SINC said:


> And _that_ is exactly why I wouldn't trust his opinion.
> 
> Take the common man over the over the_"enlightened"_ every time.


SINC I urge you to look into the works of John Polyani. He's no celebrity or attention grabber. When I say "highly respected", I sincerely mean it. Please don't dismiss one of the greatest Canadian thinkers (even if he isn't a water bottler).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

so i wonder how much albertans love america now after the most recent ban of canadian beef

i don't see any big demonstrations against the u.s.
the only person i see saying anything is canada's new ambassdor to the u.s. (that's right, your federal gov't - the one albertans love to hate, especially if it's Liberal) and he said that the u.s. might get better reaction to canadian participation on military issues if trade disputes with the u.s. were not so drawn out and properly handled in a timely manner

go get 'em ambassador mckenna !!
"pit bull du jour"

yeeee haaaa, ride 'em you maritime cowboy !!!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Am home now so here is the letter from Polyani. SINC, if you prefer to hear from the common man (and Polyani sees himself as such) then feel free to post a more salient letter.

Praiseworthy decision

In light of the Prime Minister's praiseworthy decision to say no to U.S. missile defence, one should recall W.H Audens admonition:
Let us honour if we can
The vertical man
Though we value none
But the horizontal one.

This country last saw such a stalwart decision when Brian Mulroney, newly elected with the promise that Canada was now "open for business" with the United States, said no to then-resident Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars).

History will remember not that we declined in 2005, but what we did, through a five-year $12.8 billion hike in the defence budget and a $3.4 billion increase in foreign aid. Peacekeeping and international assistance fit this multicultural land even better today than in Lester Pearson's time.

The earlier Star Wars was a centrepiece of Mr. Reagans's policy, yet it slid into oblivion, along with all three of its ambitious missile-defence predecessors: Nike Zeuss, Sentinel and Safeguard. The present scheme may have started its decline. For the coming fiscal year, the Pentagon has proposed a $1-billion decrease in its $10-billion missile-defence budget.

The United States clearly has higher security priorities, as have we. They are much the same for both: to end, world-wide, the tyranny of war and want. A costly and ineffective missile defence will do little to advance these goals.

John Polyani, Toronto


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> And that is exactly why I wouldn't trust his opinion.
> 
> Take the common man over the over the"enlightened" every time.


As an aside, this is pretty much the stance of most Americans. The knowledge and opinions of joe everyman are more trusted than that of academia/diplomats/etc.

I am just wondering why you feel that way SINC?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*It's more important to appear sincere than to know what you're talking about...*

I think it's been mentioned here before, but if not, here is a recent article on this very topic that seems apropriate.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> As an aside, this is pretty much the stance of most Americans. The knowledge and opinions of joe everyman are more trusted than that of academia/diplomats/etc.
> 
> I am just wondering why you feel that way SINC?


I have to agree with you line of questioning. I've heard more than once that W was the kind of guy you'd have a beer with... like a neighbour.

Now don't get me wrong (I like my neighbours, and we drink beer all the time) but I shure as **** wouldn't want them running a country.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Just to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with the knowledge/opinion of the common man, I am just wondering why someone would dismiss the knowledge/opinion of academia/diplomats/etc wholesale.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Excellent link, bryanc!*

I think the public's tolerance of BS has a lot to do with the crap that the Bush regime seems to be able to get away with. As long as the leader sends the right signals, and appears to be framing themselves in the right light, with the help of a compliant and toadying media they can distort and fabricate as much as they want. No one wants to bother with all that cumbersome "thinking" and "figuring out the facts". Hell, if they have to get educated on the issues, they might miss watching their weekly fix of Donald Trump on TV. Simple black and white arguments, oft-repeated, win the day.

So we need to protect ourselves from incoming missiles, hey, why not shoot 'em down, like one of our beloved video games? Don't listen to all those negative types claiming that the facts say it is all a dangerous unrealistic fantasy. They're just loonie lefties!


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Personally, I find the BMD project both intellectually and practically dishonest. Joining it would have "dumbed down" Canada and added (our third party) legitimacy to what is inherently a bogus and poorly conceived plan. It sounds great and everyone can grasp the concept of being able to knock out rogue missiles from the sky, but its based on simplistic thinking and a powerful lobby of military weapons contractors. Just because you've seen it in a TV cartoon show or comic doesn't mean it is possible......

As my 16 year old son likes to say, "Gee Dad, I thought your generation expected us to be scooting around in jet cars by now.....".


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Funny. We answered the questions, and now MacNutt hasn't come back to this thread. He was here, but he didn't write in this thread.

What was that about silence speaking volumes?


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

An interesting opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor this week agrees with what many posters here have suggested -- that Bush doesn't need further support from Canada at this time and that the U.S. administration is responsible for pushing Canada into rejecting it. 

According to CSM:

*The Bush administration made major diplomatic errors in handling this topic with Canada. It asked for blanket endorsement of an open-ended US missile defense program, rather than for specific help with specific technical challenges and defensive weapons. This was a fundamental mistake, and the US has mostly itself to blame for the resulting fallout. . . . 

What Bush administration officials need to remember is that they almost surely could not get blanket endorsement for all of the above missile defense systems even in the US. . . . 

He asked for the moon, and was surprised when the answer was "no." . . .

For now, Canada doesn't want to support the US further on missile defense. That's fine, because there's nothing more the US needs to ask Ottawa to do at the moment.*


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Interesting.

I posted my three simple questions on Canadian participation in North American missile defence WEEKS ago...and we've only seen a couple of half-hearted attempts at any real answers in all of that time. Instead, there have been a lot of obvious dodges, a few misdirections, and quite a bit of foot shuffling and averted eyeballs.

Funny about that, eh? 

Like I said...speaks volumes.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> and we've only seen a couple of half-hearted attempts at any real answers in all of that time. Instead, there have been a lot of obvious dodges, a few misdirections, and quite a bit of foot shuffling and averted eyeballs.


Wrong as always.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Taiwan is a dicey area, to be sure.
> 
> And, what's more, Taiwan itself has recently elected a government that is openly sympathetic to the re-unification of Taiwan and mainland China.
> 
> ...


Maybe they haven't... 

Check this out..




> Taiwan Blasts
> China Statement
> On Secession Law
> 
> ...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I posted my three simple questions on Canadian participation in North American missile defence WEEKS ago...and we've only seen a couple of half-hearted attempts at any real answers in all of that time. Instead, there have been a lot of obvious dodges, a few misdirections, and quite a bit of foot shuffling and averted eyeballs.
> 
> ...



OOhhh stop it. Your questions have been answered and your rebutals refutted. Your attempt to turn this thread into something about third world dictators and failed US foreign policy have been quashed as well.

Please try and bring something new if you want to resurect this thread.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> we've only seen a couple of half-hearted attempts at any real answers in all of that time. Instead, there have been a lot of obvious dodges, a few misdirections, and quite a bit of foot shuffling and averted eyeballs.


In other words, we didn't say what you wanted us to. It's funny that you'd attempt to call anyone on not answering a question, whether they answered it or not, seeing as you rarely (if ever) answer questions directed at yourself.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Come back here an' fight!*



MacNutt said:


> ...I posted my three simple questions on Canadian participation in North American missile defence WEEKS ago...and we've only seen a couple of half-hearted attempts at any real answers in all of that time. Instead, there have been a lot of obvious dodges, a few misdirections, and quite a bit of foot shuffling and averted eyeballs...


You remind me of the Black Knight from the Holy Grail. After having your challenge met so overwhelmingly, you pretend it hasn't happened and complain about no one wanting to take you on, while the victors carry on with more interesting topics.

