Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-24-2005, 01:40 PM   #41 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
He was in a pickle, not like he could count on the French to be of help.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 04:51 PM   #42 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Well, it is ironic for one to chastise canada for benefitting from america's military power without contributing to it while one is benefitting from america's military power without contributing to it.
He pays taxes in America, doesn't he?

Last edited by daswig; 02-24-2005 at 05:05 PM..
daswig is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 04:53 PM   #43 (permalink)
Eat your vegetables
 
genuinegirly's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Arabidopsis-ville
I'm not Canadian, but kudos to Canada for not getting themselves mucked up with the US military plans.
__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy
genuinegirly is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 04:57 PM   #44 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Post removed by author

Last edited by daswig; 02-28-2005 at 12:35 PM..
daswig is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:04 PM   #45 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janey
as for why are Canadians against it? isn't it obvious? think back to the Reagan paranoia that was the Star Wars initiative. This is more of the same, throwing good money after bad. the only efective result from this would be the spin off industires in aerospace technologies and job contracts (probably going to the favoured few yet again) which results in jobs for those that can qualify.
I would hardly declare fears over the USSR to be "paranoia".

Also, when the initial Star Wars programs were proposed, I think computers were still using cassettes (or maybe punch cards), calculators were technological marvels, and lasers were something you read about in science fiction. I don't see why so many people are against a defensive technology. It's like arguing against better bulletproof vests, or fire-retartant materials.

Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
Sob, Godwins's Law is the idea that the productive discussion is over when someone mentions Hitler. i'm not always an adherant to the idea, but i don't think your example served the debate.
But by extension wouldn't mentioning Godwins's law also end productive discussion, since you are mentioning someone else's mention of Hitler?

I've never heard that before, out of curiousity where is it from?

Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-25-2005 at 02:09 AM..
alansmithee is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:11 PM   #46 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Post removed by author

Last edited by daswig; 02-28-2005 at 12:35 PM..
daswig is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 06:15 PM   #47 (permalink)
Crazy
 
munchen's Avatar
 
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Quote:
We're preparing for war with China. In 20 years, they'll be a HUGE threat to the US.
Just a question. Why? Why do you have to prepare for war? you have 20 years. If you have twenty years why not start positive diplomatic relations with them? Why not form positives ties with them and start working together in partnership so in twenty years you will be allies and not enemies? If they are such a threat why not work to dismantle the threat? I don't understand why this has to be confrontation. Why is peace not a viable option here?
__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening
munchen is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 06:21 PM   #48 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
He pays taxes in America, doesn't he?
If paying taxes was the same as fighting a war we could've just sent saddam our w-2's.
filtherton is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:11 PM   #49 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
I would like to think that expensive missile defense systems like "star wars" are not necessary and the money be better spent elsewhere. But with more unstable nations developing nuclear capability advanced defense systems may be the best way to protect ourselves in the long run rather than just destroying the facilities in nations that are a threat.

Whether Canada contributes or how much does not seem to be much of an issue in regards to their defense. The U.S. would never allow another country to attack Canada and I'm sure the rest of the world knows it. A nuclear attack on Canada would be viewed as an attack on the U.S. Unbelievable cooperation between our two countries would ensue. Keeping missiles out of Canada may just make them safer from first strike.
flstf is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:56 PM   #50 (permalink)
Junk
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
That's bullshit. If the Allies had made a stand when Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, Hitler would have HAD to back down, because he was too weak to do anything else. You're trying to tell me that England and France couldn't have taken on a SINGLE BATTALION of German troops in '36? Or that they couldn't have refused to sacrifice Czechoslavakia by simply stationing a few thousand troops there in '38 to serve as a "trip-wire"???

Chamberlain was a fool. He was an appeaser of the first order, and he should have met the same fate as Petain.
Well better to be a fool that tried than one that didn't. By the way, what year did the U.S, the victors of WWII, jump into the war,...'41 was it, and late '41 at that.

Speculate and theorize all you want. It's moot. At least England, France and Canada weren't sitting on the sidelines when push came to shove.
__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

Last edited by OFKU0; 02-24-2005 at 09:39 PM..
OFKU0 is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 10:46 PM   #51 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Post removed by author

Last edited by daswig; 02-28-2005 at 12:36 PM..
daswig is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 12:57 AM   #52 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
China could be a democracy in 20 years. Hey you never know.

