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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trent
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.



NORTHCOM is much more important I suspect. Someone talked about it earlier in the thread today and I've just done a bit of fast research on it:



"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



.




posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Well if Canada is worried they can always leave or get suspended from the alliance by non-compliance. That's what New Zealand did when they thought the ANZUS treaty was allowing the US military too much access to their country. I think they were especially concerned about nuclear vessels and got suspended from the treay because they denied them access to their ports. I doubt the US would ever annex Canada over something like this if that's what that article is suggesting... didn't read it all.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Trent]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

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


Yes they are Soficrow, and you can even see it by reading the Canadian article. You showed more bias agaisnt the US in your introduction line, than the Canadian article does. Let me excerpt some points in the article which you failed to mention.


Canada's rejection of missile defence is a historic shift in its relationship with the United States and could have deep unforeseen consequences, analysts warn.

This week's announcement is more significant than Canada's refusal to join fighting in Iraq or Vietnam because, some say, this time the country has rejected a domestic defence plan.

One military analyst in Washington says Canada has turned its back on a 67-year-old agreement signed by then-prime minister Mackenzie King and president Franklin Roosevelt to jointly defend North America.

"This is a significant policy change, and it will clearly have consequences," says a briefing paper released today by Dwight Mason.


Quoted from article.

Then you also mentioned that one of the reasons for the PM to not want to be part of this plan is because there are questions the US has not responded about the plan, actually you said that the US wants Canada to sign pretty much a blank contract, but here is the point and what it says in the article which you linked.


The top U.S. envoy to Canada - Ambassador Paul Cellucci - says Canada would be "outside of the room" when his country decides whether to fire at incoming missiles.

But Martin said today: "We would expect to be consulted.

"This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission."


The PM of Canada is expecting us to give him a call and ask him permission to shoot down a missile if we see one flying over their airspace and is targeting some city in the US.... A missile flies about 4km per second, yet the PM of Canada expects the US to call him and ask him permission....now that's arrogance...




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


humm, my bad then, i would swear i remember having a discussion with someone with your name or very similar about what he called "benevolent dictatorships." Ok, i apologize then, I must have confused you with someone else.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Ok, under this NORTHCOM, the other two countries will have to give up their sovereignty to the US control, I don’t get it how can Canada and Mexico allow something like that? How about the citizens they have a say so on the matters of their respective nations.



The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty.


One thing is a mutual agreement or pact to keep security but another is to take over the sovereignty of other countries.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trent
Well if Canada is worried they can always leave or get suspended from the alliance by non-compliance. That's what New Zealand did when they thought the ANZUS treaty was allowing the US military too much access to their country. ...I doubt the US would ever annex Canada over something like this.






Interesting perspective. Thanks.

It's dicey here because the US, Canada and Mexico are negotiating terms for a continental security agreement that pulls policing, military, immigration and everything together under one roof - plus trade, and expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Looks suspiciously like NORTHCOM is the key to the package.

As a citizen - I just don't trust any of these guys to do right by civil liberties and ordinary people. ...And I'm totally relieved Paul Martin is at least making a show of standing up to Bush.

But it ain't over.



.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Ok, under this NORTHCOM, the other two countries will have to give up their sovereignty to the US control, I don’t get it how can Canada and Mexico allow something like that? How about the citizens they have a say so on the matters of their respective nations.



The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty.






I didn't know about NORTHCOM until today. Someone on this thread brought it up and had a few links. I clicked and scanned, that's it.

....Sounds to me like it might be the next installment for Patriot Act 2 linked to NAFTA super-sized. But I don't know.

...I hope you can do some of your research magic marg - this looks important.


.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I did, actually ECK had a thread a while back on the subject, actually they are well establish and functioning already.

