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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
soficrow, I disagree with Seekerof's point but I haven't seen him abuse anypower at all. Not a good debate tactic, it's a show of weakness.

Seeker, you have to admit, signing something and getting the details later is not good business, let alone politically smart?




posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

as posted by soficrow
Really seekerof - you need to read the article at least, if not the links. As a mod, you should at least pretend to adhere to ATS principles.

As you do, correct?




"On top of threatening airspace invasion, it turns out that the USA has never informed Canada what the controversial missile defense system actually entails. Bush is bullying Canada to sign a blank contract."

The principles and requirements of NORAD come to mind here, despite what your article asserts. It also seems apparent that the article I linked on page 1 or 2 concerning that Canadian commander who worked at NORAD asserts contray to your article.




seekerof



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
I was joking around with masqua - not making assertions. Context is relevant.
And FYI - I don't have a "spiel." Quit trying to pick fights with me - you're a mod not a troll. Get one of your lapdogs to do it. Looks better that way.



*gags on his maple candy*

Please come on know, look at the trend of your topics as of late: US health care set to implode etc etc etc..... I agree its not mere "spiel" but "coordinated spiel"



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

as posted by interpid
Seeker, you have to admit, signing something and getting the details later is not good business, let alone politically smart?


I would agree if that was the case. One source (presented by soficrow) out of many to be had, does not fully make me believe that Mr. Martin was not informed of such possible "airspace violations" as a result of not signing on to the program.




seekerof



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by soficrow

I was joking around with masqua - not making assertions. Context is relevant.

And FYI - I don't have a "spiel." Quit trying to pick fights with me - you're a mod not a troll. Get one of your lapdogs to do it. Looks better that way.


i simply see it as directed communication, all in the name of debate and contestation.


seekerof




Debate and contestation? Really? Then why pick a single playful exchange when you could have addressed the article or any number of serious points.

Sounds like pure ungulate shiite to me.



.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Sounds like pure ungulate shiite to me.



I don't think that was neccessary. Doubt enterdre or not.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by interpid
Seeker, you have to admit, signing something and getting the details later is not good business, let alone politically smart?


I would agree if that was the case. One source (presented by soficrow) out of many to be had, does not fully make me believe that Mr. Martin was not informed of such possible "airspace violations" as a result of not signing on to the program.

seekerof




The contract issue is NOT a matter of "possible airspace violations" - it's about being bullied to sign a blank contract - and being forced to take what you get when you get it. ...The airspace violations issue arose when Canada refused to sign a blank contract.


...The NORTHCOM plan comes to mind - and this is clearly an extension of that plan:

"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.'"

Bush's Military Agenda


.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredTThe flight paths of ICBM's are a bit more complicated that. And paths also have to be computed based on the sheer mechanics of getting them where you want to go. You have to factor in launch point etc etc. An object launched at the equator requires less energy for a given payload that a launch at higher latitudes. Thats why Boeing invented SeaLaunch (using a Russian booster) to float its launch pad at the equator then return home after.
We are not talking about launches from the equator though, are we? Yes or no- would Russia launch an eastbound strike into Alaska? And by the way, if yo are arguing here that the launch would not come over the pole, then you should be taking that up with others arguing for the shield in Canada.


Cute but not really relevant, hard to mistake a 17,000 mph inbound with a Cessna eh? Planes do not fly that fast yet
and most do not flyin a balistic path through space with a point of oragin being some rouge country
Hard to mistake allied fighters as well apparently, result-failure! Hard to have a visual of, as well as mapped positions of allied positions and determine they were the enemy too, result- failure!

One! Just one error is all that is needed.

[edit on 2/26/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

as posted by soficrow
Debate and contestation? Really? Then why pick a single playful exchange when you could have addressed the article or any number of serious points.

