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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Billbob said the west is a KKK stronghold about five posts from the top on page three.




posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   


Besides, if Canada cannot protect her "sovereignty" then Canada does not have "sovereignty". The rules on this planet are changing and changing fast. It's a smaller world now. What Canada should be concerned with is in making the effort to help prevent any attack upon the North American continent.


Using that very logic, America does not have sovereignty whence 9/11 occured. Tell me, what exactly constitutes a soviergn?

What Canada should be doing is helping in passive diplomacy and not invading foriegn soveriegns under spurious pretexts which further create a climate of hostility in the world and gather conclaves of enemies knocking at ones door ready to martyr themsevles. A missile defence will not prevent a missile from hitting your country, I do hope one realizes that in war, "many" missiles are fired, and some of these missles will have the technology to avoid your missile defence.

BattleofBatoche,

Yes, we in the west, primarily Alberta, are yet to allow homosexual marriage....






SO bravo for all of the granstanding and backslapping and hearty "were making a moral stand", as well as the we have no external threats its only because we neigbor the US that we do, sleep easy that the US will continue to defend your shores and borders.



Defend us from whom? I'm sorry, are we at war? Wait, lest we forget, Americans are the ones living in this culture of fear, not us..




Canada can be the North American Switzerland because the U.S. shoulders the burden of continental defence and will continue to do so with or without Canada


Yes, it's also considered one the nicest countries to live on this planet, if anything, I would rather live in Canada under a mixed economy (socialists/capitalist) than that of our freinds down south. As for this burden: it's not a burden, what's a burden is the 45 million who live under the poverty line in your country. Maybe you should be worried about them firstly.

Deep



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I haven't bothered to read this whole entire thread, but a couple things: one, I wouldn't knock Bush as a man trying to "conquer the world." A missile defense is legit. No one knows what the future entails.

It was Cinton and his administration's fault the Somalia incicent happened, causing the deaths of a couple dozen U.S. soldiers and the injuries of moreso, along with the deaths of a couple-thousand Somalis. It was Clinton and Hillary who tried to hand over U.S. national sovereignty multiple times to the U.N. in various forms, and it was Clinton who cut the U.S. military budget so much.

Bush is far from perfect, but at least he is a President concenred with America. France never gave a crap what anyone thought when they went and conducted nuclear tests not to long ago in the oceans, and EVERYONE was against this.

Europe can be "sick and tired" of Bush all it wants. Bush is not concerned with Europe's wants; the only reason they liked Clinton so much was because he sucked up to them so much. Bush is concerned with Americas needs first.

As for "violating Canada's airspace," international law I'd think prohibits violating anyone's airspace unless that country's airspace being violated threatens gravely ones own country. I mean, if a nuclear missile could fly into Canada and Canada could handle it, and the U.S. went in anyhow to destroy it, then yeah, that is kind of violating international law.

But if Canada CANNOT handle something like a NUCLEAR missile, I do not give a crap about "international law," that's like saying if some thug is pointing a rifle at your child from someone else's lawn, you cannot shoot the thug because they're not threatening you on your property per se. But I don't care if that is law or not, I'd still shoot the person.

Same with a nuke. If a nuclear missile goes through Canada to hit the U.S., I don't care what international law says, if Canada can't take it down, the U.S. will have to.

Personally, in such a case, I think Canada wouldn't mind the U.S. doing so anyhow.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree

Originally posted by soficrow

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.



.


For heavens sake soficrow,

Is the US supposed to sit here watching the missile come in to destroy us because it is against International Law to take it out while we can?

Doesn't make much sense to me.:shk:




D I P L O M A C Y.

The art of resolving conflict without violence.

It's what civilized nations and people do. Beyond many in the current administration, obviously, and explains why the US is no longer a super power - reduced to spitting over it's neighbors fences.


.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Let me see if I got this straight...

1- we sign onto a treaty which is basically a 'pig in a poke' because we have no idea what it entails...but we are supposed to sign it because the U.S.A. is the best at dealing death and destruction worldwide and we're their bloody neighbours.

2- the understanding, basically, is that we are allowing the Americans to blow ICBMs and MERVs out of the sky over our territories. We are to allow that because "we owe the Americans something" (sort of)

OK...lets suppose this happens...
The first waves of missiles come over and, Lo!!!...45% are destroyed over Canadian airspace. That leaves a devastating 55% getting through to destroy dozens of American and Canadian cities. (yes, we are targetted too). The second wave, I'm sure more will get through, totally obliterating a hundred more American and Canadian cities.
While this is happening in North America, European cities are burning because they didn't have any protection like us lucky Canadians who had the dubious protection of the Missile Shield.
All the while, American missiles, land or ocean stationed, are joining the response from all the other western allies and the air is full of nuclear weapons heading everywhere, killing everyone 1,500 times over.