Still, there's no harm in preparing "quietly" while still engaging diplomatically. I think China is more concerned with their own domestic stuff and the "Taiwan" issue than they are about out-muscling the US. It's a face thing, they just want a little respect.

They get it: They have an economic stake and they're certainly not going to fuck up their economy and create instability by starting a war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
I'd suggest you ask the Tibetian people about that....
The Tibetan issue is null: It's like saying the US doesn't want peace, just ask the Cherokee, Sioux, Hopi, Algonquin etc.... Or the Canadians don't want peace, just ask the Quebecois. Or how aboout Israel?

Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-25-2005 at 02:11 AM..
jorgelito is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 01:59 AM   #53 (permalink)
Human
 
SecretMethod70's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Two things 1) Keep it more civil in here. Single sentence snipes at one another are not the quality of debate we're looking for. And 2) either learn to use the edit button or start using tabbed browsing so that you can copy and paste multiple quotes into one post. There is no need to have 4 posts in a row just because you're quoting and responding to 4 different people. Put it all in one post, and I don't care if it means a little extra work for you. It's annoying to read when done on the level it is being done at in this thread.


EDIT: And look at that, I even went through and fixed your previous posts for you - all 15 extra of them.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-25-2005 at 07:29 AM..
SecretMethod70 is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 02:24 AM   #54 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
Thanks for the fix, will pay more heed next time. I do keep it civil though.
jorgelito is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 06:23 AM   #55 (permalink)
will always be an Alyson Hanniganite
 
Bill O'Rights's Avatar
 
Location: In the dust of the archives
All I have to say is that I am extremely disapointed in the pathetic direction that this thread has taken.
__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.
Bill O'Rights is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 11:47 AM   #56 (permalink)
....is off his meds...you were warned.
 
KMA-628's Avatar
 
Location: The Wild Wild West
FYI

PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY, KAUAI, Hawaii, Feb. 24, 2005 /PRNewswire/ -- The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Weapon System and Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) destroyed a ballistic missile outside the earth's atmosphere during an Aegis BMD Program flight test over the Pacific Ocean. Raytheon Company develops the SM-3. Lockheed Martin develops the Aegis BMD Weapon System.

The Feb. 24 mission -- the fifth successful intercept for SM-3 -- was the first firing of the Aegis BMD "Emergency Deployment" capability using operational versions of the SM-3 Block I missile and Aegis BMD Weapon System. This was also the first test to exercise SM-3's third stage rocket motor (TSRM) single-pulse mode. The TSRM has two pulses, which can be ignited independently, providing expansion of the ballistic missile engagement battlespace.

The SM-3 was launched from the Aegis BMD cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG 70) and hit a target missile that had been launched from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii.

"This successful flight test demonstrates the tactical, operational capability of SM-3 and the Aegis BMD Weapon System in real-world conditions," said Edward Miyashiro, Raytheon Missile Systems vice president, Naval Weapon Systems. "Successes like we've seen today provide decision makers the confidence to proceed with deploying in quantity, providing the Nation with a robust capability that will defend the U.S., deployed American forces, our friends and our allies. Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense is for real."

Japan has made decision to procure Aegis BMD with SM-3 for its Kongo class ships.


While it may not work every time, it is not the complete failure many here would like us to think.

It is worth pursuing, in my opinion.
KMA-628 is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 12:05 PM   #57 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgelito
Or the Canadians don't want peace, just ask the Quebecois.
Just for clarity... this doesn't qualify in your list.

What later became Lower Canada and then Quebec was granted to England by the French in exchange for some other English territories.

The Quebequois were not a conquered people but rather a people abandoned by their colonial homeland.

You must also note that once that trade occured the French who stayed behind, were not squashed, or culturally obliterated. They were encouraged to maintian their customs, laws, etc. This compromise position is at the heart of what it means to be Canadian...

While America is a melting pot... Canada is a mosaic.

There are those in Quebec who would like to seperate but this is not due, as your list would suggest, to oppression of any sort.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 12:24 PM   #58 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Charlatan, the British Empire did technically conquer Quebec. It was ratified in a treaty with France, and Quebec was treated well for a conquered province, but it was taken by force of arms.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 02:24 PM   #59 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakk
Charlatan, the British Empire did technically conquer Quebec. It was ratified in a treaty with France, and Quebec was treated well for a conquered province, but it was taken by force of arms.
Not quite.

