Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canadians- Missile Shield, Or Not?  
User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1703 times:

I'd like to know how my fellow Canucks feel about the missile shield issue. I'll start it off- The Americans have managed to piss off a large portion of the planet, then they overstate the threat from assorted countries to keep the military budget up, and to keep employment up in various governors states, and when they dream up another BS scheme like the Star Wars plan, they start pressuring Canada to go in on it and share the cost! Our current idiot defence minister is said to be a proponent of the idea. Personally I'd be furious if those idiots in Ottawa cave in and spend our tax dollars on this garbage. We are running a budget surplus for once, while the US deficit themselves into oblivion, and this is the last thing we need to waste money on. Thoughts?

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1681 times:

I'm opposed to Canada taking part in this program for three reasons.

First, this program would have been of absolutely no help whatsoever in preventing the 9/11 attack, where exactos were the main weapon - aside the planes. So why spend billion of dollars of this program, when that money could be much better used in reinforcing securities at airports, ports and customs around the USA ? It just doesn't make any sense.

Second, this technology is bound to fail. If it can stop one missile, which very iffy in the first place, it couldn't do a lot against 10 missiles shot at once. This system is easily going to be overwhelm. Already, Russia has announced its intent to boost its nuclear weapons capacity in answer to this shield.

Third, this program gives the Americans a false sense of security, which only reinforces the drive to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. This world is a much safer and a much better place with a positive involvement of the USA in improving security, progress and prosperity through the use of diplomacy.

This program is a total waste of money.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
User currently offlineSkysurfer From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

Nobody wants to attack Canada, so why open ourselves up to attacks by cost/risk sharing with the US? IMHO the damn shield isn't even needed.....why attack from space when you can just attack from home soil (9/11)? The idea of attacking with ballistic missiles is to me pretty much obsolete, because any country knows that if they launch one against the states then they can expect quite a few to be fired back. I think a 'dirty bomb' is more likely to be used against America than a missile attack is, and seeing as so much uranium/plutonium is unaccounted for from the former CIS then you can bet that some of it has fallen into hands of ill repute. I just think bush is a war monger...he's like a kid with a can of RAID wasp killer, only problem is that one day a bunch of wasps get through and sting the hell out of him. Stay out of area's that don't concern you, let the UN step in and handle it and you won't have to worry as much about defending your own country form pissed off ppl. But getting back to the original topic (lol), I believe Canada should stay out of the program........the lumbar and beef issue should guarantee that i would hope.

Cheers

ps....i'm not anti america, i just strongly disagree with alot of what the present governemnt is saying and doing, that's all. The above is just my opinion, not a blast at everyone.  Smile

[Edited 2004-11-18 02:16:43]


In the dark you can't see ugly, but you can feel fat
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29690 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

We did.

Signed the United States Congress 1812




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3331 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

And we won Big grin

filler



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29690 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1643 times:

Funny, I could have sworn you got your arses kicked at the Battle of New Orleans.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1626 times:

Canada's future lies with the US. We should support this US peace initiative.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 911 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1621 times:

Take my word for it... if missile defense comes your way, cut and flipin run.

The most cost effective way to get a MD system would be to wait until we've paid out the ass to prove, go and buy the missiles under liscense, then set-up a bootleg feed of our intercept radars in Alaska... and you're set. If I can do it with my neighborh's dish network, it can't be that hard  Big grin


Use the left over money to pay for some more prescription drugs  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3331 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

Canada's future lies with the US. We should support this US peace initiative.

While you are correct Neil would you accept a tax hike to pay for it because most Canadians I know wouldn't.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

While you are correct Neil would you accept a tax hike to pay for it because most Canadians I know wouldn't.

We could reduce the equalization payments to the 8 poor provinces. This would more than cover any contribution needed to this US peace initiaitive.




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

I'm sure Canadians would be all in full support of this project if it involved buying a 30-year old second-hand missile shield from the Brits. Big grin

Canada has de-facto handed over its national defence responsibility to the United States already. It is only right that the Canadian taxpayer stops feeding at the American trough and contributes Canada's fair share of the costs involved.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1587 times:

So who's about to attack Canada?






User currently offlineCanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3387 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1587 times:

Canada should stay out of it. With all the weapons around, humans already have enough weapons to blow up our planet a good 5 times over, why the hell should we waste our money making more?!? It just doesn't make sence to me, and I feel theres much better things to spend tax money on.