All I can say is Ni!

Cheers


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

He may have no arms or legs left, but watch for MacNutt's deadly teeth 

Can I interest you in a shrubbery?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

UTBJW said:


> He may have no arms or legs left, but watch for MacNutt's deadly teeth


LMAO, UTBJW and bryanc!


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

used to be jwoodget said:


> He may have no arms or legs left, but watch for MacNutt's deadly teeth
> 
> Can I interest you in a shrubbery?


Come back here and I shall byte your ankles off!!!

Laterz


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


>


I have to get one of these! Thanks, GA.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Still no answers? Just humor and misdirection and obvious avoidance manouvers? Along with a healthy dose of "kill the messenger to avoid the question"?

About what I expected. You guys are at least mind-numbingly consistent, if nothing else. And completely predictable.

Wanna play poker sometime?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

With you? I'd much rather play chess


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Still no answers


Did you not see these three posts?

http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=198043&postcount=129
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=197958&postcount=125
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=198051&postcount=131

If you did, were you going to say something about them or just continue to ignore?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Fine. Any game you'd like. Even Trivial Pusuit or Tiddlywinks.

Just so long as it requires some steely-eyed concentration and a bit of forethought.  

I'm up for it. Especially if I'm up against some of the deluded and brain conditioned leftoids around here.

Shall we say a $1500 dollar single bet limit? Or do you want to go for high stakes?

Let me know. I'm THERE!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

PosterBoy...

Read back over those "answers" to my simple questions and you might just understand why I am still awaiting something a bit more profound. And something that actually deals with the questions...instead of dodging them.

Still waiting...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Shall we say a $1500 dollar single bet limit? Or do you want to go for high stakes?


As I'm an impoverished scientist (see above posting on NSERC spending), I'd prefer playing for more valuable commodities... say, a public declaration of who won  

But I'm sure it would be a pleasure to spend time with you over any kind of amusement. Unfortunately, it's been a while since I've had the pleasure of traveling to Saltspring (I used to go camping at Ruckle Park quite often when I lived in Victoria... somewhat less often when I lived in Vancouver).

Let me know if you're going to be in Edmonton some time, and I'll make every effort to meet with you.

Cheers

P.S. You might want to read my answers to your questions as well...
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=196846&postcount=100


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Since you're the one that has the problems with them, why don't you humour us and explain your problems yourself for a change?

You know, discuss.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

None of the answers that have been posted so far...few that they are...have actually dealt with the situation. Most have just been thinly veiled dodges laced with the usual misdirection. Despite the fact that this thread has run to several long pages.

That says a lot to me.  

( _eg....I don't think that we will ever be attacked by actual MISSILES...so I'm going to spend my time talking about nukes on cargo ship containers instead...blah blah blah blah yada yadda yadda...._)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> None of the answers that have been posted so far...few that they are...have actually dealt with the situation.


I feel your pain. I have often had the opportunity to explain to a student exactly how their answer failed to address my question. So I humbly ask how my answers fail to address your three questions? I really am curious.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Bryanc...

Sorry but it's the usual crap.

"_The missile system just won't work...so why sign on to it?_

Oh really. Considering the fact that it is being offered to us FREE OF COST by our best friends and our biggest trading partner...why would we NOT choose to "sign on"?? Who knows...these Americans seem to be capable of some pretty amazing technological feats. Why would you think that they CAN'T do it this time around?

" _We Canadians are ALREADY a part of NORAD...so we will be consulted anyway. Even if we decide NOT to participate._"

Yeah. In your DREAMS. There will no longer be a Canadian alternating with an American to actually be in CHARGE of Cheyenne mountain. I'd be surprised if our Canadian techs will even be allowed to stay there...

Meanwhile the Americans will actively stall out ALL of our various trade disputes and cost us poor Canucks a whole bucketload of money! 

So...what have we actually GOT here?

We Canadians have opted out of a North American missile shield that we wouldn't have to shell out one thin dime for.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Considering the fact that it is being offered to us FREE OF COST by our best friends and our biggest trading partner...why would we NOT choose to "sign on"??


Have I got a deal for you: I'm going to start selling bottled water from a magical spring in SuperNatural BC, and if you sign on (at no cost to you), I'll put your name on it. Howsabout that?

You might not be too comfortable with such a deal, even if you didn't know that I was planning on bottling the toxic sludge someone left in our lab fume hood that we're really having a hard time getting rid of.

My point is that, while 'missile defense' is on the label, that's not what this is about.



> Who knows...these Americans seem to be capable of some pretty amazing technological feats. Why would you think that they CAN'T do it this time around?


Um, because the physicists (lots of 'em...mostly Americans) who've looked at the proposed system say it can't work. They may have a $hitload of money, and they may be capable of doing amazing things, but they "canna change the laws of physics, cap'n!"



> " _We Canadians are ALREADY a part of NORAD...so we will be consulted anyway. Even if we decide NOT to participate._"
> 
> Yeah. In your DREAMS. There will no longer be a Canadian alternating with an American to actually be in CHARGE of Cheyenne mountain. I'd be surprised if our Canadian techs will even be allowed to stay there...


That's not what I said. I said that I couldn't give a rat's ass if they consulted us before they shot down a missile, wether it was heading for Canada or Easter Island, and that I didn't think they should waste time consulting anyone if they actually had the capacity to shoot down a missile. But that's irrelevant, because they won't be able to shoot down Jack with this system. 

What they will be able to do is launch attacks against whoever/whatever they like with no warning. And if you think they were planning on consulting us about that, I suggest you have your therapist check your dosage, 'cause you've clearly lost whatever grip on reality you may have had.



> Meanwhile the Americans will actively stall out ALL of our various trade disputes and cost us poor Canucks a whole bucketload of money!


Unlike the last two decades, during which the American's have abided by our trade deals, negotiated in good faith and expeditiously. _Right_

The solution to this is to find other trading partners.



> So...what have we actually GOT here?
> 
> We Canadians have opted out of a North American missile shield that we wouldn't have to shell out one thin dime for.


What we've actually got is that we Canadians won't be having to make apologies for our treaty-breaking, belligerent neighbor when they put offensive weapons into space.

The fact that we didn't have to pay for it is a bonus.

Cheers

P.S. Do you understand why I, and so many others, think that putting weapons platforms into orbit will ignite an arms-race now? Or was that part of my answer unclear to you as well?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bomarc comes to mind.
Just trade us your world class aviation industry for a chunk o' junk that never worked.

TANSTAAFL 

Once more there is only ONE military threat to Canada ( amongst other clear and present dangers from them) and that ONE is just south of the 49th parallel.

Let's build up our SAR facilities, our vaccines and drug facilities for the coming pandemic.....THEY'RE gonna need em.
That's REAL continental defence.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> "_The missile system just won't work...so why sign on to it?_
> 
> Oh really. Considering the fact that it is being offered to us FREE OF COST by our best friends and our biggest trading partner...why would we NOT choose to "sign on"?? Who knows...these Americans seem to be capable of some pretty amazing technological feats. Why would you think that they CAN'T do it this time around?


Just because something is free doesn't mean that it has any more value, if anything the value of something that is free is frequently less. That is one of the first lesson learned in Economics.

Just becasue something is free doesn't mean that there isn't a cost to us... in terms of sovereignty and other tangible costs (human resources, etc...) 