The French lost the 7 years war to the British.

During the peace talks, the British were seeking several French Colonies, including Quebec.

France was allowed, however, to "protect" some of its colonies, i.e. to pick which ones they would keep while sceding control of the remaining ones to Britain.

France could have kept Quebec, but instead chose to protect Guadaloupe because Guadaloupe had sugar and sugar was a very valuable commodity back then.

True Story.

Quebecers never forgave the French.

I have worked a great deal in Quebec and let me tell you the Quebecers that I have worked with do not like the French French whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
That's bullshit. If the Allies had made a stand when Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, Hitler would have HAD to back down, because he was too weak to do anything else. You're trying to tell me that England and France couldn't have taken on a SINGLE BATTALION of German troops in '36? Or that they couldn't have refused to sacrifice Czechoslavakia by simply stationing a few thousand troops there in '38 to serve as a "trip-wire"???

Chamberlain was a fool. He was an appeaser of the first order, and he should have met the same fate as Petain.

Chamberlain was not Prime Minister in 1936, Baldwin was.

Chamberlain and the British were in no position to take on the Germans in 36. Chamberlain was furiously building up the British military during his time in office. He tripled the size of the Royal Navy and was responsible for replaning the RAF into modern fighters and bombers that ultimately won Britain the war. The Hurricane, the Spitfire, the Lancaster were all brought into the design phase during Chamberlain's time, with the Spitfire being the newest. The Hurricane was actually the fighter that won the Battle of Britain and was commissioned under Chamberlain.

And where was the USA in all of this by the way? I seem to recall that WW2 started in September of 1939 as far as Canada, France and Britain were concerned. Uncle Sam didn't get involved until 1942.

Here kid, read and learn a bit before you spout off...

http://www.historyman.co.uk/road2war/

Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-27-2005 at 06:20 PM..
james t kirk is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 02:49 PM   #60 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Add to this the fact that the world was still exhausted after WW1... Chamberlain was acting on the will of the people to avoid war at all costs.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 03:19 PM   #61 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
I'm most probably over-proud of Canada's WWII legacy, because I wasn't alive back then.

However, I figure the speech that Willion Lyon McKenzie King gave in the House of Commons is probably worth reading:
Quote:
On September 9th, it was learned that two Canadian women were on the unarmed ocean liner, SSAthenia,” which had been sunk by German U-boats. The next day, Canada declared war on Germany independently.

Prime Minister William Lyon McKenzie King said it all in the House of Commons:

For months, indeed for years, the shadow of impending conflict in Europe has been ever present. Through these troubled years, no stone has been left unturned, no road unexplored in the patient search for peace. Unhappily for the world, Herr Hitler and the nazi regime in Germany have persisted in their attempt to extend their control over other peoples and countries, and to pursue their aggressive design in wanton disregard of all treaty obligations, and peaceful methods of adjusting international disputes. They have had to resort increasingly to agencies of deception, terrorism and violence. It is this reliance upon force, this lust for conquest, this determination to dominate throughout the world, which is the real cause of the war that today threatens the freedom of mankind.

This morning, the King (of England) speaking to his peoples at home and across the seas, appealed to all to make their own, the cause of freedom, which Britain again has taken up. Canada has already answered that call. On Friday the government, speaking on behalf of the Canadian people, announced that in the event of the United Kingdom becoming engaged in war in the effort to resist aggression, they would, as soon as parliament meets, seek its authority for effective co-operation by Canada at the side of Britain.

In what manner and to what extent Canada may most effectively be able to co-operate in the common cause is, as I have stated, something which parliament itself will have to decide. All I need to add to the moment is that Canada, as a free nation of the British Commonwealth, is bringing her co-operation voluntarily. Our effort will be voluntary.

The people of Canada will, I know, face the days of stress and strain which lies ahead with calm resolute and courage. There is no home in Canada, no family, and no individual whose fortunes and freedom are not bound up in the present struggle. I appeal to my fellow Canadians to unite in a national effort to save from destruction all that makes live itself worth living, and to preserve for future generations those liberties and institutions which others have bequeathed to us.
http://oh.essortment.com/canadaworldwar_rmdk.htm
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 03:23 PM   #62 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by james t kirk
Chamberlain was not Prime Minister in 1936, Baldwin was.

