It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: US Threatens Canada's Airspace: Ignores International Law

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Not only that namehere but Russia and China have called themselves the protectors of eastern europe against any missiles, meaning they can shoot at a missile that flies over certain parts of europe which are not Chinese or Russian territory, yet noone seems to mind this....hey the Russian and the Chinese have everyone's best interest in mind...right? but the US doesn't...
First of all its the US under discussion in this thread so what the Russians are doing doesnt really make a difference. To use an old cliche, if the Russians jumped off a cliff would the US? To me, the biggest deterent of countries firing nuclear/conventional missiles at other states is the threat that retalitory missiles will come raining down on their own cities. A missile shield will only raise the chances that missiles will be fired due to percieved impunity for those "protected".

Secondly, like mentioned, the Russian and Chinese military are no where near as advanced as the US military. Therefore commonsense demands that if the US cannot get a working missile shield then the Russians and Chinese are bluffing about the existance of theirs.


Originally posted by Muaddib
Humm.....what exactly does Northcom have anything to do with "the current activity with volcanoes and the Earth's core"?

What are you implying in here exactly?...........



The command will provide civil support not only in response to attacks, but for natural disasters. NORTHCOM takes the homeland defense role from the U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM)
Volcanoes are natural disasters and theorhetically could see NORTHCOM flexing its muscles in Hawaii for example.

Broadsword20068, I liked reading your post but I'd like to comment on it if I can.


Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The truth of the matter is that the United States has never sought after developing a weapon system if they thought it was impossible to create.
The list of failed weapons systems the US military has pursued is longer than my Arm. Psychics any one?


Originally posted by Broadsword20068
In the future, no one know what kind of threats may arise. Suppose a discovery is made in nuclear physics that allows for an incredibly powerful nuclear blast, a "MOAB" of the nukes. No one knows what threats will arise.
Yeah I agree! It'll be a US creation, you can bet the ranch on it


Originally posted by Broadsword20068
To say China is not going to we willing to risk war is idiocy. The Chinese have the mindset of their old thousand year-old ways, that they are the superior race, and they resent the West from being around and preventing them from reaching their supposed true potential. They wish to be great. In order for them to be great, they must have access to resources and be INDEPENDENT. To maintain true independence is going to mean controlling Asia.
Well I happen to disagree that Chinese have designs on invading anywhere. As we've seen with the Afghan and Iraqi invasions, the days of indescriminate invasions of agression for blatant Imperial reasions are gone. What I mean by that is countries have to do it under a guise of good intentions.

The Americans spreading democracy is easy to sell to the International masses. For the Chinese, with no real history of public freedoms, you will find it hard to use that guise. And the World will pounce on any Chinese invasions, no doubts about it and they know this. An interesting caveat to the character of the Chinese Government, did you know that only the US and Ethiopia executes children? Not even the Chinese, with a traditional lack of value for human life will stoop that low. With the USA's duplicitous stance on human rights, their waning economy, growing pariah status and their military might, I would say that the USA is a bigger threat to the World than China is/will be.

Also seeing that Soficrow feels the need to apologise for dissenting the US Government I'd like to announce that I am 100% anti-US government and im proud of it. I think there is no redeeming feature to their system of Government nor do I think they have given anything good to the World since Lincoln reluctantly freed the slaves 29 years after the British - everyones favourite bad guys of the day.

[edit on 28/2/05 by subz]




posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Hmmm, well I am somewhat anti-American gov't, but mainly just because of the way the current U.S. gov't is run. The design of the U.S. gov't is one of the greatest in history I think. The PROBLEM with it is two things: for one, these days since campaigns cost so much money, only the rich can really afford to run for office. The House of Representatives was supposed to be representative of the working class moreso, but even it is now for rich people, and the Senate (I think; might have that mixed up with something else there) is full of super rich.

Thus the working class folk cannot run.

The second problem is the lobbying. As long as there is lobbying, politicians will never be able to fully be "servants of the public" because they are influenced somewhat by the huge corporations. If they get rid of lobbying one day, that may change, but that has like a snowball's chance in he** of ever happening.

The U.S. HAS done a lot for the world, from sending food and aid to many poor countries to helping quell certain evil factions here and there. The reason the U.S. went into Somalia even was because of the human rights violations going on there. There is no oil in Somalia or anything.

The problem with Somalia though was that the Clinton Administration would not let them take in the Abrams tank or C-130 gunships which were needed to be abel to rescue the Blackhawk crews that were downed, so what should've been a simple snatch-and-grab turned into a much larger ordeal.