I have addressed this article quite extensively, and in a number of like topics on this matter, soficrow. Each and every time I have, you have played a part in it. I have also addressed quite a number of contestations and members point of view, your included. What you want, my non-participation in and on every one of your topic threads?! If that is what you wish, you let me know, k?
You can't handle the heat, you certainly shouldn't cry when your hand(s) get(s) toasted.




Sounds like pure ungulate shiite to me.

As pointed out by Intrepid, your tactic of resorting to this type argument and rhetoric only conveys that your position is the one that is weak, not mine. Personal attacks and like speech rhetoric as you have just used nullifys your position. Thats Net-etiquette 101, at its best.






seekerof



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Bush has destroyed the USA economically and socially. He has driven this once beautiful nation straight into the ground. God willing, he won't do the same to the rest of the world.

Sorry, sofi,
I must disagree with you here. Our country began it's downward spiral on November 22, 1963. Some would say that is the day our country was taken out of the hands ot its citizens.
The US has been declining for years...and years. Some are just now beginning to notice it seems.
I have to say it's not fair to blame Bush for what has happened economically and socially to this country unless you want to blame all the other Presidents from LBJ onward.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I am going just to add one thing to this otherwise good thread, the participation of some mods while I enjoy very much and welcome all the time, in some other cases is becoming a contest of wills.

Somebody needs to give up before this become ridiculous and that is what is going on in here right now.

Stop the bickering and give up. Putting Soficrow down on her threads and views is a low blow taking in consideration that she does an excellent job in ATS and her threads are very popular.

Donthreadonme my post is not with you you are fine.


[edit on 26-2-2005 by marg6043]



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

as posted by Marg
I am going just to add one thing to this otherwise good thread, the participation of some mods while I enjoy very much and welcome all the time, in some other cases is becoming a contest of wills.

Somebody needs to give up before this become ridiculous and that is what is going on in here right now.

Stop the bickering and give up. Putting Soficrow down on her threads and views is a low blow taking in consideration that she does an excellent job in ATS and her threads are very popular.


Yes, 'mini-mod' Marg.

I would agree.
Thus I am abstaining from commenting further to this topic thread and any like type to it.
I have contributed nothing to this topic, at all.
Thank you for your astute observations and correcting me on this.


*This message will self-destruct in 5-----4------3------2-----*




seekerof



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
There are several questions flying by here:

1. Does North America really need a Star Wars defence missile plan?
- Wouldn't MAD cancel it out anyway?
- Would it be effective in any other than a single missile strike?


2. Does Canada want to risk losing her status as a neutral nation by participating in such a plan, which looks to get out of control?
- Do Canadians want to get involved with a missile plan that promises to move into space?


The situation:

1. Canada was asked to sign what amounts to a blank contract;

2. When Canada refused, in part given the lack of information, the US informed her that the sovereignty of her airspace would not be respected;

3. There already exists a NORTHCOM defence plan that was created unilaterally by the USA, and presented to Canada and Mexico as a fait accompli:


"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.'"

Bush's Military Agenda



To clarify again, The contract issue is NOT a matter of "possible airspace violations" - it's about being bullied to sign a blank contract - and being forced to take what you get when you get it. ...The airspace violations issue arose after Canada refused to sign a blank contract.


.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yes, 'mini-mod' Marg.

I would agree.
Thus I am abstaining from commenting further to this topic thread and any like type to it.
I have contributed nothing to this topic, at all.
Thank you for your astute observations and correcting me on this.


*This message will self-destruct in 5-----4------3------2-----*

seekerof


No my friend I have not desire to take over any mods place your job is hard enough, is just that if the thread keeps on going the way is going somebody will have to close it because it will become to hot to handle.


I can see the steam coming from it while I was browsing the other threads.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Bush is pressuring Canada to sign an open-ended agreement for his controversial Star Wars missile defense plan, but refuses to provide any actual information or details about the plan.
..............................