And where was the USA in all of this by the way? I seem to recall that WW2 started in September of 1939 as far as Canada, France and Britain were concerned. Uncle Sam didn't get involved until 1942.
Ever hear of lend-lease? Ever hear of the US Navy tracking German ships and reporting their location to the Brits so the brits could attack them before the US officially entered the war? Ever hear of the US supplying England with american-made weaponry, while "officially" claiming to be neutral? Ever hear of the US shipping Canadian-produced military material from Hampton Roads to England in US-flagged ships because the British and Canadian flagged ships leaving from Canadian ports were being sunk? Yeah, the US wasn't involved officially until December 8, 1941, but for being "neutrals", we sure as shit did a LOT of stuff to help England out.


Ever hear of the Sitzkreig or "phony war", where the Brits and French sat on their asses while Hitler attacked their allies? Chamberlain was most certainly in charge when the partition of Czechoslavakia went down. He effectively sold Germany the Sudatenland in the hopes that it would appease Hitler, effectively feeding his friends to the tiger in the hopes that the tiger would eat England last. History has judged Chamberlain, and he ranks up there with Petain and Quisling. Your attempted historical revisionism is laughable.
daswig is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 07:57 PM   #63 (permalink)
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
 
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Your attempted historical revisionism is laughable.
You do realize that your own statements reek of revisionism. History isn't fact - its the intepretation of events. To say one is true or another false is what is laughable.
Zeld2.0 is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 08:22 PM   #64 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Janey's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Daswig? how old are you? Can you keep the tone of this debate respectable or is it beyond your years? I would certainly hate to cut you off on the road...
Janey is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 03:12 AM   #65 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeld2.0
You do realize that your own statements reek of revisionism. History isn't fact - its the intepretation of events. To say one is true or another false is what is laughable.
Please explain how my view on history is revisionist. Both "Monsieur J'aime Berlin" and Petain were loathed, to the point that, IIRC, Petain was put on trial for collaboration after the war and was sentenced to death. For an example of how he was viewed during the war, see: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWpetCa.JPG As for calling Chamberlain an appeaser, THAT'S HOW HE REFERRED TO HIMSELF AND HIS POLICIES.

Last edited by daswig; 02-26-2005 at 03:19 AM..
daswig is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 03:43 AM   #66 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Hmmm let's see.....

War of 1812, Canada remained neutral (even though they were still under British rule) and did what they could to keep the British from having any military there. (This fact alone, helped us, immensely to win the the war.)

Spanish -American War Canada sent troops to help the US, even though the "bombing" of the Maine had nothing to do with Canada.

WW1 Canada sent troops with the US EVEN though Canada was not involved in anyway.

WW2 Canada sent troops into the Pacific even though they were not attacked in anyway.

1979 Iran...... Our embassy is taken hostage, Canada's ambassador and Embassy risk life to help as many US citizens as possible free and safe passage out, including my uncle and aunt.

During the Cold War, Canada allowed us to freely put Nukes in their country, thus making them a target to the Soviets.

The Canadian Navy is 3rd in muscle next to the US and Britain.

Canada is not hated throughout the world, their economy is growing stronger, and they are far, far more respected throughout the international community.

Seems to me when ever we have needed Canada they have been there to watch our backs, and while we have tried to influence, bully, threaten and so on Canada to do what we wish them to, they have NOT ONCE as a country done anything to interfere with our country.

For all they have done to help us, I say thank you my friends to the North, (Merci Beaucoup) and I appologize for the extremists in our country, who do not appreciate the fact that we could not have a better neighbor country.

As far as "Star Wars", it came out in the early 90's that it had been a hell of an expensive bluff. That the Reagan Administration believed (and they were proven right) that the USSR would economically destroy itself trying to keep up with "Star Wars" and that the program had never passed any tests.

If we develop a true working system, I believe Canada, again, would be right there with us. However, why should they spend money, allow us to destroy their prairies and wildlands for our pipedream, and become a target to our enemies, once more, when we show them very little respect.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Last edited by pan6467; 02-26-2005 at 03:53 AM..
pan6467 is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 04:24 AM   #67 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: BFE
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467

WW2 Canada sent troops into the Pacific even though they were not attacked in anyway.

During the Cold War, Canada allowed us to freely put Nukes in their country, thus making them a target to the Soviets.

