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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Seekerof, its the apparent willingness for the US Government to breach International Law, and admit to as much, that is increasing the likelyhood of a country launching an ICBM at the US in the first place.

I agree that if the situation arises and the US has any means of intercepting an ICBM over Canadian, or any countries, Airspace it will and you cant really blame it for doing so. Unless the missle disperses radioactive material over Canada and results in the deaths of civilians then it would be liable to procescution. Argument - Why should Canadians die instead of Americans when the missile was intended to land in the US?

During times of War or attack I.L doesnt go out the window - the Geneva convention is adhered to. After the dust has settled, so to speak, the US will have to be internationally responsible for its actions. i.e. Nuclear retaliation fallout killing across borders for example.

If the US reacts irresponsibly in any nuclear encounter then I.L will be there waiting and the US will not be able to avoid consequences. Regardless of whether the US recognised the International Court.

Edit: ICBM interception does involve Canadian airspace due to its close proximity to the intended target as does the interception of rocket powered missiles.

The militarisation of Space is also against International Law as well if my memory serves my correctly


FLYIN HIGH, your first priority as a sane-American should be removing people with Disturbed Deliverer's ideals from any position of power in your country. That kind of disregard for others should bar you from driving a car let alone leading a nation.

[edit on 26/2/05 by subz]




posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
I do not blame Canada whatsoever for declining use of their airspace especially without any firm answers about the defunct "Missle Sheild'. Hell, a condom would provide more defense than this overpriced system that has already been proved beyond a shadow of doubt to me that it is incapable of living up to what it's been"sold" to us as.


Really? How has the system proved "beyond a shadow of doubt" that it is incapable of anything? How many missile attacks have been launched on the U.S. in which it has failed? Last I checked it was far from completion, so it would be quite a feat to prove it has failed anything.



Canada to impose Econ. sanctions against the U.S.





posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   


If the US reacts irresponsibly in any nuclear encounter then I.L will be there waiting and the US will not be able to avoid consequences. Regardless of whether the US recognised the the International Court.


Is there a responsible way to act during a nuclear war? If it happens it will pretty much be every country for itself. In the end there won't be much of an International community left to worry about now will there. Even if the U.S. were able to knock down some missiles over Canada, I think Canada would still have to worry more about the missiles that are going to hit them directly. In the event of Nuclear war there wont just be missiles heading for the U.S., pretty much all of its allies would be hit as well.


After the fact, exactly who will be left to whine about violations of International law? While extremely unlikely, i would say it would be the ones whose inbound missiles were destroyed before they reached their intended target.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
subz


I agree that if the situation arises and the US has any means of intercepting an ICBM over Canadian, or any countries, Airspace it will and you cant really blame it for doing so. Unless the missle disperses radioactive material over Canada and results in the deaths of civilians then it would be liable to procescution. Argument - Why should Canadians die instead of Americans when the missile was intended to land in the US?



What?
Huh?

You got to be kidding me here?
You saying that if the US intercepts a ICBM in space and it falls into Canadian airspace and then cause undo nor unwanted consequences, its the US fault? Got'cha.


As to your argumentative question: "Why should Canadians die instead of Americans when the missile was intended to land in the US"?

subz, Canadians are going to die from the close in proximity fall out anyhow, being that the majority of Canadian cities are within 150-200 miles of major northern US cities (ie: Chicago, Detroit, etc.). Your point is?




seekerof



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
subz...I agree entirely, but what will be left to go to court about? Here is a url which describes, generally, what kind of world is left after the bombs fall. It speaks about an ability to kill every-one on the planet 1,500 times over.

www.pwc.k12.nf.ca...

What is being considered here is an exchange of Russian and American missiles, as they would be travelling over the Arctic and Canada. I would imagine the Chinese would be sending them quite a bit further west, so that their path would only cross Alaska and parts of the Western Provinces in Canada.
What kind of defense does Europe have from Russian and Chinese missiles?

If the worry is the potential of N. Korea to target American cities, where do their trajectories carry them?

IMO the missile defence shield is only a guard against the first volley of land based Russian ICBMs...once they have been partially destroyed, the U.S.A. would be hard pressed to stop further volleys and the conditions of M.A.D. would be begun. What is in the holds of Russian subs and where they will be stationed on that fateful day is anyones guess...and I doubt that Canada's airspace will really matter.

IMO it would be like standing on a shoreline and commanding the waves to stop.