This is the link to their main web site.

www.northcom.mil...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
Billbob said the west is a KKK stronghold about five posts from the top on page three.


almost...
stronghold of KKK mentality is what i said. i travel, friend, so i know. the thing with people is, they generally can't see themselves.
a big thumbs up to calgary, though, for being cosmopolitain. great city.
red neck, ...uh, ...i mean red deer, on the other hand..... they have a gas powered cross outside the town, it's the eternal flame of white supremacy(not really, but i bet a proposal for one would pass down at city hall, though)....
edmonton? wouldn't wanna be a 'darkie' in that city.

to be fair, it's really just alberta that's full of hardcore neocon red necks. saskatchewan has never seen dark skin, except on indians, so they're fairly inert. saskatoon rocks. manitoba, i've never been, but manitobans are super nice. yeah, it's really just oil and beef that seems to make people want to become hateful, greedy isolationists. mad people disease is caused by petrolions, perhaps.
ontario has a high count of red neck mentality, too. my own father is a blatant red neck racist.
quebec is my favourite province for vibe. it's like old europe in the woods. french people are extremely nice and friendly(except for hardcore seperatists, which are as xenophobic as the reddest neck in alberta).
maritimers are just nice. nice people. good food. good parties. good vibe.
newfies rock. god loves a newfie.
i lived in BC for a few months, but i forget what happened, so i have no opinion of the people. or were they totem poles? some things, we'll just never know. big trees. rain. whales.

i'm sure any sympathy you feel for "foreigners'" human rights is a product of the 'socialist/liberal' media. let's face it, dark skin is plain ugly. only whites are pretty enough to win beauty contests.

as i said, my dad's an ignorant racist. i still love him. and i still love you, batoche. we's all jes' people. confused, scared, ignorant animals. it is love, and love alone that puts man above the animals. that's why we try and kill them with one blow when kill them we must.

please take everything i just typed with a grain of salt. exageration is a tool for making a point.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by billybob]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
...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]


the missiles aren't targeting canada. only intercepted missiles would cause grief to canadians. i think we should build a missile superhighway bypass over canada. we should charge a toll, too. anyone who wants thier missiles to pass through canadian airspace will have to give canada two rifles and a blanket. no, wait, THREE rifles and TWO blankets. who says canada can't play hardball!



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
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?


Why would the US not need a missile defense system?.... The Russian have one, which is indirectly also "protecting eastern Europe", I don't remember the europeans in those sections protesting because Russian missiles can enter their airspace to destroy incoming missiles....

And, we also have this.


February 9, 2005 :: Interfax :: News
In an interview with the Russian Interfax news agency, U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow tried to put the country at ease with the prospect of European-based missile defense interceptors, which are primarily aimed at the growing threat from Iran. Vershbow stressed that any such defense would be limited, that it would be no match for Russia’s massive strategic arsenal, and that moreover geography would make it practically irrelevant to stopping a nuclear attack by Russia on the United States, the capability for which Russia thinks it requires:


Excerpted from.
www.missilethreat.com...

Wait a second...isn't Iran best buddies with Russia now?....why would the Russians need any defense against Iran?...... Let's continue.--- I actually interpreted this wrong the first time I read it, as i was looking to another article at the same time I was writting this. It is the US who is asking now to have a missile defense system in Europe, but it is still true that Russian DMS are protecting eastern europe.---


If you simply look at the globe, you can see that geographically, any systems that would ultimately be in Europe would be oriented towards threats from the south, the southwest—countries like Iran—and would have no logic vis-a-vis Russian systems, which of course go north, not west.
To say that Russian missiles “go north, not west” is a diplomatic way of saying that Russian missiles still target the United States.


Excerpted from same link.

Let's see who else is wanting to have a missile defense system.


Syria Wants Russian S-400
February 9, 2005 :: News
Syria is negotiating the purchase of the Russian S-400 air and missile defense system, said to be comparable or superior to U.S. Patriot PAC-3 interceptors. Middle East Newsline quotes “Russian industry sources” as saying that Syrian President Bashar Assad sought to acquire the system during his recent visit to Moscow. “Assad is very interested in the S-400 and apparently Syria has the money to buy this,” an industry source is quoted as saying.