The Canadian Navy is 3rd in muscle next to the US and Britain.

Seems to me when ever we have needed Canada they have been there to watch our backs, and while we have tried to influence, bully, threaten and so on Canada to do what we wish them to, they have NOT ONCE as a country done anything to interfere with our country.

If we develop a true working system, I believe Canada, again, would be right there with us. However, why should they spend money, allow us to destroy their prairies and wildlands for our pipedream, and become a target to our enemies, once more, when we show them very little respect.
Canadian troops were in the Pacific because that was the plan... Europe first, Japan second. And in case you missed it, during WWII, BRITISH colonies/Dominions were in jeopardy, and that held true for WWI, also. Canada has far more serious national ties with ENGLAND than with us, and ENGLAND was involved in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. They weren't backing the US up, they were backing ENGLAND up.

As for successful missile tests, well, hey! See: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/neth026_1.html
There have been successful ABM tests going on for quite a while.

As for our destroying their ecology by putting radar stations, et cetera on their territory, yup, you're 100% right, that tundra/permafrost climate sure is a thriving ecosystem, and the vast majority of Canadians live way North, not anywhere near the US borders.
daswig is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 04:59 AM   #68 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Janey's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Canada has far more serious national ties with ENGLAND than with us, and ENGLAND was involved in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. They weren't backing the US up, they were backing ENGLAND up.

.

not the way we see it, speaking as a Canadian.
Janey is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 05:42 AM   #69 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
As for our destroying their ecology by putting radar stations, et cetera on their territory, yup, you're 100% right, that tundra/permafrost climate sure is a thriving ecosystem, and the vast majority of Canadians live way North, not anywhere near the US borders.
The fact that there is a triving eco system in the north aside... The fact that we allowed US installations in the north should speak volumes... Let's reverse it for a moment.

Would you allow Canadian troops to put bases in Alaska?


The fact of the matter is that Canada is it's own country, just like the US is it's own country. We choose when and how we would like to cooperate... because we have chosen to not support a missle defense system or a "preemptive" invasion of Iraq (both of which we generally view as folly) doesn't mean we won't be there when it matters (Afaghanistan).

As a sovreign nation and not just another state in the Union we do what is in our best interests, just as the US does what is in her best interest. Like or choice or not, I would hope you could respect it.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 08:13 AM   #70 (permalink)
Her Jay
 
silent_jay's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario for now....
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
As for our destroying their ecology by putting radar stations, et cetera on their territory, yup, you're 100% right, that tundra/permafrost climate sure is a thriving ecosystem, and the vast majority of Canadians live way North, not anywhere near the US borders.
Way North? Where exactly is way North? To me way North is like Nunavut, or Elesmere Island.

As for the majority of Canadians living "way North" I think this population distribution map shows different. I mean way North to an American could be Toronto or something, but way North to a Canadian is something totally different. As for the North not being a thriving eco system, I will have to search for some things about that, but for the moment I beg to differ.
http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps...stribution2001
__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder
silent_jay is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 08:18 AM   #71 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Ever hear of lend-lease? Ever hear of the US Navy tracking German ships and reporting their location to the Brits so the brits could attack them before the US officially entered the war? Ever hear of the US supplying England with american-made weaponry, while "officially" claiming to be neutral? Ever hear of the US shipping Canadian-produced military material from Hampton Roads to England in US-flagged ships because the British and Canadian flagged ships leaving from Canadian ports were being sunk? Yeah, the US wasn't involved officially until December 8, 1941, but for being "neutrals", we sure as shit did a LOT of stuff to help England out..
Sure, no doubt about it. The US sold a great deal and profitted considerably selling to Britain.

As far as lend lease goes, that act was only passed in March of 1941, by then, France and all of western Europe had fallen, the Battle of Britain was long over, and Hitler moved in on Russia.

Too little too late for the lend lease thing.

Are you aware that the US also sold arms to Germany

Are you aware that guys like Henry Ford, Dupont, and even Disney supported Hitler, even after the war was declared

Read this....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...nazicars30.htm

Are you aware that American companies continued to do business with Nazi Germany until 1942, including Prescott Bush, Grand daddy of you know who.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fa..._excerpts.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Ever hear of the Sitzkreig or "phony war", where the Brits and French sat on their asses while Hitler attacked their allies? Chamberlain was most certainly in charge when the partition of Czechoslavakia went down. He effectively sold Germany the Sudatenland in the hopes that it would appease Hitler, effectively feeding his friends to the tiger in the hopes that the tiger would eat England last. History has judged Chamberlain, and he ranks up there with Petain and Quisling. Your attempted historical revisionism is laughable.
The so called phony war lasted the final months of 39 and into the spring of 40. All the while, both sides were probing for weakness, building up their resources and waiting for the right moment.