Once a nuclear war has begun, there is no more history...only ashes and ice.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
I do not blame Canada whatsoever for declining use of their airspace especially without any firm answers about the defunct "Missle Sheild'. Hell, a condom would provide more defense than this overpriced system that has already been proved beyond a shadow of doubt to me that it is incapable of living up to what it's been"sold" to us as.


Really? How has the system proved "beyond a shadow of doubt" that it is incapable of anything? How many missile attacks have been launched on the U.S. in which it has failed? Last I checked it was far from completion, so it would be quite a feat to prove it has failed anything.





U.S. Missile Defense Test Fails

U.S. Missile Defense Test Fails...again

U.S. Missile Defense System Flunks Test

Latest Missile Defence Test Fails





Canada to impose Econ. sanctions against the U.S.



No one said Canada. ...Do you have any idea what the US trade deficit is? ...Or what kind of interest rate we're paying on our national debt?





Unfortunately, it's not really[ funny. We're in hock for generations. And it's gonna get worse. Much worse.



.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

The militarisation of Space is also against International Law as well if my memory serves my correctly


This isn't happening. That part of missile shield was dropped a while ago. The only thing that will be spaced based is tracking.


I agree that if the situation arises and the US has any means of intercepting an ICBM over Canadian, or any countries, Airspace it will and you cant really blame it for doing so. Unless the missle disperses radioactive material over Canada and results in the deaths of civilians then it would be liable to procescution. Argument - Why should Canadians die instead of Americans when the missile was intended to land in the US?


As far as I know, there isn't fallout from the missile. And a few nukes getting shot down over the middle of nowhere isn't going to hurt anyone. It's certainly not the same as a missile hitting say, Detroit. Just think how many Canadians would die then...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
There people here that don't have an idea of their life...
It's against the I.L. to use WMD...So if someone use this kind of weapon against USA believe me USA will not throw agains the ICBMs a book(IL) or even will wait for the nuclear fallout so there can be a courthearing,but will try to shout it down and even retaliate...
Second.The I.L. puts an limit on the altitude of the state's airspace and it's 20 km...If you don't know the ICBMs fly on much greater altitude and the interception will occur on 45-65 km...What's left from the missile will fall into Canada's airspace and because 90% of the canadians live in range of 150 km from USA it will be funny...
So if there is an attack on USA with ICBMs through Canadian Airspace the USA will try to shout it and it's the right of US to do so thanks to the I.L.

For all those who see only USA breaking the I.L...I wanna ask how exactly they were punishing Iraq for the breaking of that same I.L.(more than a dozen UN resolutions)?Yeah!They were negotiating and in the end what...Nothing...And why nothing?Because they don't have the will or the power to do a thing!!!
Someone said USA can do worst...Yes the worst favor USA can do the World is simply turn back to isolationism and watch how the rest of the World mess the things again...But than agian USA will be "bad"...How you ask...It's written like that in the textbook in one EU state:
"The responsability for the rise of Hitler in WWII,falls on USA for the Great Depression and their policy of isolationism"...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
biz.yahoo.com...

A successful missile test just the other day. There have been many successes with the missile tests.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

as posted by soficrow
No one said Canada. ...Do you have any idea what the US trade deficit is? ...Or what kind of interest rate we're paying on our national debt?


Does it matter?
Wasn't a matter after WWII was it?
Wasn't a matter after Vietnam was it?
Wasn't a matter during the Cold War spending era of Ronald Reagan was it?
Canada will be just as hurt from an economic sanction against the US as the US would be. Bet.
And btw, bottom line to all this, whats Canada and Mr. Martin going to do 'when' and 'if' the US violates their airspace in the event of a/an ICBM(s) launched and targeted for the US? Whats the Canadians and Mr. Martin going to do about this situation, period?

Let me hold my breath here.....





seekerof



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
The best solution is not to attack the U.S, i know that you want to nuke us and all, but you must also know we well take you down with us.

We don't want your Socialism, so pack up shop and go away.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Oh, and about International Law, looks like it won't be such an issue after all, according to this:



Prime Minister Paul Martin says "no" to Star Wars.

Canada will not participate in the controversial Missile Defense Shield.

"[The Americans] were told we will not participate." "It is a firm 'no.'" This statement communicated to news agency was apparently made at the NATO Brussels meeting on the 22nd of February.

Martin is to confirm the government's stance in a House of Commons session on the 24th.