Recent news reports have confirmed that Russia will be deploying the S-400 for its own defenses in 2005.

..............
India’s Interest in Missile Defenses
February 11, 2005 :: Statesman (India) :: News
Citing an announcement by defense officials at a press conference, India’s The Statesman reports that India could establish an air and missile defense shield for a 200 square kilometer area within five or six years, quoting defense scientists said. Such a system could reportedly be duplicated to protect “big cities and strategic facilities like nuclear reactors and space launching sites against incoming missiles.” The interceptor is said to be a surface-to-air missile with a range of 80-85 km, and another interceptor with a range of about 20 km. The Akash SAM is mentioned as a possible interceptor for such a system; “Meanwhile, the Akash will have some anti-missile system capabilities.”


Excerpted from same link provided above.

So pretty much everyone has or is seeking to ahve or improve their missile defense systems...but the world expects the US not to have one....

The Russian and Chinese missile defense system also supposedly "protects" eastern Europe, meaning they can attack any missiles which flies through the airspace of any eastern european countries....yet when the US seeks to have the same kind of defense, allowing Canada also to be defended...people say there is no need for one?...


---edited for errors---


[edit on 26-2-2005 by Muaddib]

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
I seriously doubt Russia would have any anti-missile defense system. Also, I seriously doubt there'd be an "trigger-happy" person at the controls of such a system. Furthermore, a missile travels far, far, fare faster than any "non-hostile" aircraft.
I call this burying your head in the sand and underestimating the rest of the world. You must think the Russians are content to sit back on their haunches and watch the US develop systems they cannot counter. It is nice to be able to sit here and presume to know what goes on over there I guess. Or maybe they put out a monthly publication to the world on the state of their military capabilities. I recall just a few years ago, it was doubted that NK had the bomb too.


As for if any missile flies in over Canada, if they cannot stop it,..
Exactly, so why is the US being a crybaby about this, if not to get onto our soil and establish bases?



Let's say Canada also has a missile defense as well. And let's say a missile is heading over the U.S. to hit Canada. The U.S. I am sure would try to shoot it down. but let's say the U.S. misses. I seriously doubt the U.S. is going to say, "wait until it enters Canadian airspace, then fire on it."
Let us not, as we do not, and we have no enemies, especially one south of the US with missiles to fire at us just because they might hate the fact we have lots of snow. It is a pointless hypothesis.


Canada can be sucky to the U.S. all it wants;
The way I see it, the US is the sucky one, they don't get what they want and whine about it.


everyone knows Canada and Mexico would not be the countries they are if it wasn't for the United States to protect them...
Now this really intrigues me. Which nations do Canada and Mexico need protection from? What are the facts to back your position that we would not be what we are because you think you have protected us? From where I sit, it is the opposite, Canada would not be what it is today if we had not won that attempt at invasion from that southern neighbour. Please protect us from you.


Though I can understand Canada not wanting to play a part in a missile defense possibly. Maybe the U.S. should try to make its missile defense able to launch from within the U.S.
So you think that a missile shield would stop russia from redesigning your landscape? If not, tell me which countries would have missiles crossing over Canada?


Bush's belief I think is legit. You never know if some little dictator might decide to launch a nuke.
True, very true, and the only dictators mad enugh to do that today are Jong Il and Bush.



If you don't spend money to develop the tech, you won't have it. But if you do, and do get the tech, you have a big advantage over the opposition.
We don't want it and we don't need it.



Well there was Britain originally, well there was Hitler, there was the Soviet Union, there was Britain in its early days, etc...I'm talking about over the course of history. Without the U.S, neither Canada nor Mexico would've been able to handle the threats of the world.