Who wins?

IMO the Missile Defense Shield is a pipedream. We all die.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I'm having a hard time understanding why people are still arguing this as if it's still up in the air (no pun intended). Canada, regardless of what it's citizens are arguing on this board, is part of NORTHCOM.

www.northcom.mil...

Canada will be part of any missile defense system we put in place. Here's more from the article that obviously nobody is bothering to read because it renders their argument pointless:



The Binational Planning Group

Meanwhile, under the BPG, which defines Canada's "engagement" prior to its military marriage with America, the vows have, so to speak, already been consummated. In practice Canada is already a de facto member of NORTHCOM.

In a comprehensive report prepared shortly before the Bush-Martin talks last November, the BPG made recommendations on:

" how the two countries' militaries can work together more effectively to counter these [terrorist] threats. In many cases, … the recommendations will involve formalizing cooperation already taking place on an informal basis." (Statement of BPG spokesman, US Department of Defense Information, November 3, 2004)

In other words, Canada would not even have the choice of saying yes or no to the controversial missile defense program, which is part of NORTHCOM's mandate.

Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement, which allows the US Military to cross the border and deploy troops anywhere in Canada, in our provinces, as well station American warships in Canadian territorial waters.

This redesign of Canada's defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command's jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

NorthCom's stated mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."

Ambassador McKenna is confirming the existence of a fait accompli with regard to Canada's participation in the controversial Missile Defense program. His statement also suggests that the Canadian government has deliberately misled Canadians regarding its participation in the Missile Defense program.

www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
The west in NOT a stronghold of the KKK mentality..


I believe in THIS post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You whined because the Miss Universe was, and I quote of "Middle Eastern Ancestry.


The East also have to stop social engineering the rest of the country. Why was this years miss Universe representive of Middle Eastern Ancestry? Oh yeah to send a warm and fuzzy message of how tolerant Canada is.


Your words, not mine. I'm sure SOMEONE from the states will still take you...

DE



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
The west in NOT a stronghold of the KKK mentality..


I believe in THIS post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You whined because the Miss Universe was, and I quote of "Middle Eastern Ancestry.


The East also have to stop social engineering the rest of the country. Why was this years miss Universe representive of Middle Eastern Ancestry? Oh yeah to send a warm and fuzzy message of how tolerant Canada is.


Your words, not mine. I'm sure SOMEONE from the states will still take you...

DE


What does that show? How is that KKK mentality? Did the poster include anywhere in that post that the contestant was an abomination before god that should be erradicated? Affrimative action is wrong, choosing someone, or tilting the balance toward someone simply because they are of a minority heritage is unfair and just as racist as those in the KKK. I'm not sure if that is what occured in this case, but if it is, the posters concerns are legitimate, and not racist. If you worked your @ss off to get somewhere, and you find out somebody who may not have worked as hard beat you out simply because of their race or heritage, you'd be pretty upset. That's a weak way to try to paint somebody as a having a KKK mentality.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   
.
.

Canada is part of NORTHCOM according to Rumsfeld, Bush and 27jd. ...and for those who are still confused, NORTHCOM is the foundation of Patriot Act 2 and the continental "integration" of military command structures, immigration, police and intelligence. Oh yeah, and trade.





The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli.

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that "the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'"

Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called "consultative" Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to "prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States".

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda.

The BPG's mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military body making "recommendations" to government. In practice, it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons. According to the defense policy journal Canadian American Strategic Review, the BPG is "more than 'just an informal discussion group' … it seems to show some signs of evolving into a formal command in its own right."


Bush's Military Agenda




Now this is worth pause, and thought.



.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
What does that show? How is that KKK mentality? Did the poster include anywhere in that post that the contestant was an abomination before god that should be erradicated?


Naw, merely implied that Middle Easterners are inferior to whites. that's what about white supremacy is about, right? Whites being better than others?

Note my reply:

What? Did she have tusks or something? Maybe she was just beautiful. Can't cope with that, I suppose. Well, don't worry, I'm sure the local stores aren't quite out of white bedsheets yet.

I'm sticking with that. Implications, while not direct evidence, are plenty telling.

DE



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I think those of you vehemently objecting to Canada's 'no' position, should step back and study the below map.