MacNutt said:


> " _We Canadians are ALREADY a part of NORAD...so we will be consulted anyway. Even if we decide NOT to participate._"
> 
> Yeah. In your DREAMS. There will no longer be a Canadian alternating with an American to actually be in CHARGE of Cheyenne mountain. I'd be surprised if our Canadian techs will even be allowed to stay there...
> 
> Meanwhile the Americans will actively stall out ALL of our various trade disputes and cost us poor Canucks a whole bucketload of money!


The American actively stall all trade disputes anyways. Softwood lumber has been at an impass years before there was any fuss over missile defense. The issue with trade disputes is clearly due to powerful special interests groups lobbying congress and the senate to block any and all resolution. NAFTA is fine so long as it only helps their exports and drives down their manufacturing costs.



MacNutt said:


> So...what have we actually GOT here?
> 
> We Canadians have opted out of a North American missile shield that we wouldn't have to shell out one thin dime for.


Not true, not true. There is an extremely high cost in terms of the loss of our sovereignty.


----------



## PeteC (Mar 11, 2005)

*We said right thing.*

Present situation: Rest of world is afraid of U.S. but respects Canada. It is vaguely possible that at some future time some country with enough bucks and expertise could put a nuclear warhead on a sophisticated rocket and aim it at U.S. If U.S. system actually worked and missile was exploded in space above Canada, there could be some unpleasant fallout - literally. If system doesn't work and incoming is wonky, it could miss U.S. but hit Canada.

New situation: If we joined U.S. then we are seen by U.S. enemies as part of U.S. so lose respect. After spending big bucks, check out the scenarios above? Would anything change? Just one additional thing. In present situation we are not target for anyone; in new situation we could be targeted, especially since the way to beat U.S. anti missile system is to send simultaneous mulitiple missiles all aimed for different places.

Our present situation is by far the best.

All Frank McKenna said was that we have agreed to share information. A phone call or postcard is far cheaper than what the bush has in mind and it doesn't raise red flags with anti-U.S. interests.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I just keep on hearing the same old crap here....

"_IGNITE A NEW ARMS RACE_" (??????)

With WHOM, pray tell?

Bulletin for all of you deeply indoctrinated leftoids out there:

The cold war is _OVER_! (And the good guys won, by the way. Paranoid communisim as a signifigant political force is now dead and buried. Check the papers.)

At this point in time, no massive competing superpower is currently facing off against the military and technological might of the USA. And none are on the horizon, either.

If (when) the States begins to set up a continental missile defense system, there will be NO other state that has either the resources or the desire to improve their first strike capability in order to defeat this new American defensive shield. None. ZERO.

So...how does this even begin to equate to a "new arms race"? By any measure of the term?

Please reset your brains. The year is 2005...NOT 1965. Make a note of it. It will help you deal with future arguments on this subject if you know what era we are actually living in right now.

Just a thought.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I don't necessary agree with your point MacNutt that no other state has the resouces to defeat a US missile shield.

The missile shield is only designed to shoot down a handful of missiles. Russia and China will always have enough missiles to overload any missile shield. Also, the Russians already claimed they have designed new missiles that can dodge any type of missile shield using some kind of vector thrusting technology.

The shield is really only useful against rogue states such as North Korea. Personally, I think the concept of MAD will keep them at bay. 

On a list of North American priorities for defense I wouldn't rank this near the top of the list. It is worth doing research on because the future is always uncertain and the general trend is that more states are procuring weapons. But at the present time, there is no dire need for such a system nor a great need for us to join the US at this point. As a practicalist, I think we should have just signed on anyways to show the US that we support the defense of North America.

Rather than missile defense, my priorities would be a better integration of US and Canadian entry points. I think any person entering North America should get screened by both Canadian and US border agents. We should aim to remove the Canadian / US border the way that Europe has done. Placing border guards to stop terrorists or drug smuggling is clearly a futile effort. Tracking people by boat or plane into North America would be much easier. However, I don't many Canadians would support such a strategy for a fear of losing sovereignty.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed Vandave...

The Russians certainly could mount some sort of a challenge...and could possibly design a missile that was capable of getting past the American missile defense shield. So could the Chinese, if they really put their minds to it.

I bet the Japanese could whip up something truly amazing that would get past the US defenses too. If they really wanted to. So could the Germans. Or the Brits.

But why would any of these countries want to spend huge money to get PAST a totally defensive shield that covers one of their best trading partners, in order to attack it? In the case of Russia, the USA is one of their most lavish benefactors and the country that holds pretty much all of their loans. In the case of China, the USA is the absolute key to their future growth and modernisation. Any negative shift in relations (like an arms race) between these two countries and the USA would have disastrous effects on the economic well being of both of their emerging economies. The States, on the other hand, would just motor on.

I could see these places wanting to put up their OWN sheild, perhaps. But I can not for the life of me figure out why any of them would want to spend massive money on a first strike weapon that would get PAST the American sheild in order to sucessfully attack the States.

And...if they can't or won't design some sort of a missile that would get past the defensive system...then what would make the USA spend money to build an even better one? Followed by an even more effective missile system from the "other side"...and on and on and on...

THAT would be an "arms race".

A defensive sheild that was followed by complete silence from a now-vacant position on the other side of the superpower competition "does not an arms race make". 

And neither Al Qaeda nor North Korea nor Iran has a rats ass chance of even remotely coming up with anything that could actually challenge the effectiveness of the American missile defense system. And force the Americans to design an even better one. Which would be followed by an even more effective Arab/North Korean missile, which would force the Americans to build an even tougher sheild...and on and on and on and on....

So...no "arms race" there, either.

Seems to be a gaping ragged hole in your ideologically derived popular rehtoric there, guys.

Care to fill it?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

I agree, I don't see an arms race with China or Russia developing from a missile shield. If anything, they would like to have the technology for themselves.

So, now that we're past them, who's left? North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and Syria. These countries don't have the ability to launch an ICBM to North America, nor will they anytime soon. Since the americans are armed to the tits with nukes, none of these countries would dare launch an attack. I think 'Non-Mutually Assured Destruction' is a better strategy.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Some of them could probably hit North America with SOMETHING at some time in the future....but it would not be good enough to cause the Americans to step up and design an even better shield, which would cause the opponents to design even better missiles..and on and on and on and on...

Just NOT gonna happen.

So there is no "arms race". Nor is there likely to be one... unless China turns rogue, or Russia suddenly and magically turns into a really vibrant and rapidly growing aggressor that is bent upon destroying the USA to prove the "ideological superiority" of the long dead communist system (scuse me while I fall off my chair while laughing hysterically).

I'm thinking that Germany and Britain and Japan are probably somewhat unlikely to spark a new agressive arms race with the United States while actively threatening each other with Mutual Assured Destruction, either. Call it a hunch.

No "Arms race" guys. Sorry. None on the horizon, either.

Care to reset your programming to 21st century mode now?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Just NOT gonna happen.
> 
> So there is no "arms race". Nor is there likely to be one... unless China turns rogue,
> No "Arms race" guys. Sorry. None on the horizon, either.


Once again, you've ignored my postings on Taiwan. The thinking in Washington now (and since the Bushies came into power over five years ago but they were sidetracked by 9/11) is that China is and will be the rising power to contend with in the 21st century for the US.

China turning "rogue"? What an absurd notion if they decide to do something that is in their best interests...sound familiar? You can easily apply that judgement to the U.S.

Anyone who knows China's history and its recent moves in the Asia/Pac region can tell you that China is determined to restore its place as the pre-eminent power in Asia if not the world. Its military buildup and modernization is designed to back up its claims to natural resources and territory all around its periphery.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Have I got a deal for you: I'm going to start selling bottled water from a magical spring in SuperNatural BC, and if you sign on (at no cost to you), I'll put your name on it. Howsabout that?
> 
> You might not be too comfortable with such a deal, even if you didn't know that I was planning on bottling the toxic sludge someone left in our lab fume hood that we're really having a hard time getting rid of.
> 
> ...


nice post. I fully agree. The BS about how we should shake in our boots about what the US will do to us trade wise is the most absurd.