A big so what is your point.

No doubt about the Sudatenland, but not much could be done about it. Chamberlain could only do so much and it bought him valuable time. The fact of the matter was that Britain had a very diminished military between 1930 and 1936, and only when Chamberlain started building it up did things turn round.

I love and admire Winston Churchill, but if you really think that he walked in there, snapped his fingers, and poof appeared sqadrons of Hurricanes and Spitfires, you are sadly mistaken.
james t kirk is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 01:15 PM   #72 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
Canadian troops were in the Pacific because that was the plan... Europe first, Japan second. And in case you missed it, during WWII, BRITISH colonies/Dominions were in jeopardy, and that held true for WWI, also. Canada has far more serious national ties with ENGLAND than with us, and ENGLAND was involved in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. They weren't backing the US up, they were backing ENGLAND up.
I see, so the Canadians weren't in the Pacific at all until after the European theatre was over?

How was Canada threatened in WWI, I maybe wrong but I believe they were an independant country by then.

Canada may have the British royalty on their currency and stamps, but I would have to say they are thier own country. I would guess Canada has closer ties to the US as a majority of trade is between the US and Canada not Canada and Europe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
As for successful missile tests, well, hey! See: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/neth026_1.html
There have been successful ABM tests going on for quite a while.
I see, our country has never fudged test results. Even if they are successful, we obviously have not sold the Canadians on it. They are a sovereign nation, bullying them into our will is NOT a good thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by daswig
As for our destroying their ecology by putting radar stations, et cetera on their territory, yup, you're 100% right, that tundra/permafrost climate sure is a thriving ecosystem, and the vast majority of Canadians live way North, not anywhere near the US borders.
I am sure there is a thriving ecosystem up there, but that was not my point.

My point is we are destroying our lands here, Canada may not wish us to destroy theirs. NOR DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO. They have the right to say no and we should respect their rights.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 01:35 PM   #73 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
I dunno,

IMO, this thread has degenerated into sillyness.

Canada is our closest ally for a number of good reasons, and we are their closest ally for the same reasons.

I really don't think this post modern tribalism some of you are exhibiting helps in our relationship, nor do I think it is reasonable to expect either of our countries to march lock step in policy.

As to WW2, I think the discussion particularly silly, as both countries made huge sacrifices to defeat the axis and this whole "well, we did more" argument disparages those sacrifices.

So I personally would like to get back to the original post regarding the missle program.

I think the Canadians have the right to do as they have, but I question the reasoning behind it. Is it because they truly don't support it or is it because it is politically unpopular among some voters to support anything Bush is proposing?

As has been pointed out, if we waited for perfect technology before building anything, then we would have damn little advanced technology. The Wright brothers would never have flown (they didn't have jets, you know), Alexander Graham Bell wouldn't have called Watson (he couldn't dial San Francisco), and Edison would never have invented movies or much of anything else (no sound, imperfect storage medium, etc.)

So personally, I think the system is a good idea if it only works half the time, especially with that lunatic on the Korean pennisula making bombs and missles.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 02:13 PM   #74 (permalink)
Loser
 
Who wouldn't want a pick-the-missles-out-of-the-sky system? If it were cheap enough, I'd take one for my house.

I don't think it's a question of whether anyone does or does not want it. It is simply a question of need vs. cost. As the Bush admin, and all previous admins back to Nixon have been promoting it (and assuredly, the Republican administration have traditionally promoted it far more so than the Democratic administrations), it is an "absolute need". But no, it isn't an absolute need. There have been an entirety of 2 atomic weapons dropped on people in the history of man. With three major failures in testing in the last year or so, it is no wonder that Canada has withdrawn - Canada is not dependent on the electoral votes of the pro-military bloc in America.

I'd MUCH (and I can't emphasize that enough) prefer these billions and billions and billions of dollars that are being wasted go towards developing teleportation.

There's nothing worse in this life than the 6 inches of leg room in Economy class on a 9 hour flight.