As for Russia, a missile defense takes a good deal of TECHNOLOGY to build, something they lack at the moment. Building a nuclear missile is different. Korea has been working on this for a long time, but it does not require modern advanced technology. In the 1950s, one could build a nuclear weapon, and in the 1960s a nuclear missile.

In 2005, the United States has yet to build a missile defense, so a seriously, seriously, seriously doubt a country with an economy and record as poor as Russia could build a missile defense as well. To think that I call burying your head under the sand. They couldn't even produce a stealth aircraft and their space program is in shambles at the moment, let alone have the technology to develop a missile defense.

It is is incredibly, increibly, INCREDIBLY complicated to shoot down a missile. There is a HUGE number of variables involved. Creating a missile defense is not like creating a nuclear weapon. And N.K. probably obtained nuclear scientists from the Soviet Union. A lot of the Soviet nuclear scientists and engineers lost their jobs when the Soviet Union fell.

And yes we would like the tech. Burying your head again. You really don't think new threats won't rise up in the 21st century, that China or something might not become a threat later on?? China is building up their forces. It will take a while, but they WILL become a legit threat eventually. Having a system that can downplay that is a huge advantage.

And comparing Bush to Kim Jong II? PLEASE give me a break on that one. The two have nothing in common.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Well there was Britain originally, well there was Hitler, there was the Soviet Union, there was Britain in its early days, etc...I'm talking about over the course of history. Without the U.S, neither Canada nor Mexico would've been able to handle the threats of the world.


I was going to leave this alone after making my point but this just screams for a reply. Over those time Canada stood up, you know like in our national anthem? Not dedicated to "bombs bursting in air" but "stand on guard"? To this day we will stand when it's neccessary. We don't budget to boost the economy, let the people live.


As for Russia, a missile defense takes a good deal of TECHNOLOGY to build, something they lack at the moment.


Don't lead yourself into believing that Russia is done, not by a long shot. Appearances can be deceiving.


In 2005, the United States has yet to build a missile defense, so a seriously, seriously, seriously doubt a country with an economy and record as poor as Russia could build a missile defense as well. To think that I call burying your head under the sand. They couldn't even produce a stealth aircraft and their space program is in shambles at the moment, let alone have the technology to develop a missile defense.


See last statement.


BTW, America is starting to look like the USSR from an allies point of view. I think I know what it was like to be, say Checkoslovakia or Poland, etc. We're living it now and the result will be the same. Sorry, history repeats itself.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

You just don't get it do you? Canada has no enemies, but you do, many, and every single one of them is because they see you as aggressive and a threat. Canada does not need to become their enemy also just because your government is busy scaring the bejesus out of you. Rather than continue this aggression and make more enemies, try the olive branch and make allies.

did i say anything about you having any? no i didnt, and youre wrong, north korea is because we keep them from invading south korea and iran is because israel is our friend, dont be naive

To place those systems in Canada will mean that Canada has relinquished control of her soverign space, because I can guarantee you that the person making the decision to press the button will not be a Canadian, we will have no say. And as I have said before, there is no stopping the annhilation of North america if Russia decides to launch, so to argue for an anti-missile shield using them is pointless.

no system was going to be in canada, we only asked for support, the agreement was no more than support. and the system wasnt designed to counter a massive strike so thats irrelivent.

The ungodly truth behind this whole issue is that the U.S wants to build this massive protective shield everywhere it can in the hopes that it would be so tight not a damn country it decides to attack would have a counter. and just as the U.S will launch over us anyway, so too will Russia launch its anti-missiles over Canada. In other words, Canad will be annhilated by our allies. So does this mean because we have no beef with them either, we have to give them the right to install their defense in the Queen Elizabeth Islands?

youre paranoid

I can well imagine how our so-called ally to the south would yell and scream and rant and rave if Canada were to decide to get into the nuclear arms race. You would be bemoaning the fact that we are no longer a nation of peace.

you signed the npt but if you wanted to violate it, we would keep quiet like we do with japan or israel.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
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.