I see all macnutt has accomplished since I gave up here is tell more people to "give their head a shake", and provide absolutely zip in terms of a very convincing argument why we should have signed on. Absolutely nothing.

Anyone who thinks that another arms race is simply not possible, cannot be dealing with a full deck, or is just playing, trolling, whatever.

Wonder how many more pages the "give your head a shake" will continue?

Bets?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> just keep on hearing the same old crap here....
> 
> "IGNITE A NEW ARMS RACE" (??????)


So you didn't read my answers at all?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*What is an 'arm-race'*

Now that I look at it from his point of view, I think I understand why MacNutt doesn't see how the BMD plan could ignite an arms race.

There are two flawed premises that are making this hard for him to understand.
1) He still thinks this is a 'purely defensive' system - as we've discussed, it's not an effective defensive system, but it is a very effective first-strike offensive system.
2) He thinks there needs to be some nation-state to have an arms-race with - that certainly is one possibility, but not the most likely one for some of the reasons MacNutt himself articulates. There are, however, plenty of small, medium and large organizations hostile to the interests of the American government and/or the West in general.

So picture this. You're a reasonably well-funded 'freedom-fighter' trying to remove the infidel-invaders from your homeland. You'd rather not resort to suicide attacks, but if that's what Allah demands, you're willing to make that sacrifice. Now the infidels are putting weapons in space that will be able to take out the house you and your brothers have been hiding in without warning and there's no way you can defend yourselves if they findout where you are...Guess it's time to break out the car-bombs... But wait! Buddy with the connections in Russia says he can get his hands on a suitcase nuke. Smuggling that into New York Harbor would be extremely risky, but it'd make a much bigger bang than a car-bomb.

Okay, I'm not much of a thriller-writer. But my point is that when the Americans put these weapons into space, it will provoke everyone who's willing to fight them to fight them that much more desperately, with whatever tools and imagination they can bring to bear. An arms-race occurs when each side is forced by the moves of the other to resort to riskier and more potentially devestating tactics. The 'freedom-fighters' of the world who have not yet resorted to outright terrorism will have no choice if there are missiles in space that can kill them and their comrades within an hour of some prisoner in a torture chamber spilling their location. Soldiers who start out unwilling to risk civilian casualties, decide that there's no way they can win against guerilla fighters without killing some women and children. And so it goes. You don't need the Russians, North Koreans, or Chinese to have an arms-race with...'course they might get involved too.

What we need to do is provide the people of the world who feel that the American Hegemony is leaving them no choice but to fight or die, with a peaceful alternative. If they had some other course of action, they wouldn't be lining up to blow themselves up in the hope of taking some Americans with them. Putting these weapons into space just helps convince more people around the world that they have no choice.

That's the kind of arms-race I'm afraid of. Because, even if it were true that this system could defend us from missiles (and it can't), it's not missiles, but people who have no alternatives that are the threat in this century. How many choices for the people of the world might the trillions to be spent on this perversion of technology buy? 

So, while I'm aware that it's 2005 not 1965, I'm wondering if MacNutt (and other supporters of this insanity) have recognized that 2005 is not 1985. Missile defense is the last thing we need.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I see what you are getting at...but I do NOT see how it could spark any new "arms race in SPACE". Which is the Big Fear that the leftists are all freaking out about. Is it not?

The suitcase nuke or the container ship scenario has been well discussed here on earlier threads. I may even have been the first to bring them up (we may never know as I suspect that a lot of that earlier stuff got flushed due to bandwidth and storage issues).

And both of those terrorist scenarios are just as likely to happpen with or without any new American defensive missile shield deployment. Sorry...but that's just the way it is. 

The US forces are quite capable of targeting a single dwelling from vast distances away, right at this very moment, with a shocking degree of accuracy...and they can look right down on any point in earth already, and watch what anyone is doing. That technology already exists. The missile defense sheild would not change any of that.

And Al Qaeda et al are ALREADY committed to "destroying the Infidel where he lives" with whatever they can get their hands on. So their current resolve is not likely to be stepped up just because the States will soon have some sort of a defensive system in place that might be able to destroy incoming missiles.

The argument that the new system is "actually a very effective first strike weapon" is typical lefty crap. They were constantly harping on about each new US weapons system was "a first strike weapon" all during the Cold War and LOUDLY insisted that if the USSR ever relaxed their massive weapons buildup for even a moment, that the Americans would blast the Soviets and take over.

As you might have noticed...the Soviets are no more, their weapons are in disrepair...and the USA is busy lending big bucks to the Russians while encouraging their transition to a full democracy. Near as I can tell, they haven't actually launched any "first strikes" at the now largely defenceless former Soviet Union in the past decade or so. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

So...feel free to read all of the above and then please give your heads a collective shake. The truth is out there. Honest.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As for China and Taiwan...

It's a sticky sitaution. No doubt about it. The US has loudly defended Taiwan in the past when there was a huge distance between the two societies. The States has always defended the right of the small semi-democracy to exist in the shadow of the huge Marxist communist state.

But things are a-changin now. And the USA has a "one-China" policy in place at this point. Also, Taiwan has just freely elected a government that is rather sympathetic to the re-unification of both Chinas. I suspect that this whole situation will never amount to very much more than a bit of bluster....especially as long as mainland China keeps on it's headlong plunge into western style market economics. In fact...I'm bettin that we will see some sort of free elections in mainland China within the next decade (or even sooner) that will finally cast off the last vestiges of the failed old socialist system once and for all.

And that Taiwan will become a de facto part of greater China right around that time. Perhaps even sooner.

Either way, there is NO indication at all that China will suddenly enter into a new "arms race" with their largest trading partner over the new American missile defense sheild. Especially when it would jeapordise their newfound drive to wealth and modernity. They may build one of their own, or they may not. But I certainly don't see any evidence that the mutual assured destruction scenario will suddenly become a watchword again at any time in the near future.

Except in the clouded (and frightened) minds of some still-unrepentant left/lib types. But, considering their terrible track record of predicting the future, I can't seem to work up any angst about this at all. 

Only pity.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Now we're getting somewhere...*



MacNutt said:


> I see what you are getting at...but I do NOT see how it could spark any new "arms race in SPACE". Which is the Big Fear that the leftists are all freaking out about. Is it not?


Not this leftist. Not many of the security threats we face these days could put a pound of bacon into orbit, much less a technological marvel/nightmare like a missile platform.



> And both of those terrorist scenarios are just as likely to happpen with or without any new American defensive missile shield deployment. Sorry...but that's just the way it is.


'Just the way it is' is not compelling logic. The proposed space-based weapons systems seem to me a pretty compelling incentive to start developing and deploying these sorts of suicide-bomber, stealth-weapon, guerilla strategies, for folks who would otherwise rather more conventional tactics.



> The US forces are quite capable of targeting a single dwelling from vast distances away, right at this very moment, with a shocking degree of accuracy...and they can look right down on any point in earth already, and watch what anyone is doing. That technology already exists. The missile defense sheild would not change any of that.


There's a big difference between being able to blow up a house in Afghanistan from 20 km away using artillery, or laser-guided bombs, and being able to blow up a house in rural Ireland, where you have no military presence. This technology makes the entire planet into an occupied territory.