I'm not kidding, either. Teleportation, son. It's the wave of the future.

Or maybe we could spend those billions and billions and billions on fighting malaria. Or optimizing the distribution of food so that instead of having it rot in the fields or on container ships, it makes its way to the stomachs of the millions of starving people.

There are just too many, far more important things that could be done with the money that has been spent and produced nothing at all. Hopefully soon we'll see the "America backs out of North American missle defense system" headline.
Manx is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 02:36 PM   #75 (permalink)
Crazy
 
munchen's Avatar
 
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Quote:
I think the Canadians have the right to do as they have, but I question the reasoning behind it. Is it because they truly don't support it or is it because it is politically unpopular among some voters to support anything Bush is proposing?
This is definitly not the reasoning behind us dropping out of missle defense. This sounds more like the tactics the democrats and their followers are employing down in the states. Our gavernment is too smart to adapt an anti Bush stance. There have been a couple of mp's that have spoke up against Bush and they have been dealt with. We pride ourselves on our abilities in international relations and our government would not adapt that attitude.

The reason is most likely a combination of Canada's anti war/violence/ect. attitude and the fact that two major parties are against this system so the liberals need to keep them happy to hold on to power.
__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening
munchen is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 02:39 PM   #76 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Thanks for the reply.

Regarding this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchen
The reason is most likely a combination of Canada's anti war/violence/ect. attitude and the fact that two major parties are against this system so the liberals need to keep them happy to hold on to power.
Do you think Canadians consciously or subconciously are anti-war because they know that while the US exists, there will never be threat of an invasion on the continent?

In otherwords, if there was no US, do you think that Canada would spend more on defense?
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 03:08 PM   #77 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Lebell if there was no US what would be there instead? That's the real question... Who would be on our border.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 03:13 PM   #78 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Lebell if there was no US what would be there instead? That's the real question... Who would be on our border.
I'm trying to decide if it dodges the question or not.

But for sake of argument, let's say that there is nobody of any importance and that you have no threat along with no umbrella to the south. All the other world geopolitical situations remain the same.

Or if you like, the US broke up with the civil war and Mexico retained much of the western US.

OR, all of what is the US is now possessed by Mexico and they haven't done any better job with it than they have with what they currently possess.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 03:33 PM   #79 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan
Lebell if there was no US what would be there instead? That's the real question... Who would be on our border.
Would Canada still have the same anti-war policies if their souther neighbor was not a military superpower. If the US had the military policy seen around the turn of the century, would Canada's military policy be different?

Or to put it in more aggressive terms, is Canada the benefactor of a free rider problem, where they gain benefit from US military might without any contribution.

I think this feeling has contributed to the difficult relations between the US and it's cold-war allies. The cold war was won mainly because the USSR's economy collapsed in an arms race against the US. It could also be thought that the US suffered economic damage in keeping up their end of the arms race. Many in America might think they are owed something because it's western allies gained benefit from the US's military buildup.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 08:23 PM   #80 (permalink)
Junk
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebell

Do you think Canadians consciously or subconciously are anti-war because they know that while the US exists, there will never be threat of an invasion on the continent?
I'll try that one. I'll preface that this is not a dig at American's, just an observation.

I believe Canadians are anti-war consciously. We recognize Remembrance Day on November 11th, the 11th month on the 11th hour at the 11th minute. It is a somber ceremony remembering those who fought and died to give us the freedom we have today. It is very personal. It reminds us of everything we don't want to see again, that being war.

When I view America's Vererans Day ceremonies I see it as a reason to be proud also, in part of those who fought and died, but also as a reason to dictate war accomplishments and remember the conquests and the military mite. In other words, it almost seems more important of how America's military has reigned supreme over that of those who were lost.

Canadians do that also. D-Day, Vimy Ridge and so forth but their is a sadness attached and not the bravado. Again no offence intended.

As for knowing that the U.S has our backs covered, absolutely, but I don't feel that the Canadian government is using that in order to let the Americans take care of us. I would like to think because of Canada's relationship with the U.S and the respect that Canada has in the world as diplomats helps America for what they may lack in that department. I think if Canada mirrored the U.S policy wise, at least with this administration, North America would be a bigger target
__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.
OFKU0 is offline  
 

Tags
american, backs, canada, defence, missile, north, system


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:58 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360