So, the only good discussion is when everyone agrees with soficrow and will not question her biased sources?

www.globalresearch.ca
Bush's Military Agenda
globalresearch.ca...

There are articles here for every kind of Bush and US bashing. Take your pick.

I am especially impatient with your estimation that the mods should not have a part in these discussions if they disagree with soficrow.

Mods by definition have "power" so should not take part in discussions?

It would seem to me that if soficrow had something to back up her stand on this subject she would not mind having a discussion with or without Mods.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
where are those governing groups of countires that follow international laws.hello are you out there?seems to me no ones looking and we are all smoking outside the building.like i have said before the roman empires back and it has a hold on everyone.we tried so hard to get rid of starwars now all countires will have to arm themshelves and the arms race will begin.very sad very sad.we have learned nothing and repeating old ways of europe.if funny europe wants to be like us but we want to go back to europes ideas.

[edit on 27-2-2005 by flukemol]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   
I got to say you guys are missing a huge part of this.

The defense shield is useless.
USA has two types of nuclear threats big countries like China and Russia.
And small ones North Korea and Iran(potential).

The big ones don’t want a fight. Russia is only interested in getting investors.
Guess what if your afraid of China you might as well be afraid of getting hit by a whale. China figured out almost ten years ago that all China has to do become the top dog in the world is move to a free market. China is going to become an unstoppable economic powerhouse within the next 20 years. So start learning how to speak Chinese. Chinese just learned the value of being selfish. They don’t want Armageddon any more then we do.

Your next problem is the small countries the only way there getting a nuke on American soil is by Fedexing it. North Korea and other small nuclear powers do not have the technology to launch a nuclear attack against America. Even if they did, they can produce


enough nukes to take down America. America would retaliate and totally destroy that country. It would be suicide. There is no foreseeable threat for the next 15 years and by then the defense shield will be obsolete.


To any Americans I’m now selling statues of elephants. There painted a nice bright white. They stop whales from fall on top your house. Only 3billion each.


Canada does not want any part of this at the cost of are sovereignty.


Oh by the way creating a missile defense systems make other people start work on building weapons that can get trough that defense. A super stealth missile is not something we need in this world.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by RazorDragon3000
........................

Oh by the way creating a missile defense systems make other people start work on building weapons that can get trough that defense. A super stealth missile is not something we need in this world.


Once again...then why does half of the world have a defense missile system, including China which was not supposed to build one?....

You never know what can happen, it is always better to be prepared than realizing too late what could have stopped a missile attack...

Russia upgraded their missile defense system in 2002-2003...and Russia is in more economic problems than the US... they even made more improvements on the system on Nov 2004.


Russia Tests Modernized Missile Defense System


Kiev, Ukraine (AFP) Nov 29, 2004
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Monday that the military had successfully tested a modernized missile defense system, but he gave no details of the missile involved.

News reports quoted Ivanov as telling President Vladimir Putin the test was completed at the Sary-Shagaz testing range in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan.

"We intend to continue perfecting and modernizing our missile defense system," Ivanov was quoted as telling by Russian news agencies.

Putin replied: "Good. Congratulations!"


Excerpted from.
www.spacedaily.com...

The Russians have been improving their missile defense system for a while now, and so have the Chinese.... Can someone tell me why is it that it is well and dandy these two countries which have one of the worse human rights history in the world and have been mortal enemies of the US and the west in general for decades, yet "if the US implements a missile defense system, it will lead to a new arms race and it is a bad idea"?......

So pretty much some people in here are saying it is well and excellent that Russia, China and some other countries develop and improve their missile defense system...but noone wants the US to have one....

It almost seems like the world is planning on attacking the US, or at least some of the major countries in the world, and this is the reason why noone wants us to have a defense system.... That's the only reason I can think of...because, how exactly is having the US implement a missile defense system going to start an arms race when China, Russia and a few others have never stopped buiding up their militaries and their arms race?....