> And Al Qaeda et al are ALREADY committed to "destroying the Infidel where he lives" with whatever they can get their hands on. So their current resolve is not likely to be stepped up just because the States will soon have some sort of a defensive system in place that might be able to destroy incoming missiles.


Indeed they are. And they are constrained primarily by the limited number of martyrs they can recruit and by the limited amount of money/resources they can solicit from their half-hearted supporters. Increased American military force (and, make no mistake, the proposed system _is_ increased military force) will improve both their ability to recruit and their financial support.

That's what is really crazy about this plan. It won't defend us from any plausible threat, and it will give any population of people who fear the West another (very good) reason to do so.



> The argument that the new system is "actually a very effective first strike weapon" is typical lefty crap. ... Correct me if I'm wrong.


Okay, you're wrong.  

Perhaps you'd like to read some of the analysis done by experts in the field and explain how this system could work as a missile defense (they haven't even been able to shoot down their drones with this system, and the drones were _desigened_ to be easy targets), or why it wouldn't make a great first strike weapon? You could start with the SciAm article from last month.

And, on the topic of who we should be worrying about with respect to an arms-race, you might find this cartoon amusing.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually, there is some evidence that the terrorists are beginning to run a bit short of martyrs these days. They're using them up at a furious pace (just as they did in Palestine) and there is no noticeable effect on their targets except for a lot of maimed and dead innocents. The Iraq population proved how little they fear these radicals by turning out to vote in numbers that would put most established democracies to shame...despite the fact that the militants had threatened to "make the streets run red with voters blood".

What's more, there are now several new democracies in a region that had none before. And even Libya and now Syria are mellowing their stance. As these democracies begin to function as such...and their populations begin to see the fruits of this, there will be FAR fewer disenfranchised and angry youth who are so desperate for change that they will commit themselves to this sort of carnage.

It'll take some time before the full effects of the big changes in the middle east are seen by everyone, but it's definitely coming.

And I simply do NOT see any sort of escalation in whatever is left of the resolve of the racical terrorists just because the USA now has a missle shield in place. No connection at all. Sorry.

I have NO idea what to make of your assertion that "the USA could now rain missiles down upon Ireland" once the new defensive shield is in place

The States could quite easily drop a very accurate missle of almost any size upon pretty much ANY region on the planet. Right here and now. They can target something as small as a single dwelling and have equipment in their arsenal that can actually destroy individual sections of any building while leaving the rest of the structure intact. They can do this from hundreds of miles away and there is NO region of this planet that they are not capable of hitting with this sort of accurracy. They can do this right now. Without much effort.

The fact that they _HAVEN'T_ should tell you something about their intentions.

(These sort of bizarre notions about the USA always leave me wondering what the HECK are these people being fed? And by whom?)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just to further clarify...

Your example of Ireland is surrounded by ocean, is it not? A submarine launched GPS guided cruise missile or a laser/GPS guided bomb dropped from a great height could effectively destroy any individual structure on the Emerald Isle. Or ALL of them, for that matter. The US doesn't need to have a military presence in the area at all.

The same is true for any part of the planet.

And that's just the stuff we know about. I'm bettin that they have all sorts of stuff that they haven't even used yet.

That's the rumor, anyway.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> The argument that the new system is "actually a very effective first strike weapon" is typical lefty crap.


A space-based BMD system would actually make a very good complement to a first strike. You hit your enemy's known command and control centers along with their missile silos, air bases, and naval battle groups. Your BMD will catch any enemy nukes that manage to survive your first strike. Don't know why righties such as yourself can't seem to get your heads around such a simple strategy. 



> Near as I can tell, they haven't actually launched any "first strikes" at the now largely defenceless former Soviet Union in the past decade or so. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Yes, well, the U.S. does seem to enjoy launching first strikes on other countries...Grenada and, the biggie, Iraq, jump to mind.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> As for China and Taiwan...
> 
> It's a sticky sitaution. No doubt about it.


Yes...no doubt.




MacNutt said:


> The States has always defended the right of the small semi-democracy to exist in the shadow of the huge Marxist communist state.


"semi-democracy" is the operative word...the U.S. has never hesitated in supporting any sort of regime that was willing to support it in its fight against Communism.



MacNutt said:


> Also, Taiwan has just freely elected a government that is rather sympathetic to the re-unification of both Chinas.


Well, how does that explain Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's call for a million person protest on March 26th?



MacNutt said:


> And that Taiwan will become a de facto part of greater China right around that time. Perhaps even sooner.


Sooner, especially if Red China has anything to do with it.



MacNutt said:


> Either way, there is NO indication at all that China will suddenly enter into a new "arms race" with their largest trading partner over the new American missile defense sheild. Especially when it would jeapordise their newfound drive to wealth and modernity. They may build one of their own, or they may not.


LOL!!! Do you even bother to read anything that I've brought up? China is and has been in an arms race with the U.S. for as long as I can remember!!! They're doing it now in terms of missiles, fighter jets, and ocean-going navy ships. The money they are taking in through a liberalized economy will go to towards building new nuclear missiles to overwhelm the proposed BMD and/or to buidling own defense shield.

Both the U.S. and China are going to happily trade with one another while recognizing at the same time that they are deadly rivals. The Bush government recognized this years ago and if those idiots can recognize that I don't see why you can't either.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> What's more, there are now several new democracies in a region that had none before. And even Libya and now Syria are mellowing their stance.


Am curious..what several new democracies are we talking about?

BTW, Libya was already negotiating dismantling their nuclear experiments BEFORE the Iraqi invasion. But, hey, I know that facts don't really stop you when you're on your soapbox. 



MacNutt said:


> And I simply do NOT see any sort of escalation in whatever is left of the resolve of the racical terrorists just because the USA now has a missle shield in place. No connection at all. Sorry.


A. There is no missile shield right now.
B. Even the terrorists have realized that it won't work.



MacNutt said:


> (These sort of bizarre notions about the USA always leave me wondering what the HECK are these people being fed? And by whom?)


I swear, if you've ever smoked dope then you're an object lesson for even stricter drug laws.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Near as I can tell, they haven't actually launched any "first strikes" at the now largely defenceless former Soviet Union in the past decade or so. Correct me if I'm wrong.


No, they haven't launched any first strikes at Russia. But were you not around when they launched their first strike against Iraq?



IronMac said:


> Your BMD will catch any enemy nukes that manage to survive your first strike.


Assuming they get it to work, of course. The system they are trying to implement now hasn't even been able to take down a significant number of missiles in testing, which is far more controlled than real world scenarios ever are.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The USA did launch a "first strike"against Iraq in order to depose a hated dictator who was a serious threat to everyone on the planet. But I don't recall them using any actual intercontinental ballistic missiles or laser destructo-beams while doing it.

And they have inflicted full democracy upon their poor unfortunate Iraqi "victims" as well. While not stealing any of their oil, apparently.

Evil YANQUIS!!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

IronMac...

A short list of newly formed democracies in the Middle eastern region (ones that weren't there during the dark days of the Clinton Administration):

-Afghanistan. Free votes were very well attended. More are coming. This is a big improvement over what they had under the Taliban.

-Iraq. Need I elaborate?

-Lebanon. Rallies for pure democracy are happening as we speak and the Syrians are finally pulling out their occupying force after about a decade and a half.

-Palestine. Now that the terrorist Arafat is finally dead and buried...and now that the Bush Asministration is pushing VERY hard for a peaceful solution...the Palestinians have largely abandoned their previous pattern of suicide bombing Israeli civilians in public places. That formerly violent and blood-soaked area is now closer to peace than it has been in decades.

