• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Question for Nonothing

nonothing

Well-known member
It is my understanding that under the latest liberal leadership(paul martin),Canada was to go to a more peace keeping style of armed forces..I think Canada has always showin its backing when it is called apon and is truely needed(world wars one and two for instance)...We are the ones fighting in afganistan and losing our troops there..does that not show committment to our nieghbors after 911(that is where bin ladin was said to be)...All air travel on 911 was diverted to Canadain airports ,another show of support....If they shoot a missle at seattle would the defense sytem not take it out before it turned to calgary?(that is like saying ,oh just incase they make a mistake aiming for us,you better jion)...Canada will always be there to help in times of need,i guess we are just not ready for confrontation with other countries of the world yet.


Even harper wont reopen missile defence talks.....

ok now tell me why we should get behind the MDS....
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Broke Cowboy said:
Before I start - why don't you tell me why it is a bad idea for us to join up.

B.C.


B.C. ummmmm your the ones asking others to join up....so not sure i get your question?I believe its your countries idea,this MDS.I am not sure China and Japan will want to give up the first right of attack.Well they want a country able to shoot first without fear of being targeted themselves...Maybe they will jion I do not know....Can this missle defence system stop 500 to 1000 missile fired at once?....Is the cost to high....Is missile launching really the most likely threat of attack the USA will face.?All the questions I have no answer for.maybe it is worth the billions of dollars ......unfortunatly that maybe the case.....I really do not know..
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Broke Cowboy said:
Before I start - why don't you tell me why it is a bad idea for us to join up.

B.C.


B.C. ummmmm your the ones asking others to join up....so not sure i get your question?I believe its your countries idea,this MDS.I am not sure China and Japan will want to give up the first right of attack.Well they want a country able to shoot first without fear of being targeted themselves...Maybe they will jion I do not know....Can this missle defence system stop 500 to 1000 missile fired at once?....Is the cost to high....Is missile launching really the most likely threat of attack the USA will face.?All the questions I have no answer for.maybe it is worth the billions of dollars ......unfortunatly that maybe the case.....I really do not know..

I will clarify the question by expanding and adding a few questions..

The Canuck government - previous one - liberals - refused to sign the treaty.

The present government - Conservative - I think will re-open and sign.

Be that as it may - why should Canadians refuse to sign the defense treaty?

Why did the previous government refuse to sign up?

Finally, why do you believe the Candaians should NOT sign this defense treaty?

Your question to Roper - ok now tell me why we should get behind the MDS....

I would like to know your reasons why you should NOT get behind the MDS.

B.C.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
While agreeing that North Korea's missile tests were a provocative act, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who appeared with Bush at the news conference, said Canada was not ready to reopen discussions about joining the U.S. missile shield.

The shield involves basing missiles capable of taking out incoming missiles launched by terrorists or rogue states — although the system is not designed to foil a mass attack by a major power.

Opponents of the missile scheme — including Canada's former Prime Minister Paul Martin — say it will not work and risks kicking off a new international arms race. Bush said he did not broach the issue with Harper.

"I didn't bring it up," Bush said. "I figured if he was interested, he would tell me."

Bush said the more isolated North Korea becomes, the bigger the threat is to the world.

From FOX news today...
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Broke Cowboy said:
nonothing said:
Broke Cowboy said:
Before I start - why don't you tell me why it is a bad idea for us to join up.

B.C.


B.C. ummmmm your the ones asking others to join up....so not sure i get your question?I believe its your countries idea,this MDS.I am not sure China and Japan will want to give up the first right of attack.Well they want a country able to shoot first without fear of being targeted themselves...Maybe they will jion I do not know....Can this missle defence system stop 500 to 1000 missile fired at once?....Is the cost to high....Is missile launching really the most likely threat of attack the USA will face.?All the questions I have no answer for.maybe it is worth the billions of dollars ......unfortunatly that maybe the case.....I really do not know..

I will clarify the question by expanding and adding a few questions..

The Canuck government - previous one - liberals - refused to sign the treaty.

The present government - Conservative - I think will re-open and sign.

Be that as it may - why should Canadians refuse to sign the defense treaty?

Why did the previous government refuse to sign up?

Finally, why do you believe the Candaians should NOT sign this defense treaty?