Meanwhile, his ambassador designate to the US, Frank McKenna, in a contradictory statement, has "spilled the beans".

According to Frank McKenna, Canada's participation in the controversial BMD is a "done deal". It's de facto. It was part of a negotiation process initiated two years ago.

"We're part of it now and the question is what more do we need?" said McKenna.

"There's no doubt, in looking back, ... that the NORAD amendment has given, has created part, in fact a great deal, of what the United States means in terms of being able to get the input for defensive weaponry."

What Ambassador McKenna is hinting at, without revealing the substance of US-Canada negotiations (behind closed doors), is that NORAD is a defunct military body.

NORAD has essentially been scrapped. While it still exists in name. in practice, it has been integrated into US Northern Command and Canada has become a de facto member of NORTHCOM under the auspices of an illusive transitional military body called the Bi-national Planning Group (BPG). The latter is an appendage of NORTHCOM, located at the Petersen Air Force base in Colorado.

What we are dealing with is a "military marriage' characterized by the integration of the two countries' command structures.

Missile Defense is part of "the vows" of this "military marriage", something which nobody in Canada wants to talk about.

This military marriage has certain underlying obligations and commitments.

If Canada accepts to join NORTHCOM and integrate US command structures, it not only "promises to cherish" Star Wars, it also becomes an official member of the Anglo-American military axis, integrated by Israel (unofficially) and Australia.

www.globalresearch.ca...


Sorry canooks, looks like your government may have reserved a seat for you next to us on the Bush roller coaster of world domination, please remember to keep your hands and all other objects inside the cart, and make sure your seats are in the locked position.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

And btw, bottom line to all this, whats Canada and Mr. Martin going to do 'when' and 'if' the US violates their airspace in the event of a/an ICBM(s) launched and targeted for the US? Whats the Canadians and Mr. Martin going to do about this situation, period?

Let me hold my breath here.....






So you advocate ignoring laws and treaties, and think that might equals right.

We knew that. So do the terrorists. And that's why they've chosen to use guerilla tactics to deal with you and your kind. You brought it on yourself - and now you're trying to drag everyone else down with you.

Won't work. Some of us have principles and honest values.



.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   


No one said Canada. ...Do you have any idea what the US trade deficit is? ...Or what kind of interest rate we're paying on our national debt?


Lets put the U.S. debt into perspective.

If you have a mortgage on your house, chances are that you have a higher debt to income ratio than the U.S. Government. Unless you live in a hovel.

Think about it. If you make 50k a year and live in a 150k home, are you going broke and headed for economic collapse? Now compared to the debt to income of the U.S. you probably owe more percentage wise than the Gov. Sure the numbers look astronomical but in perspective its not quite as bad as you nay sayers claim it is.

Comparativly the U.S. debt is more like a car loan for the average person.


[edit on 26/2/05 by Skibum]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Most other governments have greater debt than America...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
soficrow,
please give me a break...
The USA national debt and trade deficit...

First,ND is 62.5% of GDP(Canada have 77% of GDP,and EU is 68%)...More than this it's 55% held by federal and state agencies,20-25% by the american citizens and only 20-25% is in the hands of foreign banks or governments...

Second,TD is the one thing the rest of The world must thanks for...See if the chinease curency was not fixed to the dollar and was changed 33% up just like the euro it would cut 10% of the chinease GDP...Why they don't do it?Because they need to sell to USA their goods just like the rest of the asian tiger iconomies

Third,look at this and than talk:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

as posted by soficrow
So you advocate ignoring laws and treaties, and think that might equals right.

We knew that. So do the terrorists. And that's why they've chosen to use guerilla tactics to deal with you and your kind. You brought it on yourself - and now you're trying to drag everyone else down with you.

Won't work. Some of us have principles and honest values.

Your assumptions are off here.
Your presumptions are off here.
Your putting words into my mouth are off here.

I am not advocating anything to that degree, soficrow.
I simply raised the notch and asked two hypothetical and applied questions, for which you have beat all the way around the bush to not answer.

I have always heard that 'assumptions' and "assuming" was dangerous. It must be true and should come with a yellow blinking caution sign/disclaimer attached.






seekerof

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
So it now turns out that Canada may be the ones ignoring treaties if they don't embrace the missile defense system, but they will allow it, so the US breaking International Law argument should be over. Canada's government has misled it's people into thinking it is not on board, gee, I thought our government was the only one that did that in the world. Sorry to burst any bubbles.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I expected more than derisive posts from you seekerof


Intercepting inbound nuclear weapons doesnt result in a puff of smoke and "phews" all round. The USA will launch a veritable fleet of missiles to intercept the inbound. It wont fire one, cross its fingers, and hope it hits.