CanadianNorth



What could possibly go wrong?
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1581 times:

And its cheaper and safer to play saint to the US's cowboy.

No one's about to attack Canada based on that strategy.

And if, for some reason, some fanatic does attack Canada, well, there is always the US to fall back on.





User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Canada has de-facto handed over its national defence responsibility to the United States already. It is only right that the Canadian taxpayer stops feeding at the American trough and contributes Canada's fair share of the costs involved.

It is indeed time Canada paid its fair share of its own defense.



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

"Peace initiative"? What are you talking about? Hiding behind a wall is not a peace initiative. And once B747 shows his total lack of sense and understanding of the issue. If your neighbour is a gangster, and he is worried his enemies might attack the neighbourhood, why should you have to pay for it? I'll be damned if my tax dollars are going to help soothe the paranoia of the USA.

User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1567 times:

The US is a benign superpower who has always protected fellow allies and democracies. The US is our protector and saviour. Any missile shield to protect the US will also protect Canada.

Canada should confirm its intent to be a good economic partner to the US and pony up to the missile shield table.






Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1561 times:

"The US is a benign superpower who has always protected fellow allies and democracies" Agreed.
"The US is our protector and saviour." That's going overboard a little bit. They have never "saved" us from anyone, and as for protecting us (from the Soviets, presumably) that was primarily done in self interest, and any danger we faced was by geographical accident, i.e. living next door.
"Any missile shield to protect the US will also protect Canada". From what, exactly? I am convinced that the chances of anyone attacking the US with a ballistic missile is zero. Nada. So why waste billions pissing away our Canadian money on their paranoia?
"Canada should confirm its intent to be a good economic partner to the US and pony up to the missile shield table." What does one have to do with the other? Unless, of course they have a hissy fit and slap some tariffs on us because we won't play in their game...........
I still haven't heard any sound arguments either for the shield itself, (An issue American citizens ought to be discussing, given your deficit), or why we should have anything to do with it.


User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1561 times:

They have never "saved" us from anyone

How short your memory is. Millions of young American men gave their lives in the 1940s to save Canada from the Nazis. If it wasn't for the United States you would be speaking German today. And what did they get in return? A country that is too snooty to thank them for it but always willing to take more charity on military issues.

An issue American citizens ought to be discussing, given your deficit

American citizens are smart enough to realize that some things are more important than running a deficit, and those include freedom and doing what is right in the world. While Canada stood by and self-righteously pleaded for other solutions, American citizens were dying in Vietnam and in Iraq to keep Canada safe from evil regimes. If you think that Saddam would not have used his WMDs against Canada simply because Chretien was too much of a pussy to stand up to him, you are living in a fools paradise.

The US is a benign superpower who has always protected fellow allies and democracies

While this statement may be true at face value, the concepts of "ally" and "democracy" have often been mutually exclusive in US foreign policy over the last few decades.


User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1553 times:

Oh my God- your grasp of history is right up there with economics. Americans did not die to save Canada, which was never threatened with invasion or attack. Canada fought in WWII to save others, as did the States, after a 2 year waiting period.As for taking "charity" is the US going to pay every dime of this so called shield? Not likely. They'll stick us for the cost, so much for charity. And neither Germany, Vietnam, Iraq, nor North Korea have ever threatened Canada, so the idea of Americans dying to protect us is pure BS.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29690 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1547 times:

Avt007, I think I need to check you history of the Aleutian Campaign. The Japanese could very easily have ended up in BC if it hadn't had been fought.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 day ago) and read 1547 times:

Avt007 I think your statement that Canada "was never threatened with invasion or attack" is a bit naive. Attack, probably not. Had the Axis somehow prevailed during WW II, and taken over the US, it is not likely that they would have spared Canada. I don't think at that point it would have required much of an invasion as Canada would, by that time, have pretty well expended its military in Europe, but you would have been occupied, make no mistake about that.

As to the missile shield, this unsolicited advice from south of the border:

Don't bother.

  • If missiles are ever again going to be a primary threat there will be time to develop defenses.


  • I don't think any enemy of the USA would mistake Canada for a friend of the USA. Especially if you go ahead with that monument to our draft-dodgers. Especially too, if they read this forum.


  • If the attack comes from any direction other than from across OUR borders, the invaders will probably get lost. (think Napoleon in Russia)





  • Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
    User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 1528 times:

    Given the latest Scientific American says the missile defense shield is useless, and the $80 billion already spent on it is completely wasted, perhaps thought should be given as to how exactly the shield would work?