Your question to Roper - ok now tell me why we should get behind the MDS....

I would like to know your reasons why you should NOT get behind the MDS.

B.C.


I answered these questions already above,and the leader of my country who you said will sign,told your president he will not be reopening missle defence talks just two days ago.

Will it cost us money?.We are a small population with alot of land...i believe there is more people in the state of California than all of canada..So money would be a concern if it was needed....

Do I feel Canada is in danger of being attacked by a nucular missile..my answer is no.....i believe if we are to be attacked it would be on ground and probably a terriost attack with a dirty bomb or chemical weapon....so i would look to defend that first....I would put the money into intelligence as our best form of protection.....does having a bigger weapon stop the other side or just encourage them to build bigger and better?..
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Broke Cowboy said:
nonothing said:
B.C. ummmmm your the ones asking others to join up....so not sure i get your question?I believe its your countries idea,this MDS.I am not sure China and Japan will want to give up the first right of attack.Well they want a country able to shoot first without fear of being targeted themselves...Maybe they will jion I do not know....Can this missle defence system stop 500 to 1000 missile fired at once?....Is the cost to high....Is missile launching really the most likely threat of attack the USA will face.?All the questions I have no answer for.maybe it is worth the billions of dollars ......unfortunatly that maybe the case.....I really do not know..

I will clarify the question by expanding and adding a few questions..

The Canuck government - previous one - liberals - refused to sign the treaty.

The present government - Conservative - I think will re-open and sign.

Be that as it may - why should Canadians refuse to sign the defense treaty?

Why did the previous government refuse to sign up?

Finally, why do you believe the Candaians should NOT sign this defense treaty?

Your question to Roper - ok now tell me why we should get behind the MDS....

I would like to know your reasons why you should NOT get behind the MDS.

B.C.


I answered these questions already above,and the leader of my country who you said will sign,told your president he will not be reopening missle defence talks just two days ago.

Will it cost us money?.We are a small population with alot of land...i believe there is more people in the state of California than all of canada..So money would be a concern if it was needed....

Do I feel Canada is in danger of being attacked by a nucular missile..my answer is no.....i believe if we are to be attacked it would be on ground and probably a terriost attack with a dirty bomb or chemical weapon....so i would look to defend that first....I would put the money into intelligence as our best form of protection.....does having a bigger weapon stop the other side or just encourage them to build bigger and better?..

It has been publicly announced many times this was a cost free initiative for Canucks.

Very well - so you will not complain when / if there is a missile overhead Canada that it is intercepted prior to impact in U.S of A.?

There will be fallout on Canadian soil of course - but the U.S. will maintain it's right to sell defence at all cost. Seems reasonable to me.

That missile could be intercepted much further out should Canada participate.

One thing for sure - should there ever be a reason to use this defence system - the U.S. of A. will not jump on the phone and ask for permission from Canada.

I suppose you figure this to be the best solution all round?

I see the left leaning European countries are starting to gather round for their chance to get involved.

BTW - great circle flight routes for missiles takes many of them from Korea over top of Canada before they land in the U.S. of A.

Should the little fat dictator start something - the folks in British Columbia might have some unwanted trash on their front lawns.

Hope North Korea maintains it's "neutral" stance. :roll:

Do not think our "friends" from over the top are truly trustworthy - they are riding a delecate balance of power as well.

B.C.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Good Post BC
You kind of stole my thunder.
Yes Nonothing BC is right. MD would be just a part of NORAD. Really its the same in priciple as the American Early warning system that they had in our artic during the cold war. Or the same deal as the Alaskan highway. Its not going to cost a thing.
Really to answer you I would just be repeating everything that BC said.
Just wondering though, since its free, since you think it will never be used anyway, since the Americans are going to do it with or without us, since this would prevent America from shooting down nukes over Canada because if we signed on they would get shot down before they got over Canada, since our allies support it, do you now support missle defence?
If not, why?
Honestly im not trying to set you up or start a fight. Im just trying to understand liberal mindset.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Canada's Prime Minister Harper Adds Military Muscle
July 5th, 2006



Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is quickly fulfilling campaign promises to rebuild the nation’s military by going on an unprecedented $15 billion peacetime spending spree on heavy transport planes, helicopters, ships and trucks.