The surplus missiles will come down, most probably in Canada. Any extremely lucky interceptor missile will not detonate the warhead but it will vapourise its radioactive warhead which will cause harm. Its not in the same league of deathrates as if it detonates, granted, but the shield has the potential to kill Canadians. Its a theorhetical argument but theres still consequences to these actions.

Ask yourself how you'd feel if an interceptor came crashing down into your home killing your family? "Oh gee im unlucky! Seems Bush saved his own arse by shooting down a missile with his name all over it over my head. Serves me right" Why should it be the Canadians to pay for Americans antagonising the entire planet?

Also its extremely unlikely that a massive nuclear attack would be carried out on the USA. MAD assures this. Its most probable that a rogue state such as N.Korea or a terrorist organisation fires a single missile at the US.

So all your arguments about no one being left alive to prosecute the US for killing indescriminately is flawed. By the way the US's long standing policy of replying in kind to any attacks on the US would call for a nuclear strike on the party responsible.

How does that work if the nuclear weapon was fired from say London from terrorists that infiltrated our borders? Does the Americans launch a nuke at London? Or does it do its homework, find out who was responsible and kill only those responsible instead of entire cities?

I know which solution you die hard Americans would advocate.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
first of all, before i launch my missiles of defence at seekerof, i would like to point out, that if you explode a nuke over canada, the fallout will rain down onto the largest supplier of wheat to the world. you won't have to cook your bread any more, on the bright side, because it will cook itself.



Originally posted by Seekerof
soficrow, I thought we hashed this out last night?
Now your simply politicizing it here? Oh, brother.


this is between canada and the u.s., not seekerof and soficrow. politicizing? give me a break.


Originally posted by Seekerof
Soficrow, your Canadian airspace is yours. Your Canadian airspace is protected by International Law.


why did some american mouthpiece say we are giving up soveriegnty by not signing on? isn't that oxymoronic logic? we are exercising soveriegnty. our problem is, like said american mouthpiece, we have a military/industrial representative(mckenna) arsehole making decisions beyond his authority, like a dictator, in his spare time.


Originally posted by SeekerofAs such, whether you like it, whether the majority or minority of Canadians like it, or whether Mr. Martin (trying to save his arse and get re-elected) likes it, the US will attempt to intercept those incoming ICBMs/missiles travelling through Candian airspace and within Canadian airspace. Till then, Canadian airspace is your own.


pompous meglomaniacal speil. canadian airspace is always our own. if the US violates law, that makes the u.s. war criminals(again). mr. martin, reflects the will of the people. that is what gets you elected and re-elected in a democracy. 'save his arse', HA! i guess you've forgotten about what a real democracy is like.


Originally posted by SeekerofSo viva la Canadian airspace. Its yours. International Law recognizes and backs this. Obviously, this is all good and well till such an event occurs. If you wish to expand this into the ring of "bullying," then be my guest. Its your agenda, not mine. What I do find ironic though, is that there are Canadians that will and are agreeing with the US on this and are raising this before Mr. Martin. At the time that such an event occurs, Canada has basically given the US authority over its airspace. Till then, viva la Canadian airspace.


man, you keep contradicting yourself. the airspace is either canadian, or not. it is not a function of u.s. whim.
what i find ironic is mister 'let's see a study' is telling us that there are canadians agreeing with the u.s.. there are ALWAYS people agreeing. there are white hate rallies, or star trek conventions, bee keepers clubs. the question is how many? i haven't spoken to a single canadian who wants to be in on military posturing.

someone like you will probably never understand the immense pride canadians have in their little flag. only when they're in another country, mind you. it is seen as a sign to the world, 'here is an ambassador of good will'. put one on your tee shirt or back pack and it's like a free ticket to food, rides, lodging and open freindly discussion.
i also don't think america realises that canada doesn't stand alone. canada's an earthy analogy of babylon five. every single language and nation is represented here. attack canada, and you've got the whole world against you.

much like germany trying to stand alone in WWII, convinced of thier right to own the world at everyone else's expense.

i think i'm starting to believe in al bielek. did they promise you a nice room in the underground cities?



[edit on 26-2-2005 by billybob]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join