Yes, there are failed weapons programs of the U.S., I shouldn't of said there weren't (was typing too fast) but there are a lot of successful ones as well that the U.S. came through on. Also you have to remember that a lot of these "failures" are expected as part of the development process; during the Space Race, the media called a lot of the expected rocket crashes "collossal failures," when really everything was running right on schedule as far as NASA was concerned. But I mean the U.S. has developed and fielded some weapon systems that until they were developed, no one thought they were feasable (the stealth bomber, AWACS, the F-16 and F-16, the Apache helicopter-to hunt tanks, the Abrams tank, the GPS system, even the internet, though that isn't really a "weapons system" per se).

As for the U.S. overall, remember that liking the U.S. government doesn't always mean liking the current people in the gov't; the overall form of the U.S. gov't I love (except for the lobbying which is a huge flaw), but the administrations are always corrupt in some way or another. This can be seen in all governments pretty much. It is why the U.S. gov't is structured to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power. Because it is expected the people in it will be corrupted to some extent.

I am happy to say I do think Bush is one of the better presidents in a long time for this country, in that he is more concerned about the country itself than pleasing the rest of the world, but he is far from perfect as well. Just Clinton was a lot worse, and his father wasn't too good either. Nor was Reagan in many ways.

And I am proud to say I am 100% American and proud of it and I love my country; although many disagree with it, the United States of America IS a country based upon the beliefs of basic freedoms for people, such as life, liberty, and property (as everyone has probably heard), and that although it struggles to follow these sometimes (i.e.e racism), it still usually in the end does because of those beliefs.

As for the missile defense, like I said, I think it is a legit thing that I think they should keep alive so that if the real need for sucha thing ever does come, the program is already up and running and just needs added funding and a huge boost. But I mean the technology and a lot of the questions of "Would this work?" or "Would that work?" are already answered.

Remember, a lot of the greatest inventions people said were impossible until they found a way. There are certain technologies that may suddenly become available to make a missile defense a lot easier to make and field; no one knows for sure. One should never ignore such technology.

I would seriously not consider the U.S. a "threat" to the world though. We do not threaten anybody in the way people try to make out. And contrary to popular belief, if some stray country launched a nuclear bomb at the United States, we would not retaliate simply by launching 20 back at them, thus killing half the world off in the process. I don't know why people think that.

The U.S would retaliate I am sure, probably by using conventional bombs to bomb the hell out of said country (like the new MOAB) OR, the surrounding countries might bomb it even. OR, the U.S. would bomb the hell out of one area of said country (to kill the leaders, but avoid killing as many people as possible). But the point is, if someone throws a nuke at you, you only nuke them back if necessary. Otherwise, conventional weapons suffice for retaliation. Gov'ts aren't that stupid. However, the U.S. WOULD most definitely retaliate I hope to such a thing. I know there'd be the hard-core liberals saying we have no right to retaliate because it would mean the deaths of innocents, but said country's leaders would have launched a nuke, thus it doesn't matter. They (the leaders) have to be eliminated. That is simply war. It is ugly and brutal, but launching a nuke is an act of war. Now this very subject can actually get pretty complicated so there are some instances I am sure where the U.S. might be able to retaliate simply through other means (economic), but pretty much everyone knows unless you can cut the oil or something, economic sanctions on such countries don't really work.

Like I said though, if retaliating with bombs, you go through and try to kill off just the leaders, but if the leaders hide in the civilian population, you most likely will have to strike there; that is cruel, but that is just war.

Regardless though, if someone launched on the U.S., unless it was all-out nuclear war or something, one nuke from a country is not going to mean the U.S. launching a huge number back; it would be a planned retaliation, so folks, don't think the U.S. would end the world with the press of a button.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Oh and Subs, I think you'd like the structure of the U.S. gov't overall, as it IS a great form of gov't, just the lobbying and the fact of the rich running it are the two glaring problems.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Electoral colleges are what does it for me, I think that just negates the 1 person 1 vote principle and infers that your vote is not equal to some one elses. That and that the President has far too much power. Its equivalent to King status in my opinion.

Also the United States as a threat is very real to the rest of the World. The US along with some of its allies have defied the will of the World (the UN). The US government also doesnt protect life, liberty and property at all. Guantanamo and the Patriot act see people going to jail for indefinate periods with no right to trial or to defend yourself. The Patriot act sees that your property can be confiscated even without your knowledge or right to apeal. If I was living in the US right now I would be terrified of the laws being passed.