That plan will surely get the 46-year-old prime minister a hearty handshake when he meets with President George W. Bush at the White House on Thursday, which is, incidentally, the president’s 60th birthday. Harper will already have been accorded the rare honor of staying overnight Wednesday at Blair House, the official White House guest quarters.

The $15 billion (Cdn.) procurement package is basically equivalent to the current annual budget of the Canadian military, which hovers around $15 billion but which the Harper government also plans to increase substantially year-by-year.

To give dramatic effect to the planned purchases they were all announced in a single week by Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor. The procurement plans include:

*$4 billion to buy and maintain four long-range, heavy-lift aircraft, likely the Boeing C-17 Globemaster.

*$3.2 billion for 17 other transport aircraft to replace the decades-old Hercules fleet.

*$2 billion for 16 medium-to-heavy lift helicopters.

$2.1 billion for three new supply ships.

*$1.2 billion to buy 2,300 military trucks to replace the rusted out contingent used to supply and transport the armed forces.

For comparison of scale, it’s worth noting Canada’s population and economy are about the same size as that of California. The country’s population is 33 million, and a Canadian dollar is worth about 90-cents U.S. For simplicity’s sake, many observers simply multiply a Canadian statistic by 10 to get the U.S. equivalent.

Canada’s fleet of 1960s’ era Hercules transport aircraft demonstrate, as do its 40-year-old Sea King search and rescue helicopters, the deteriorated state of much of the nation’s heavy military equipment. In any given day up to 20 of the 30 Hercules fleet are on the ground waiting to be repaired. The Sea Kings, now being replaced slowly by a fleet of 28 Cyclone helicopters, are notorious for crashing and spend far more time having maintenance work done to them than in the air operationally.

The procurement announcements came just as former Canadian Ambassador to Washington, Frank McKenna, was urging his Liberal party to back the U.S. ballistic missile defense shield. McKenna, a former premier of New Brunswick, had been thought to be the heir apparent to outgoing Liberal leader and former prime minister Paul Martin. But surprising almost everyone, McKenna suddenly decided not to join the Liberal leadership race.

While serving as Canada’s prime minister, Martin infuriated Bush and his administration by giving the impression his government would join the missile defense shield program and then backing out at the last moment. To add insult to injury, Martin didn’t even inform Bush himself of the decision, leaving it to one of his cabinet ministers.

Harper, as opposition leader, basically sat on the fence during the missile defense shield debate — much to the annoyance of many in his party — but it was suggested he did not want to get on the wrong side of an issue with the electorate that might cost him votes and an election win. It is now fairly obvious that if, as is likely, Harper wins a majority mandate in the next election, his government would quickly move to join the defense shield program.

With the new announcements, Harper declared his government was “correcting 13 years of Liberal neglect” of the armed forces. In the mid-1990s, under Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Martin, as finance minister, cut the military’s budget by 25% and its manpower level from 80,000 to 60,000 men and women in uniform.

O’Connor, a former brigadier-general, wants to get the military personnel back up to the pre-Martin cut levels, and likely higher. Even at just 60,000 personnel, Canada only has about 20,000 combat ready troops available at any given time. Incidentally, O’Connor is the first Canadian defense minister in recent times to have actually served in uniform.

The new defense spending plans are sure to further please the Bush administration, as are the Harper government’s moves to take the nation from a Liberal-Left tilt in foreign affairs to a stance more in line with that of the U.S. Canada’s new foreign affairs minister, Peter MacKay, has already forged a close friendship with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Harper and Bush chat frequently on the telephone, unlike Chretien and Martin who so upset Bush with their anti-American slurs they rarely got their telephone calls to the White House returned.

Just as Harper and O’Connor were making the procurement announcements, and McKenna his defense shield comments, Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the Senate committee on national security and defense, released his committee’s latest report entitled ‘The Government’s No. 1 Job: Securing the Military Options it Needs to Protect Canadians’. In the June 303-page report, Kenny calls for a doubling of the current $15 billion (Cnd.) military budget to $30 billion or $35 billion (Cnd.). He welcomed the new announcements, but contended military spending plans by the Harper government still fall short.