Ok....let's put it this way.... If for some reason there was a missile fired with the intention to hit Canada and it flew over the international waters or airspace of the US, we did nothing and Canada was hit.... You do know what the world would say right?....and what the world would say about the international law of airspace sovereignty if the US responded in exactly the same manner as Canada don't you?....

The world would turn once more against the US.....oh but if Canada does the same it is different right?....

Soficrow, all of your articles are always biased agaisnt the US....all of them.....and this one is nothing new or different about your past threads...

I find it ironic that you keep trying to push your agenda that the president of the US is this evil man who is a dictator....Weren't you the one who said about 7 months ago that you are in favor of "a benevolent dictatorship"?..... and I am not trying to say that the US is a benevolent dictatorship, but if I remember right and it was you who said this, I find it ironic that someone who is in favor of a dictatorship...is always trying to blame the US of being one.... if it wasn't you who said this, then my bad, but i don't think i am wrong this time.



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

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by soficrow
Bush has destroyed the USA economically and socially. He has driven this once beautiful nation straight into the ground. God willing, he won't do the same to the rest of the world.

Sorry, sofi,
I must disagree with you here. Our country began it's downward spiral on November 22, 1963. Some would say that is the day our country was taken out of the hands ot its citizens.
The US has been declining for years...and years. Some are just now beginning to notice it seems.
I have to say it's not fair to blame Bush for what has happened economically and socially to this country unless you want to blame all the other Presidents from LBJ onward.




You may be right.


But there are 2 reasons why I take Bush accountable. First of course because he's the current president. Second - because several different destructive trends came to a head under his watch, whenever they may have started - but he ignored the crises and still is ignoring them. So a pit is being dug, and longer it's left, the harder it will be to fix.


.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I hope you're reading this thread, cuz, Paul...even though I despise you for
so many things, like the way you moved the Canada Steamship Lines head office to some Carribean Island so you won't have to pay taxes or the way you slid into office by making King Jean's life miserable...and God knows how many other things I could say, I gotta admit standing up to the Americans is a great Canadian tradition.

I realize you're probable gonna backtrack and give in, just like Dief did with the Avro Arrow or that you might even raise taxes again to shovel boatloads of cash to Quebec just to keep them quiet...but I like what you're saying on this anyways.

That Missile Defense System is a bassboat load of crap...it doesn't help anyone out but just makes some of BushCo's friends rich.

Oh..and that bit we saw about the American tourism stats in this thread...I happen to live in a place that those tourists love and I can say without a hitch that we here wouldn't care if they ever come back...I like my summers quiet and don't need their $$$.

I'll just sit in my duck blind with my Ojibwa buddies and wait 'til this whole thing blows over...permanently. I'll take my chances with them.

Soficrow...you're alright...I'm glad you were able to spend a bit of time to laugh with me over this 'tempest in a teapot'.



[edit on 26-2-2005 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by soficrow
Bush is pressuring Canada to sign an open-ended agreement for his controversial Star Wars missile defense plan, but refuses to provide any actual information or details about the plan.
..............................


Soficrow, all of your articles are always biased agaisnt the US....all of them.....and this one is nothing new or different about your past threads...





My articles are are not biased against the US. They are critical of US policy. BIG difference.





I find it ironic that you keep trying to push your agenda that the president of the US is this evil man who is a dictator....Weren't you the one who said about 7 months ago that you are in favor of "a benevolent dictatorship"?....





No. Not moi. I am not in favor of "benevolent dictatorships" and I've only been a member for about 4 months.



.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Does anyone know if the NATO alliance treaty gives the US a military trespassing right in the event of an attack on any of the members? Tried a google search and came up with nothing but it seems like somthing that might be in there. If this was the case all they would need is Canada to stay in NATO for the US to be able to shoot down missiles, planes or any other threat in their airspace.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua

Soficrow...you're alright...I'm glad you were able to spend a bit of time to laugh with me over this 'tempest in a teapot'.




Megwetch masqua. Like any of it matters, eh?

You're okay too.



.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join