Thank god the UK's Home Secretaries anti-terror bill is taking a battering in Parliament even from their own party. I strongly believe that there would be nothing left to protect from terrorists if we lived under a Patriot Act ourselves.

The UK has lived under terrorists threats for dozens of years from the IRA with real bombs going off in our cities but we never came close to over reacting this badly until the media unleashed the Governments propaganda campaign.

[edit on 28/2/05 by subz]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

You have said it yourself in the past that you blame the US government for the illness that you and your daughter have.





You are making assumptions again Maudib.

For the record: Yes, my daughter was 3 1/2 pounds at birth, and yes, we both nearly died.

However, my daughter is healthy. She has green belt in karate, is now taller than I am, tests at a genius level (as do I) on IQ tests, and is in an advanced program at school.

You wanna attack my crdibility you go right ahead. But bring my kid anywhere near your vitriol and I go for your throat. I promise.


.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Muaddib, bringing Sofi daughter into this thread was a low blow, I am very surprised that you will do something like that.


[edit on 28-2-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
People let not forget the financial implications of having Canada in agreeing with the missile defense program, you have forgotten that Canada has the Carlyle group breathing on their necks and salivating for the obvious benefits that a bigger defense budget in Canada will bring.

In addition also American defense Contractor’s under Carlyle Group will get to handle any of the defense contracts for Canada.

That is the big picture, bigger defense budget more profits for the Bush Family business and his partners at the Carlyle group.

By the way Carlyle group handle the retirement pension of government employees in Canada already.

Very good points make on the post of subz and Broadsword,

Subz you are right, we are talking about US and Canada here like I said is all about the profits to be make on a bigger defense budget in Canada.

Broadsword, I agree with you the way our administration is running our country is no longer for the benefit of the people and our representatives in congress does not resemble the regular American Joe anymore, is all about money, and protecting the highest bidder, and is not the American people.

[edit on 28-2-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   


Electoral colleges are what does it for me, I think that just negates the 1 person 1 vote principle and infers that your vote is not equal to some one elses. That and that the President has far too much power. Its equivalent to King status in my opinion.


Pssst. Little secret for you. In the case of the president, You have absolutely no right to vote for him. The decision to allow the citizens to vote is entirely up to the legislature of the state you live in. If the state you live in wanted to change how its electoral votes are decided they could. If the legislature of the state you lived in wanted to assign electoral votes by coin toss or by throwing a dart at a dartboard they could.

Also, the President has no more power than the Congress or the Supreme Court. They are equal players. There is a system of checks and balances that keeps any of the three branches from having too much power. The president cannot do anything he wants without the congress appropriating money for it. I suggest you study the checks and balances before you claim the president is like a King. The congress can pretty much deny what the president wants by just not giving his programs the money needed.The President has no ability to write a law, that is reserved for congress. If you were to truly understand the U.S. system, you would realize that The U.S. President has less power in his government than many other presidents have in their own governments.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum

Also, the President has no more power than the Congress or the Supreme Court. They are equal players. There is a system of checks and balances that keeps any of the three branches from having too much power.





The checks and balances went out the window when Bush declared a state of National Emergency back in 2002.

The few checks and balances that were left are being removed by legislative changes, for example The Anti-Class Action Act.






The president cannot do anything he wants without the congress appropriating money for it.




Well yeah, he can and he does. Routinely. By shifting money from one department and program to another, by keeping slush funds, by claiming 'emergency measures.'






I suggest you study the checks and balances before you claim the president is like a King.




I suggest you pay a bit closer attention to current events, and their impacts on the American system of government.






If you were to truly understand the U.S. system, you would realize that The U.S. President has less power in his government than many other presidents have in their own governments.





See above. There is a reason people call Bush a tyrant. He instituted and maintained emergency presidential powers for himself - and ran with the ball.




.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   


The few checks and balances that were left are being removed by legislative changes, for example The Anti-Class Action Act.

I may be wrong but bush didn't pass this, it would be congress.
Also simple legislation cannot change the constitutional checks and balances. Thats where the supreme court steps in with its checks and balances. If its unconstitutional then they have the power to over rule it.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Sofi, show me some examples of things bush has done that have no support from congress. Show me some bills he has written and passed without congress. You will find that behind everything you hate that bush is doing is a congress that is allowing it and writing the checks to support it.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skibum



The few checks and balances that were left are being removed by legislative changes, for example The Anti-Class Action Act.

I may be wrong but bush didn't pass this, it would be congress.
Also simple legislation cannot change the constitutional checks and balances. Thats where the supreme court steps in with its checks and balances. If its unconstitutional then they have the power to over rule it.