Paradoxically, Kenny was appointed to the Senate by the late Liberal-Left and anti-military prime minister, Pierre Trudeau. Kenny had been a longtime aide to Trudeau, but since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and taking over as chairman of the Senate committee on national security and defense he has seemingly turned into a ‘Liberal hawk’ as he criss-crosses the nation, probes the lack of security at Canadian airports and sea ports, and insists on sitting down with rank-and-file members of the armed forces as well as officers to get their views on what the military needs. Aside from a $30 billion to $35 billion budget, Kenny wants to see the military’s strength increased to 90,000 personnel.

Incidentally, through the administrations of several Liberal prime ministers until Trudeau the country maintained a high military stance. From Second World War prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, to his 1950s successor, Louis St. Laurent and 1960s’ prime minister Lester Pearson the nation’s military force was fairly constant. That came to an end with Trudeau.

Although Canadians generally knew Trudeau’s heroes included Communist dictators Fidel Castro and Mao Tse-tung, just weeks ago a new scholarly book shed sensational light on his philosophies long before entering federal politics. The book Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada 1919-1944 by Max and Monique Nemni, paints Trudeau as being both a Fascist sympathizer and anti-Semitic in the 1930s and early 1940s.

Although it was well known Trudeau had avoided conscription during the Second World War, the Nemnis’ (both admirers of Trudeau) also revealed he blamed Britain for starting the war, claimed Canada was ruled by a “military clique”, and denounced Mackenzie King’s declaration of war against Nazi Germany in 1939. In his more youthful days he was also a Quebec separatist, declaring one day Quebec would be a sovereign independent state. Insightfully, the one issue even his harshest critics gave him credit for during his prime ministership was that Trudeau battled Quebec separatism all down the line.

On his travels across the nation, Kenny has often walked into supposedly secure areas of airports and sea ports without being challenged. His findings of lapses of security and the possibility airports and sea ports have been infiltrated by criminal elements have shaken ‘thinking’ Canadians.

Kenny has constantly tried to wake Canadians up against what he says is both complacency and a false sense of security. Chretien himself added to the attitude of many Canadians by insisting because Canada is a “multicultural” nation it is safe from terrorist attacks. That’s even though it is well known Canada is one of the targets on Osama bin Laden’s hit list. Just a month ago police and security forces arrested 17 individuals alleged to be “home grown Islamic terrorists” who planned to blow up several Canadian landmarks and even invade the House of Commons and capture and behead the prime minister.

Kenny — who must appall the basic Liberal-Left structure of his own party as much as Zell Miller appalls the Liberal-Lefters in the Democratic party, has tried to demolish three myths Trudeau, Chretien and Martin perpetuated:

Myth One: Canada is not a warlike nation. True, he says, but Canadians have a history of protecting themselves, and standing up for what is right when the crunch comes. He points to Canada’s participation in the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean War. Coincidentally, in the Second World War one-in-ten Canadians were in uniform, a rate said to be higher than its allies. At the end of the Second World War, with a population of around 11 million, Canada is thought to have had the fourth largest military in the world.

Myth Two: There is no imminent threat to Canadians. Not so, he says. Canadians live in a shrunken world in which borders and even oceans offer limited buffers to disaster. He notes Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli testified before Kenny’s Senate committee in May that he expects a terrorist attack will occur on Canadian soil. Zaccardelli pointed out the U.S., Britain, Australia, Spain, Indonesia, Kenya, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia had already been attacked, as had Iraq. Commented Kenny, “Canada has an unenviable place on al-Qaida’s list of countries to be targeted.”

Myth Three: The Americans will take care of Canada. Kenny’s assessments: The U.S. is a great friend of Canada. On a huge number of issues, the interests of both countries are complementary. But Americans look after their own interests first and foremost, and so should Canadians. The dependence of one nation depending on another nation for its survival is dangerous. In a nutshell, when it comes down to it, the U.S. will look after Canada in a crisis if it can, but it naturally will have to look after its own citizens first. That’s why Canada must become self-sufficient of its own security and defense.

Kenny also notes, as have Conservative politicians, that Canada’s expenditures on defense as a percentage of its Gross National product (GNP) are abysmal. In 2005, the U.S spent $1,712 per capita, and Britain spent $903. Australia $648, and even The Netherlands spent $658. Yet Canada spent only $343 for each man, woman and child to defend the nation. All figures are in Canadian dollars, so add 10% to translate to U.S. dollars.