---edited for errors and to add comments---



[edit on 27-2-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by soficrow

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


Yes they are Soficrow,





I look beyond the mainstream to find independent sources and news from other countries. Most US mainstream "news" is just regurgitated White House press releases or sometimes, articles written by government employees. That's why most mainstream articles are exactly the same. ...Kind of a red flag, dontcha think?

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.






You showed more bias agaisnt the US in your introduction line, than the Canadian article does.




I referenced two Canadian articles and combined information from both. You are overlooking the second one.






Let me excerpt some points in the article which you failed to mention.




IMO - those points already are well-covered by the propaganda. ...My article referenced two sources; my thrust combined points from those two sources. ...Again, I'm just bucking the tide and trying to fight the propaganda flood.






Then you also mentioned that one of the reasons for the PM to not want to be part of this plan is because there are questions the US has not responded about the plan, actually you said that the US wants Canada to sign pretty much a blank contract, but here is the point and what it says in the article which you linked.




The point about the blank contract came from the second source I referenced. It's an important point IMO, and one that's side-stepped by the mainstream media. ...I chose to address it.







But Martin said today: "We would expect to be consulted.

"This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission."


The PM of Canada is expecting us to give him a call and ask him permission to shoot down a missile if we see one flying over their airspace and is targeting some city in the US.... A missile flies about 4km per second, yet the PM of Canada expects the US to call him and ask him permission....now that's arrogance...





Civilized nations negotiate agreements ahead of time to cover such eventualities. The US made it clear they had no intention of respecting Canada's airspace sovereignty - or of negotiating any agreement to establish relevant understandings.

All the US offered Canada was a blank, open-ended contract - and take-it-or-leave-it terms.

Totally ridiculous IMO.

....


The articles I write often source articles outside the mainstream, and highlight issues that have slipped "under the radar." I do not promote government propaganda or regurgitate press releases, paraphrased. I look for credible independent sources and use them to flesh out mainstream coverage.

Are you saying there is no place in ATSNN for differing analysis or alternate perspectives? Are you saying only official spin and government propaganda is allowed here? That any other viewpoints are suspect?


....


FYI - An interesting excercise used in some management training courses involves physically looking at the same scene from different angles. ...Students climb a ladder to survey a room from the ceiling, then lie on the floor and watch from that perspective, then stand stand in various places around a room or production floor, and record their observations from each standpoint.

...The point of excercise is that what you see is determined by your vantage point - and of course, that you see more if you move around a little, and make an effort to expand your horizons.



.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
When a mod gives an opinion, many of you are quick to cry foul.
How interesting.

When I commented on your posts I wasnt saying you shouldnt have an opinion. I was refering to the lack of integrity in responses like this.

Originally posted by Seekerof
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.
Maybe I do expect more from moderators behaviour, my problem I guess.


Originally posted by Seekerof
History, not history, reveals that "diplomacy" is about as effective as using a fighter to shot down an ICBM. Bet.
So your opinion is that diplomacy is useless? Is it safe to say that if you were President during the Cuban Missile Crisis you would of handled it with force?

How about bringing the Chinese into the modern world, like during Nixons visit? Maybe you should of invaded and then rammed a democracy and capitalism down their throats.

How about the fall of the USSR? Maybe you shouldnt of dilly-dallied and just kicked off WW3 in the 1960's and got everything over and done with.

I wouldnt want to live in a World without diplomacy and the majority of people in the World are the same. The stereotypical cowboy image people have of Americans only needs one or two individuals here and there to perpetuate. Some Americans like the image but let me tell you from a non-American (there are 5.75 billion of us) we dont like cowboys.

[edit on 27/2/05 by subz]



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree

It would seem to me that if soficrow had something to back up her stand on this subject she would not mind having a discussion with or without Mods.



As you see the thread has good information and is going smooth and interesting.

So if you have something interesting to say beside going for my post, come down and express yourself on the topic.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join