To allow the U.S to set up shop in Canada is to paint a great big bulls eye on our country, where there is currently not one, for the object will be to take out as many as those bases as possible. If the argument is that the U.S reserves the right to shoot down missiles over Canadian airspace, that argument puts forward the ineptitude of the American anti-missile system and the priggish attitude of a war-like government and its supports who do not get their way. A missile even entering Canadian airspace goes to the former where an interceptor should have been launched well before the incoming approaches the mainland. It is ignorant to presume that U.S enemies will take a circuitous route over Canada, penetrating Alaska excepted, rather than the shortest more direct path. And if it heads toward Alaska, there should be no concern about it finding its ways over Canada, given your want to believe your shield would work. So what exactly is the logic behind your argument?

Bush wants what Bush wants, and does not give a damn about any other country, it is that very bullish mentality that underscores the false premise he puts forth for invading other countries in the guise of giving them democracy and soverignty. We are not obliged to be dragged into your wars, or to give our lives so you may live.




posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Geez, soficrow...that is something to study.

Now you're scaring me...

*goes to the closet to clean the old Lee Enfield 303*



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I'm loving this thread. Bottom line is Bush will do whatever he wants. Just look at his M.O. I have been hearing talk for months about how we are so fortunate that the mighty US is here to protect us. And I've been saying all along that the only country we have to worry about IS the US. Thanks for the confirmation, I now have a point of reference the next time an American says that we are being protected by Big Brother. Pfft.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Text

[edit on 26-2-2005 by BattleofBatoche]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
This is the News Forum gang, a little decorum please.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I think those of you vehemently objecting to Canada's 'no' position, should step back and study the below map.



Yeah, study your own map a bit more and you might just notice the 100 degree longitude at the top right over Russia and then work your way left where that same 100 degree longitude comes down over Canada - that is the shortest distance for a missile flight. (over the north pole)

In fact if you go south on the 100 degree line in Russia you arrive at their missile fields, same if you look at the 100 longitude for the U.S.

Until anti-missile defences are perfected the U.S. system can only protect the continent from rogue states such as North Korea and accidental launches so all this hand wringing from Canadians is a bit premature to say the least.



[edit on 26-2-2005 by Phoenix]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Canada is part of NORTHCOM according to Rumsfeld, Bush and 27jd


Wow, what a headline that makes. I had no idea I had that kind of pull around here.


As funny as that is, I never said I was behind the Bush military agenda. It just seems pointless to me that it would be argued as a violation of international law, when Canada will be legally obligated by whatever military cooperation agreement is made. Do you deny that this......



Ottawa has been quietly negotiating a far-reaching military cooperation agreement


and this......



The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian "military planners", who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command structures


obviously imply that the Canadian government is at least a little bit involved in this? So, under the impression that this thread was about what the title implied, international law, my argument was that there would be little that could be done legally, in which Canada would impose sanctions on the U.S., as has been suggested. I didn't know that stating my opinion about legal ramifications against the U.S. equaled supporting, or taking part in planning, the Patriot Act II.


[edit on 26-2-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Mahree

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by Seekerof



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..



by: Mahree
For heavens sake soficrow,

Is the US supposed to sit here watching the missile come in to destroy us because it is against International Law to take it out while we can?

Doesn't make much sense to me.:shk:




by: soficrow
D I P L O M A C Y.

The art of resolving conflict without violence.

It's what civilized nations and people do. Beyond many in the current administration, obviously, and explains why the US is no longer a super power - reduced to spitting over it's neighbors fences.


Sorry soficrow, your post does not make sense to me, even in all caps. Maybe if you shouted a little longer or louder I could understand what you were getting at in context with the posts of this thread.

We have been speaking about what to do about a missile attack coming in over Canada.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche

"Naw, merely implied that Middle Easterners are inferior to whites. that's what about white supremacy is about, right? Whites being better than others?
Dues-Ex"


Your nutz, I simply implied she was chosen based on her ancestry to send a political correct message to the world.

Meaning what? That she isn't beautiful, or that her position wasn't warranted because of that ancestry?

I never said she was beneath whites and if you want to dig up some of my posts you would learn my Grandmother was Cree Indian & my Grandfather was a French Jew, my other Grand parents were an English Protestant & an Irish Catholic.

Not directly. You can state your distant ancestors all you want, won't disprove the bigotry in your statements.

The Irish weren't exaclty treated very well during the the last 1000 years. You are a left wing hate mongering member of the new "thought police!" Screaming nazi & KKK when ever someone disagrees with you. Your the fool!

So...left wing in the respect that I think independently, or left wing in the fact that I'm not a conservative American-wannabe nut? I think this is the first or second time you've actually responded to me...I'm impressed. All things considered, though, I expected more than this. You didn't actually disprove what I said, just called me names. Ah, slander. The favorite resort of the right wing. Bill would be proud.

DE



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
...what does a Canadian do about a missile attack? They die, that's what they will do...I can't get over how so many will glibly assume there'd be anything left.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by masqua]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join