-Libya is still under the bootheel of the whacko Ghaddafi...but at least he has now laid open all of his WMD programs and looks like he is willing to make nice with everyone everywhere. This may have been "in the works" ever since the Reagan administration...but it suddenly became a fact during the Bush Presidency. Oddly enough, it happened just after the Americans had tossed out the Taliban from Afghanistan, and taken Iraq a scant thirty days after mobilising to remove Saddam.

Funny about that. Funny about ALL of it, don't you think? 

You DO think, don't you, IronMac? You don't just react according to your carefully programmed ideolgical conditioning do you? 

(MUST hate Bush, MUST hate Bush, MUST hate Bush, MUST hate Bush....)


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> The USA did launch a "first strike"against Iraq


Thank you for agreeing with me the _modus operandi_ of the U.S.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> IronMac...
> 
> A short list of newly formed democracies in the Middle eastern region (ones that weren't there during the dark days of the Clinton Administration):
> 
> ...





MacNutt said:


> -Lebanon. Rallies for pure democracy are happening as we speak and the Syrians are finally pulling out their occupying force after about a decade and a half.


Sorry, Lebanon was already somewhat of a democracy. The U.S. can't take credit for that. 



MacNutt said:


> -Palestine. Now that the terrorist Arafat is finally dead and buried...


Once again, the U.S. can't take credit for this unless you're going to say that they assassinated him. 



MacNutt said:


> -Libya is still under the bootheel of the whacko Ghaddafi...but at least he has now laid open all of his WMD programs and looks like he is willing to make nice with everyone everywhere. This may have been "in the works" ever since the Reagan administration...but it suddenly became a fact during the Bush Presidency. Oddly enough, it happened just after the Americans had tossed out the Taliban from Afghanistan, and taken Iraq a scant thirty days after mobilising to remove Saddam.


Once again, you're twisting the facts to suit your argument. And sorry, Libya is still not a democracy.

So, it looks like what we've really got here is a couple of new democracies...one of which is still pretty much uncertain and even pretty much under the control of the U.S.

P.S. I strongly suggest that you look up the word "several"...you don't even have enough to make it a "few".


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> The USA did launch a "first strike"against Iraq in order to depose a hated dictator who was a serious threat to everyone on the planet. But I don't recall them using any actual intercontinental ballistic missiles or laser destructo-beams while doing it.


No, they used something like 2000 cruise missles and bombs per day for what was it, 2 - 4 days in a row? Shock and Awe strategy, and all that.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> ...And they have inflicted full democracy upon their poor unfortunate Iraqi "victims" as well...


out of the mouths of babes...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

> during the dark days of the Clinton Administration


What's your beef with Clinton? He was one of the best fiscally Republican Presidents going... unprecedented 8 year economic boom while he reigned... Too bad George and his tax cuts can't produce the same.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

> Americans had tossed out the Taliban from Afghanistan, and taken Iraq a scant thirty days after mobilising to remove Saddam.


Too bad you can't walk around in either of these countries without the very REAL threat of getting shot by both sides. Nice job boys, keep up the good work.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The "Clinton Boom" was a completely false bubble economy that was already collapsing in a spectacular fashion in the months just BEFORE George W. Bush was elected to be President.

ENRON and all of the other high-end acccounting scandals took root, grew large, and then totally fell apart during the vapid and distracted Clinton "Presidency" (like he'd have actually NOTICED anything that didn't have a very young girl attached to it!)

The resulting mess was dropped into George W Bush's lap, uncerimoniously. Right after he'd assumed office. Along with all of the festering Islamic terrorist troubles and the massive attacks on New York.

But...oddly enough...most of this stuff is all straightened out now. And there are a whole BUNCH of brand new democracies in the middle east nowadays! For the very FIRST time in recorded memory! With several more ready to be born! (Iran, Jordan and perhaps even Saudi Arabia. Not to mention Bahrain and the UAE)

Even Israel and Palestine are now declaring total peace. The Syrians are pulling out of Lebanon! Libya is making nice with everyone in sight! Afghanistan and Iraq are now, at least nominally, DEMOCRACIES!  

North Korea has had to shut down most of it's weapons factories and is now attempting to have "talks" with all of it's closest neighbors. While demanding food aid for it's starving population. Kim Jong Il's favorite son has been the focus of at least two assasination attempts and Kim Jong himself narrowly missed getting snuffed on a train just last year.

Times they are _A CHANGIN!!_ And for the better!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And, yeah...you can't actually walk around Iraq or Afghanistan these days without seeing some residual violence. Which is not that unreasonable, considering their recent past.

But it's definitely getting better in both of these countries. And the populations of both of these formerly violent lands are going about their business while all of this carnage is taking place. Reinforcing the fact that MOST of the islamic Arabs would rather have a normal stable (and FREE) life than blow themselves up in a public place full of whomever they had deemed to be their "enemies" at that particular time.

Time will tell...but I honestly think that we are seeing the very beginnings of a MUCH different path for one of the most violent regions on this planet right now.

Watch and see.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

One last thing here, IronMac...

Lebanon was a "democracy" of sorts. But it was a democracy that had been occupied and wholly controlled by a severely NON-democratic foreign nation (Syria) for most of the past two decades.

That situation is changing right now. As we speak. Just as so many other countries in that region are now going through fundamental and positive change. Majority rule and the freedom to openly vote for their leaders is becoming a new force in the middle east.

And as well all know from recent history (the former Soviet Empire and all of Latin America)...that sort of a wave of democratic change cannot be stopped, once it has begun.

Watch Iran in the coming days. Watch Jordan. Watch what happens in Saudi Arabia, a few years down the road. And those are just for starters. 

After that (or maybe even before)...watch North Korea and Cuba and even Myanmar (Burma).

BIG changes are coming. Positive ones. The whole world is again shifting towards reality and self-determination. Even in areas that have never had this particular choice ever before. It's going on as we speak.

Watch and see.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> As we speak. Just as so many other countries in that region are now going through fundamental and positive change. Majority rule and the freedom to openly vote for their leaders is becoming a new force in the middle east.
> 
> Watch Iran in the coming days. Watch Jordan. Watch what happens in Saudi Arabia, a few years down the road.


It's incredibly disrespectful and insulting of you to ignore my earlier posts on the fact that Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are, and have been, backed up by the U.S. for decades yet you go out of your way to say that these countries may finally be changing into democracies.

It's not your inability to comprehend things that is shocking but it's your seeming ability to twist or ignore facts that do not conform to your view of the world.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Ironmac, its far easier to take a particular position and from that declare everything as black or white, for us or against us, etc. There is no need to think. Everything can be condensed or described down to a simple mantra. The fact that white becomes black becomes white over time is a detail that is ignored and facts can always be twisted. Republican presidents good, Democrat presidents bad, you get the picture. Arguing against such religious* thinking just adds fuel to the fire and generates more rhetoric. You can follow or you can keep an open mind. Just don't get mad 

*In the context of belief not of organized religion


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> ENRON and all of the other high-end acccounting scandals took root, grew large,


Funny how Enron was one of the largest contributors to Bush's election campaign in 2000. Looks they were try to buy their way out of a mess.



MacNutt said:


> But...oddly enough...most of this stuff is all straightened out now. And there are a whole BUNCH of brand new democracies in the middle east nowadays! For the very FIRST time in recorded memory! With several more ready to be born! (Iran, Jordan and perhaps even Saudi Arabia. Not to mention Bahrain and the UAE)


You have no idea what you are talking about do you?



MacNutt said:


> Even Israel and Palestine are now declaring total peace. The Syrians are pulling out of Lebanon! Libya is making nice with everyone in sight! Afghanistan and Iraq are now, at least nominally, DEMOCRACIES!