Canada’s defense spending has often been as low as 1% of its GNP — 1996-97 to 1999-2000, for instance. In 2000-01 and 2001-02 it fell to 0.9% In 2005-06 it was just 6.8% of total federal government spending.

Rounded out, Kenny says both Britain and France spend roughly 2% of their GNP for defense, and if Canada spent that much a $30 billion (Cnd. ) annual defense budget would be quite attainable and sustainable.

Still to come from Harper’s government are details of Arctic military icebreaking vessels and other large military hardware. The U.S. disputes Canada’s sovereignty claims over the Northwest Passage, which could one day become a major all-weather sea international lane, but Washington has hinted it may accept the claim of Canadian sovereignty if Ottawa can guarantee security of the region. By having military icebreakers patrol the Arctic, Canada would not only be demonstrating military muscle, but it would ease Liberal-Left criticism the Harper government is in Washington’s pocket.

Kenny’s all party committee, by the way, wants to see between $58 billion and $81 billion spent on big ticket military hardware over the next 20 years.

Kenny has also criticized the idea that defense procurements should always have economic benefits for Canadian industry. He believes they should be based on getting the best equipment possible, at the best possible price, and in the shortest period of time. Rather than tying purchases to some form of ‘regional economic development’ programs for depressed areas, he wants to see the government have an “off the shelf” purchasing policy and obtain equipment compatible with that used by the Canada’s allies.

Some analysts actually contend the Liberal senator’s reports and recommendations could simply be used by the Conservatives as their own blueprint for rebuilding the nation’s military and ensuring the security of its coasts and airspace. That’s not the view of Liberal MPs who this past week condemned Harper’s and O’Connor’s military spending plans.

In response to Liberal attacks in the House of Commons, Harper said,

“I do not care whether the party opposite does not support our military. This party does, and we will have a strong military for a strong country.”

No one doubts the youthful prime minister’s resolve any more.
---------------------------

Paul Jackson is a veteran and award-winning Canadian journalist who has spent four decades writing on politics, foreign affairs and defence for many of Canada’s major metropolitan daily newspapers. He is now Editor Emeritus of the Calgary Sun.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
If the threat is "we could shoot them down before they get over your country if you sign,but if you chose not to sign,then we well wait till the missile flies over top of your country and then shoot them down,therefore having the created nucular fallout land on your country"......If thats the way it is being broached,then to me that sounds like a threat no different from any other terriost group...ya so we should of said "no,land those planes on american soil we dont want the risks of bombs on them"?....No we did not say that,we took on the risk and opened our country to our niehbors in need that day.....If george bush is threating Canadian lifes over this,shame on him....I really hope those words never came from your presidents mouth. :mad:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
nonothing said:
If the threat is "we could shoot them down before they get over your country if you sign,but if you chose not to sign,then we well wait till the missile flies over top of your country and then shoot them down,therefore having the created nucular fallout land on your country"......If thats the way it is being broached,then to me that sounds like a threat no different from any other terriost group...ya so we should of said "no,land those planes on american soil we dont want the risks of bombs on them"?....No we did not say that,we took on the risk and opened our country to our niehbors in need that day.....If george bush is threating Canadian lifes over this,shame on him....I really hope those words never came from your presidents mouth. :mad:

nonothing- The way I understand it is that if you sign and become part of the system then we will be capable to shoot them down before they get to Canada-- if you don't sign then we will not be capable to shoot them down until they get over Canada...It depends on the geographic placement of the defense system...
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
nonothing said:
If the threat is "we could shoot them down before they get over your country if you sign,but if you chose not to sign,then we well wait till the missile flies over top of your country and then shoot them down,therefore having the created nucular fallout land on your country"......If thats the way it is being broached,then to me that sounds like a threat no different from any other terriost group...ya so we should of said "no,land those planes on american soil we dont want the risks of bombs on them"?....No we did not say that,we took on the risk and opened our country to our niehbors in need that day.....If george bush is threating Canadian lifes over this,shame on him....I really hope those words never came from your presidents mouth. :mad:

The Americans never said that. I said that. The reason I said it is because it only makes sense. If we dont allow them to set up MD in our artic then they will have to set it up on the CAN/US border region. If they set it up there and a nuke is headed there way they would be idiots if they did not shoot it down.