Ahem. All the power is being centralized - taken from the states and given to the Supreme Court in this case. And guess who owns the Supreme Court? ...not to mention Congress and the Senate?



.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Muaddib, bringing Sofi daughter into this thread was a low blow, I am very surprised that you will do something like that.


[edit on 28-2-2005 by marg6043]


Marg i did not like bringing this up, but sometimes people have to listen to the truth, even if it hurts. i am glad her daughter is fine, but i do remember what she said about the US government being at fault for what was happening to them. i would not have brought it up if i did not think that this is what i think is blinding soficrow as to her hatred towards the government.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Ahem. All the power is being centralized - taken from the states and given to the Supreme Court in this case. And guess who owns the Supreme Court? ...not to mention Congress and the Senate?


Oh please...now president Bush also owns the congress, the senate and the house?....



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Muaddib is our God given right on the constitution to hate anything we want including the government, bringing the bad side of our administration is our right as citizens of our nation remember they are accountable for the well being of our country even when bush said publicly that he will not hold anybody in his administration accountable for any mistakes, that sounds like a dictator will say.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Muadib:

I have followed all of Soficrows recent posts and would say that your ascertation that Sofi is "anti USA" is pure prion infested mad cow manure...


At first, I was also concerned about her "agenda" since she is rather aggressive in her research (still don't know how you find the time sofi) and stubborn on her theorys.
But anyone who has done the amount of research that she has, should be determined to make the point.

I can see how someone would develop the idea that she has some "anti US mission".
But it is just the obvious mission of seeing a problem (of which there are many) and addressing it, and she does that well.

I applaud her valiant efforts to make a difference in this world, and consider her to be a valuble resource for this board...
and if all you are going to do is try to question her motives, and divert the focus of this thread, then you are lucky to not be ignored...

in closing:
sofi is: overzealous perhaps, determined sure, but anti US? only seems to be anti "wrong". and all that is a good thing in my book...


go sofi go...



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Muadib:

I have followed all of Soficrows recent posts and would say that your ascertation that Sofi is "anti USA" is pure prion infested mad cow manure...

..................


Well, before you crash headlong into the manure you yourself just "ascertained", do note that I said that she is on a crusade against the government...nowhere did i say she was anti-USA..... Perhaps reading what people actually say will help you a bit before you make any claims.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Any nation's airspace is sovereign. It's protected by international law. To threaten to invade that airspace is threatening invasion of the nation: Clearly a hostile act.

I'm sorry but thats absurd, the US is not going to wait for a nuclear icbm to cross the canadian border before attempting to shoot it down. If canada wants to go to war over that then they'd be well justified, but I doubt that the canadians are that interested.

It's not like we are talking about overflight to attack enemy cities or something like that.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by soficrow

IMO - I provide a balance to standard propaganda. My stuff looks different because it is different. But it's not biased. It's a legitimate effort to pick the information lock - and deny ignorance.


Soficrow, the fact is that your articles are always biased against the US, your hatred towards the US,





Lazarus


...I have about 8 gigs of research files on my own computer - and I belong to several FMD internet support groups. We have several sites where we file research. ...I've been involved for about 3 years now.

Our first goal was collecting medical research on FMD - but it was not possible to avoid getting into corporate structures, Big Pharma, insurance, all the other stuff and eugenics too. ...Discovered the prion connection last January - was explaining FMD to a cattle rancher who said it was a "prion disease, obviously." ...Followed up on it and lo!

...so no, I don't do all this research cold - have most of it on file. I do put a lot time in here - I'm sick, and episodically disabled. What I do here and with my support groups is my contribution to the world.



.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Any nation's airspace is sovereign. It's protected by international law. To threaten to invade that airspace is threatening invasion of the nation: Clearly a hostile act.

I'm sorry but thats absurd, the US is not going to wait for a nuclear icbm to cross the canadian border before attempting to shoot it down. If canada wants to go to war over that then they'd be well justified, but I doubt that the canadians are that interested.

It's not like we are talking about overflight to attack enemy cities or something like that.




The accepted process for dealing with such future possibilities is to negotiate an agreement ahead of time. Apparently the USA is unwilling to do so - and prefers to ignore international law completely - instead, asserting its "right" as a 'common sense solution' as you and many others do.

You may be familiar with similar cases? Eg, drone overflights in Iran, attacking Iraq, etc. ...You know, the kinds of tactics that have caused Bush to be labelled a bully in the international arena?



.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join