Could you try and simplify things any more? seriously with that attitude you could replace Wolfy at the pentagon... you have no clue as to how the real world works. Do you really think that they want to have a democracy in place in these countries? Any true democracy in these countries would lead to governments that would be directly opposed to US interests.

The systems enforced upon Iraq and Afganistan obfuscate any meaningfull democracy for the masses (mind you I wonder sometimes if that isn't a good idea in cultures where women are treated as second class citizens... but hey that what cultural relativity is about isn't it). The power brokers have been selected and they are doing what they've been instructed to do.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> And, yeah...you can't actually walk around Iraq or Afghanistan these days without seeing some residual violence.


Residual? you mean daily and ongoing right? With NO sign of ever stopping right?



MacNutt said:


> But it's definitely getting better in both of these countries. And the populations of both of these formerly violent lands are going about their business while all of this carnage is taking place. Reinforcing the fact that MOST of the islamic Arabs would rather have a normal stable (and FREE) life than blow themselves up in a public place full of whomever they had deemed to be their "enemies" at that particular time.


You really have no clue do you... Why do you think people are willing to die so easily for their cause in that region of the world? You don't think that one evil dictator has been replaced by an other form of tyranny?



MacNutt said:


> Time will tell...but I honestly think that we are seeing the very beginnings of a MUCH different path for one of the most violent regions on this planet right now.


How's that FOX news feed comming... you've got that running 24x7 in every room of your house right? 

Franckly I wish that what you are saying was true, but it is not. The world has become a much MUCH more dangerous place. I'm saddened by what has been allowed to happen. Our children and their children's children will pay for the repricussians of today's mistakes.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Worry not da Jonesy. Your programming is obviously secure and well buttoned down. You are unable to see obvious improvements in a previously war-torn and violent area of the world that has almost NEVER seen any sort of free voting by the citizens of ANY nation in the region.

But we have seen several free votes of late, in the middle east. In more than one country, BTW. When did that ever happen before?

Care to comment on the last time we actually saw the Palestinians and the Israelis caling a truce? One that WORKED?

When was the last time we saw Syria pulling OUT of an occupied neighboring Arab country? When was the last time we saw Lebanon...or ANY middle east country...with hordes of citizens in the streets demonstrating in favor of free democracy? They are doing that right now, as we speak.

There is some agitation going on in Jordan as well. Apparently even THEY want some sort of a democracy in the near future. Even though Jordan is one of the more mellow states in the area.

Iranians have been loudly demanding democracy for some time now. Once they are surrounded by newly formed nascent democracies, then the old mullahs will have to call it a day and fade away forever. And Iran will become a brand new powerhouse democracy in the region. So will Iraq, once the foreign militants finally give up on their quest to destabilise it and sieze power for themselves.

Considering how little success they've had in swaying Iraqi public opinion, then I expect that they'll run out of gas...or run out of willing suicide bombers...rather soonly.

The whole middle east is going through a painful transition from tyrannical radical (and DANGEROUS) states to a collection of free democracies right now. This transition won't be an easy one. But it will happen...this is for certain. It's already on the way. 

da Jonesy.....

You have told me, repeatedly, that I "don't know what I'm talking about".

Fair enough. We are far enough apart in our opinions on this particular subject that it is very likely that ONE of us truly "doesn't know what he is talking about".

Is it you...or is it me?

I figure that time will tell. And I don't intend on going anywhere. We will see what we will see. 

And I will BE here to call you on this, five or ten years down the road. I'll rub your nose in it good and proper...just as I've done for so many other misinformed ideologues on so many other subjects here in the past.

You won't like it much, either.

Trust me on this.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Looks like you've a heck of lot of re-programming work to do....

Decima Poll

57% agree with the decision to not join the BMD. 26% are against the decision.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Majorities have been wrong before.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

SINC said:


> Majorities have been wrong before.


Yeah, but it's the wisdom of the common man in the street.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Worry not da Jonesy. Your programming is obviously secure and well buttoned down. You are unable to see obvious improvements in a previously war-torn and violent area of the world that has almost NEVER seen any sort of free voting by the citizens of ANY nation in the region.


My programmimg? open your eyes conservo-bot!  If you think free voting is all that it will take in the Middle East... you and your neo con buddies are deluded. What do you think would happen in Saudi Arabia if they had a truely free democracy? Please enlighten me ohhh oracle.

You know (or at least you should) and I know that democracy is not in the best interests of current US strategic policy in that region. I invite you to read the journal "Foreign Affairs" (yes I am a sucker for punishment in that I do buy that journal when I see it on news stands) and see what the neo cons are really saying.



MacNutt said:


> Care to comment on the last time we actually saw the Palestinians and the Israelis caling a truce? One that WORKED?


How about the *THOUSAND* years prior to the 1940's?



MacNutt said:


> When was the last time we saw Syria pulling OUT of an occupied neighboring Arab country? When was the last time we saw Lebanon...or ANY middle east country...with hordes of citizens in the streets demonstrating in favor of free democracy? They are doing that right now, as we speak.


To be honest what I see is a very VERY precarious position in Lebanon being aggitated by both sides (pro US and pro Syrian). 10 years after one of the most bloody civil wars of the 20th century... fevers run high on both sides. What we see on the streets is not a good thing. What happens when the pro Hezbolah factions start mixing it up with the pro chistian facions.

I feel horrible for those people as they are truely walking the razor's edge.

If you looked past the FOX/News 30 second infomercial on the subject you would see the danger.



MacNutt said:


> There is some agitation going on in Jordan as well. Apparently even THEY want some sort of a democracy in the near future. Even though Jordan is one of the more mellow states in the area.


King Abdullah is in a precarious position as are the Jordanian's in general... they jury is still out on that one. Perhaps there is something to be said about the "philosopher king" approach to things.



MacNutt said:


> Iranians have been loudly demanding democracy for some time now. Once they are surrounded by newly formed nascent democracies, then the old mullahs will have to call it a day and fade away forever. And Iran will become a brand new powerhouse democracy in the region. So will Iraq, once the foreign militants finally give up on their quest to destabilise it and sieze power for themselves.


I abhore theocracies, as usually they oppress women and minorities. But that being said... it's not like the US backed Shaw was politely asked to leave in the late 70's... that was a widespread civil revolt. They won't be kissing as US flag to soon.



MacNutt said:


> Considering how little success they've had in swaying Iraqi public opinion, then I expect that they'll run out of gas...or run out of willing suicide bombers...rather soonly.


You must be sniffing Glue... even the Pentagon is forcasting at least another 5 years. Look at every anti insurgency (I hate that word... particularly in this case as it grossly distorts the nature of the conflict) situation in recent history in each case the conflict last 6-10 years and the US or US based interests have never won.



MacNutt said:


> The whole middle east is going through a painful transition from tyrannical radical (and DANGEROUS) states to a collection of free democracies right now. This transition won't be an easy one. But it will happen...this is for certain. It's already on the way.


You think that free democracies are safer? you haven't been paying attention have you? Where would you like to start? Spanish-American War? or perhaps some more recent events? el Salvador, Nicaragua? Any of this ringing a bell? Hell lets talk about non US democracies... how about Britain and India and Pakistan or France and Algeria?

The point here... that you are plainly missing... is that the Middle East is a dangerous area, so long as religous factions continue to attack each other and that demand for oil remains as high as it is... there is nothing that will change that regions volatility. Democracy will not help, in fact in many countries it will destabalize things even further.