Old Timer
Good article although I thought Harper annouced 28 billion for defence in the last budjet? I could be wrong though.
My Cousin used to fly those Sea Kings. For every hour in the air they require 80 hours of service.
I was up at Spruce Meadows <Show Jumping>on Wednesday. The Army had a display up there. One Sherman and one 1st generation Leapord tank and few coyotte RVs. Im thinking any of that old stuff could be taken out with a single RPG?
Apparently Harper has already bought and had delivered more modern LAV and HATT from South Africa a few months ago.
Anyway I had the privilege to talk to a half dozen of our servicemen. They told me they had no way of getting the tanks to Afghanistan.
We talked about a lot of things. I have to say what impressed me was how gung ho they were to get over to Afghanistan. I have to admit that I have reservations about sending anybody off to war with way less than what they should have for gear. But these guys are motivated!
What a difference between talking to them and talking to your average soft and spoiled 20 year old.
When I was talking to them I couldnt help but to think what a great job the military has done on them. Made me think that manditory military servise would sure have social bennifits. At the very least if they drop out of school, draft them. If the Liberals want the government to raise kids<takes a villiage> lets make room in the armed forces for them! Public education would be better in a military school anyway. Sure would cut back on the city kids gang banging and hanging around in shopping malls.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Canada's Prime Minister Harper Adds Military Muscle
July 5th, 2006
The procurement announcements came just as former Canadian Ambassador to Washington, Frank McKenna, was urging his Liberal party to back the U.S. ballistic missile defense shield. McKenna, a former premier of New Brunswick, had been thought to be the heir apparent to outgoing Liberal leader and former prime minister Paul Martin. But surprising almost everyone, McKenna suddenly decided not to join the Liberal leadership race.

.

Some of the last words of Frank McKenna before he left politics were that Liberals should not define who they are by who there not. In other words what he was saying is that Liberals should not always just do the opposite of whatever they thought Americans would do.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
nonothing said:
If the threat is "we could shoot them down before they get over your country if you sign,but if you chose not to sign,then we well wait till the missile flies over top of your country and then shoot them down,therefore having the created nucular fallout land on your country"......If thats the way it is being broached,then to me that sounds like a threat no different from any other terriost group...ya so we should of said "no,land those planes on american soil we dont want the risks of bombs on them"?....No we did not say that,we took on the risk and opened our country to our niehbors in need that day.....If george bush is threating Canadian lifes over this,shame on him....I really hope those words never came from your presidents mouth. :mad:

The Americans never said that. I said that. The reason I said it is because it only makes sense. If we dont allow them to set up MD in our artic then they will have to set it up on the CAN/US border region. If they set it up there and a nuke is headed there way they would be idiots if they did not shoot it down.

Old Timer
Good article although I thought Harper annouced 28 billion for defence in the last budjet? I could be wrong though.
My Cousin used to fly those Sea Kings. For every hour in the air they require 80 hours of service.
I was up at Spruce Meadows <Show Jumping>on Wednesday. The Army had a display up there. One Sherman and one 1st generation Leapord tank and few coyotte RVs. Im thinking any of that old stuff could be taken out with a single RPG?
Apparently Harper has already bought and had delivered more modern LAV and HATT from South Africa a few months ago.
Anyway I had the privilege to talk to a half dozen of our servicemen. They told me they had no way of getting the tanks to Afghanistan.
We talked about a lot of things. I have to say what impressed me was how gung ho they were to get over to Afghanistan. I have to admit that I have reservations about sending anybody off to war with way less than what they should have for gear. But these guys are motivated!
What a difference between talking to them and talking to your average soft and spoiled 20 year old.
When I was talking to them I couldnt help but to think what a great job the military has done on them. Made me think that manditory military servise would sure have social bennifits. At the very least if they drop out of school, draft them. If the Liberals want the government to raise kids<takes a villiage> lets make room in the armed forces for them! Public education would be better in a military school anyway. Sure would cut back on the city kids gang banging and hanging around in shopping malls.