    User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
    Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 1519 times:
    Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

    I'm finding it a hard time thinking of a country dumb enough to lob ICBM's on the US. North Korea? These guys might be crazy, but their not stupid enought to nuke someone without blatant provocation. It smells like another fantasy plan by the neo-cons, and if i were Canadian, i'd want absolutely nothing to do with it.




    In Arsene we trust!!
    User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 1504 times:

    Better hope this multi-squillion dollar anti-nuke system works on suitcases or freight containers as well, because that's probably how the bomb is going to reach America. Canada and the UK (who are also implicated) should have nothing to do with this.

    25 Airplay : Reading this thread is better than watching the Comedy Channel.... Canada's future lies with the US. We should support this US peace initiative. HAHA.
    26 Boeing757/767 : B747-437B, Your comment has been addressed but I'd like to point out that there are hundreds of dead Canadian soldiers in Normandy and other places --
    27 Post contains images L410Turbolet : So who's about to attack Canada? Kyle's mom.
    28 AlekToronto : I have really enjoyed this topic..Again it proves that everyone has their opinion and everyone thinks they are right...Why are people so loath to hear
    29 Airplay : Canada is a sovereign country and should look out for OUR interests...just like the US does. We should not blindly just follow the US. I agree that we
    30 Jaysit : None of you answer the question of who is about to attack Canada and with what? Which rogue country has long range missiles to reach Canadian shores?
    31 Yyz717 : We drew the line at the unilateral invasion of Iraq because we understand the value in honoring our commitments to the UN and other international agre
    32 Peterpuck : Canada was in both world wars before the U.S. We stand up to real aggression when we need to. (Iraq was not necessary) The only time we were ever atta
    33 Airplay : No. We drew the line at freeing Iraq because Chretien was a strident left-wing anti-American. Hence, Canada was in de facto support of Saddam Hussein.
    34 Xnv : Fear mongering. There are much easier and secretive ways to attack than lobbing a missile across the pond - as someone said in this forum it is easier
    35 Jaysit : It appears that Canada is moving towards establishing itself as a quasi-Switzerland of North America - relatively neutral but still a member of NATO.
    36 Avt007 : Rather than being naive, I`d say I am being realistic. Had Germany managed to invade England, and had they succeeded (two very different things) they`
    37 DIJKKIJK : Talking about US missile shields, I can't think of one country which would want to attack the US with missiles. For all its posturing, North Korea wou
    38 L-188 : Who was talking about Germany, Airplay. The Aleutian Campaign was about Japan. If memory serves a couple of Jap Subs did manage to shell BC during the
    39 Avt007 : If memory serves, the only direct attack on North America was by a single Japanese sub which fired a few shells at a lighthouse on Vancouver Island. S
    40 Qb001 : If memory serves a couple of Jap Subs did manage to shell BC during the early days of the war too. And how a missile shield system is supposed to prot
    41 Post contains images Greaser : The United States of North America... Souds good!
    42 JeffLAS : The U.S.A. is one huge Military-Industrial Complex. What a waste.
    43 L-188 : If memory serves, the only direct attack on North America was by a single Japanese sub which fired a few shells at a lighthouse on Vancouver Island Ho
    44 Avt007 : Canada and the US would be far better off taking a fraction of what the shield would cost and spend it helping out the countries that supposedly threa
    45 L-188 : (L-188...the Battle of New Orleans was after the war ended) I knew that. The soldiers that actually fought it didn't though.
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    To Taser Or Not To Taser posted Fri Nov 30 2007 05:59:15 by Airfoilsguy
    To Tivo Or Not To Tivo? posted Thu Aug 30 2007 05:39:41 by Lgbga
    To Matrix Or Not To Matrix...? posted Mon Jun 11 2007 13:58:48 by Francoflier
    Asteroid Apophis (Danger Or Not?) posted Sun Jun 3 2007 03:25:14 by Blackbird
    Allison Stokke....hot Or Not posted Thu May 17 2007 07:58:57 by Copaair737
    Single Or Not? posted Wed Apr 18 2007 04:33:21 by AF773
    VBH. Hot Or Not? posted Mon Dec 18 2006 21:08:16 by Cosec59
    Is "Stupid Indian" Racist Or Not? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 06:01:30 by Don
    Printer Cartridges - Branded Or Not? posted Sat Sep 16 2006 09:12:32 by Cxsjr
    Fake Or Not:Up To You To Decide! posted Wed Aug 30 2006 12:21:29 by RootsAir