MacNutt said:


> da Jonesy.....
> 
> You have told me, repeatedly, that I "don't know what I'm talking about".
> 
> ...



I'll be waiting... and you are sorely mistaken if you think I am wrong. You've been drinking the FOX News Kool-Aid. I know I am more right on this than you are (I may be wrong about a few things, but you are wrong on so many levels it hurts)... I'll stake my Bachelor's Degree in Politics on it.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Fair enough, da Jonesy.

I'll bow to your bachelors's degree on this. You are, most probably, FAR more well-informed than I am on the subject of foreign states and emerging democracies. And I'll also bet that you must have studied, at great length, the necessary modern transition from a command style centrally-controlled socialist economy to a totally open free market one...at least on an academic level. And in the classroom, no less.

Myself? I have no such credentials at all. My only claim to fame on this subject is the simple fact that I have spent about a quarter of a century of my life actually living and working in a whole bunch of countries where there USED to be a command-style socialist economy...and where there is NOW a free-market economy. I've seen what was in place before...and what IS there now.

The people who were my neighbors and friends during this period are now approacj]ging almsot EVERYTHING from a totally new angle. 

And they are better of because of it. In all ways

BIG changes, by all accounts. Very positive ones as well. Wish I'd had some sort of university degree that might help me to understand these massive positive changes a bit better. But I didn't.  

So I just had to wing it. And learn from current events, as I went along.

Much like the locals did, when the tired old socialist model finally collapsed.

BTW.....They're doing rather well these days. Pretty much everywhere...don't you think?

Funny about that, eh?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Wish I'd had some sort of university degree that might help me to understand these massive positive changes a bit better." Gerry, it's never too late to go to university. Try it and you might find the experience very enlightening. You might even understand some of the perspectives that have been presented by others in ehMacLand. You have the ability to write, and there are plenty of universities in BC, so go for it!!!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> And I'll also bet that you must have studied, at great length, the necessary modern transition from a command style centrally-controlled socialist economy to a totally open free market one...at least on an academic level. And in the classroom, no less.
> 
> The people who were my neighbors and friends during this period are now approacj]ging almsot EVERYTHING from a totally new angle.
> 
> ...


I was in a 2nd or 3rd year course on the Soviet Union when the professor walked into the class and took our text book and dropped it in the garbage can. It may have been melodramatic but he made the point.

I will agree with you that many countries are better off than they were, Case in point East Germany, Poland, Checkoslovakia (spelling?). The Soviet style command style central economy was rife with corruption and inefficiency. Not mention the crushing competition in defence spending that they were under trying to compete with a blatant US military build up (Reagan won without even firing a shot).

That being said there are certainly examples where the switch did not work for the better. Take Yugoslavia's disentegration or the ongoing conflict in Chechnia. I don't think the fall of the Soviet system and the change that resulted can be used as an analogy for the Middle East given the instability in the region.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Conservo-bot!*



da_jonesy said:


> My programmimg? open your eyes conservo-bot!


Good one, da_jonesy! LMAO!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

For every complex problem, there is an answer that is simple, obvious and wrong.

The problems we've been discussing here are hideously complex, possibly intractably so. To propose that any given socio-economic problem can be solved by the 'free-market' is so naive as to be ridiculous.

That is not to say that a free - or, as I prefer to suggest, a 'relatively unconstrained' - market can't be part of an effective solution. But, until selfish greed and insatiable consumption are less common attributes of human behaviour, I'm afraid that we'll need some government involvement in regulating both the economy and other aspects of our society.

Balance is the key. Where the balance point lies is the question. Intelligent debate among well-intentioned, well-informed, respectful citizens - as we have enjoyed here - is the best way I can think of to answer that question.

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Da Jonesy....

Your Prof had it right. The whole "book" needed to be trashed...and a whole new reality needed to be embraced. Times had changed with a great and resounding thump. No question about it. 

Socialism, as we knew it back then, was dead and buried. Stopped in it's tracks. Seen to be a total dead end by all and sundry. Finally.

The transition from a command style "economy" to a completely free-market economy (that actually works) has been a difficult one for some of the countries who've made the leap from absolute tyranny to free determination by popular vote.

These transitional difficulties will be ongoing for some time yet. And Iraq and the rest of the middle east is only at the very earliest and most violent stages of this transition at this point.

But...you know what?

All of these former tyrannies are now allowed to freely vote for whatever type of government they want. And I can think of NONE who have chosen to go back to the old ways of tyranny or communisim. Despite the fact that communist parties have been actively running in ALL of the elections.

Heck...most of them don't even seem to want any part of a scocialist government, either! 

Does that tell you something?

It should.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Further to this....I will bet you real money that the Cuban people would loudly vote to abandon their present government and would toss off their current government controlled command style economy if they were allowed to do so.

They'd do it in a New York minute.

So would the residents of North Korea. In a heartbeat.

And I fully expect to see the residents of mainland China making this very same leap into political modernity before very long. The current leaders of China are already preparing themselves for this eventuality.

Most of the middle east will be actively pursuing a democratic free market ideal within ten years. Perhaps even sooner. In fact...it's already started. 

Not sure how long isolated Myanmar (Burma) can hold out against this worldwide tide of free market democracy. Not too long, I'd suspect.

The rest of the fly-blown tinpot dictatorships that are still left on the face of this planet will vanish shortly thereafter. Overwhelmed by a tide of positive change.

Watch and see.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> The rest of the fly-blown tinpot dictatorships that are still left on the face of this planet will vanish shortly thereafter. Overwhelmed by a tide of positive change.
> 
> Watch and see.


God but I hope you're right Gerry. There's so many possible flash points that it's hard to imagine one won't go off. The Taiwan spark is a big concern. But I respect your optimism.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> And I fully expect to see the residents of mainland China making this very same leap into political modernity before very long. The current leaders of China are already preparing themselves for this eventuality.


LOL! Still ignoring the fact that those same leaders have "legitimized" their intent to invade Taiwan huh? LOL!

How strong are those rose-coloured glasses of your's?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> And I fully expect to see the residents of mainland China making this very same leap into political modernity before very long. The current leaders of China are already preparing themselves for this eventuality.


You have to be kidding right? show some proof of this or is this more of your wishfull thinking? they just had the 1st peacefull handover of power in the Communist party's history.

Laterz 

<p><a href="http://ehmaculate.ehmac.ca/"><img src="http://torontominiclub.com/ehMaculate_Beaver.jpg" alt="" height="160" width="401" border="0"></a></p>


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Heck...most of them don't even seem to want any part of a scocialist government, either!


I'm sure I and a few others have corrected you on this one before and you didn't bother to respond to the fact that in the last 4 years there have been quite a few country's on this planet that have elected to power governments with socialist agendas, I would say that the old Communist style socialism is dead but socialism carries on within the framework of democracy's around the world.

Laterz 

<p><a href="http://ehmaculate.ehmac.ca/"><img src="http://torontominiclub.com/ehMaculate_Beaver.jpg" alt="" height="160" width="401" border="0"></a></p>


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

speaking of cuba:

the cuban biotech revolution 

enjoy the read,

miguel


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macnutt... 

Some of your predictions may come to pass. Cuba is a matter of time as is China, however the middle east is another story entirely. 

My fear with Cuba and China is that they don't swing too wildly to the other side too fast... that will lead to inequity of the masses on an unheard of scale. More interestingly will be how the west will deal with China on matters of intellectual property as their system basically disregards much of the patent protection laws that the west uses. Maybe that Free Trade, globalization thing wasn't such a good idea after all?

As for the middle east... which was what we were talking about, I think your arguments are way off base.


----------