Isn't Alasaka in the north? Also roper,B.C. said the same thing so somewhere someone said it....
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
nonothing said:
If the threat is "we could shoot them down before they get over your country if you sign,but if you chose not to sign,then we well wait till the missile flies over top of your country and then shoot them down,therefore having the created nucular fallout land on your country"......If thats the way it is being broached,then to me that sounds like a threat no different from any other terriost group...ya so we should of said "no,land those planes on american soil we dont want the risks of bombs on them"?....No we did not say that,we took on the risk and opened our country to our niehbors in need that day.....If george bush is threating Canadian lifes over this,shame on him....I really hope those words never came from your presidents mouth. :mad:

nonothing- The way I understand it is that if you sign and become part of the system then we will be capable to shoot them down before they get to Canada-- if you don't sign then we will not be capable to shoot them down until they get over Canada...It depends on the geographic placement of the defense system...


As i just said.Last time I look,Alaska was North of Canada...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
nonothing said:
Oldtimer said:
nonothing said:
If the threat is "we could shoot them down before they get over your country if you sign,but if you chose not to sign,then we well wait till the missile flies over top of your country and then shoot them down,therefore having the created nucular fallout land on your country"......If thats the way it is being broached,then to me that sounds like a threat no different from any other terriost group...ya so we should of said "no,land those planes on american soil we dont want the risks of bombs on them"?....No we did not say that,we took on the risk and opened our country to our niehbors in need that day.....If george bush is threating Canadian lifes over this,shame on him....I really hope those words never came from your presidents mouth. :mad:

nonothing- The way I understand it is that if you sign and become part of the system then we will be capable to shoot them down before they get to Canada-- if you don't sign then we will not be capable to shoot them down until they get over Canada...It depends on the geographic placement of the defense system...


As i just said.Last time I look,Alaska was North of Canada...

Alaska may have a tough time on the ones coming into the northeast...We'll shoot them down over Nova Scotia- from what I've heard from most Canadians, Newfies wouldn't be any big loss :wink: ...
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
OT,newfies aren't from Nova Scotia,they are from Newfoundland. We don't want anything shot down in Nova Scotia,that is one beautiful province :)
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
nonothing said:
Oldtimer said:
nonothing- The way I understand it is that if you sign and become part of the system then we will be capable to shoot them down before they get to Canada-- if you don't sign then we will not be capable to shoot them down until they get over Canada...It depends on the geographic placement of the defense system...


As i just said.Last time I look,Alaska was North of Canada...

Alaska may have a tough time on the ones coming into the northeast...We'll shoot them down over Nova Scotia- from what I've heard from most Canadians, Newfies wouldn't be any big loss :wink: ...

You know how you hear North Dakota jokes in Montana. Its sort of the same thing with Newfie jokes up here.
The truth is that Newfondlanders are a great bunch.
Years ago I went to NFLD on a fishing trip. If you stoped at a strangers house for directions they would invite us in for dinner everytime.
It was impossible to go into a store at one of the towns without meeting people and making friends.
We were on a remote lake in the NW part of the province about an hour from the closest road. I think we had Newfies coming to visit us every day back there. They would bring rum, beer and food. We never got much fishing done on that trip. Those Newfies would have given a fellow the shirt right off their back. They were the nicest bunch of people that I have ever met. :D BTW Im not from Newfondland
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Oldtimer said:
nonothing said:
If the threat is "we could shoot them down before they get over your country if you sign,but if you chose not to sign,then we well wait till the missile flies over top of your country and then shoot them down,therefore having the created nucular fallout land on your country"......If thats the way it is being broached,then to me that sounds like a threat no different from any other terriost group...ya so we should of said "no,land those planes on american soil we dont want the risks of bombs on them"?....No we did not say that,we took on the risk and opened our country to our niehbors in need that day.....If george bush is threating Canadian lifes over this,shame on him....I really hope those words never came from your presidents mouth. :mad:

nonothing- The way I understand it is that if you sign and become part of the system then we will be capable to shoot them down before they get to Canada-- if you don't sign then we will not be capable to shoot them down until they get over Canada...It depends on the geographic placement of the defense system...


As i just said.Last time I look,Alaska was North of Canada...

Its like OT said. Alaska is to the far west of 3500 miles of our territory.
 
Top