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.

 

American Government are a bunch of Whiners

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   
I think you are missing the point

THEY DIDN"T HAVE ANY WEAPONS

or are you saying that 12 years was long enough for a regime change so you figured you go in and do it for them, just concocting the weapons thing so that you wouldn't get as burned in the international community, and for basically breaking a bunch of international laws, which you only care about until they apply to your country.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by jawapunk]




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
And before you start ranting about how many international laws Saddam Hussein has broken, it was the United States who funded him and armed him during the Iran Iraq war, and his atrocities never seemed to bother the US until he was playing ball anymore.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   
So what?
No body, not the french, not the germans, not the canadians knew that. We all thought he did. He was telling his own military he did. His own generals thought he did.
So we were wrong so what?
We stll managed to get somethng good out of it.
And BTW I'm still not convinced those weapons weren't moved.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I'm still not convinced it all wasn't made up to cause the war. But whatever, we aren't privy to these facts so we can argue about this until we are blue in the face.

Actually the Germans, French and Canadians, although we didn;t know, the fact was that we didn't know, and we we saying it was too flimsy to go to war over.

The jury is still out as to the GOOD that you are doing in IRAQ and by doing this sort of thing, don't you think you are setting a dangerous precedent? What if China decides that Taiwan has weapons and should be freed from tyranny? They won't necessarily have to prove anything, just let the results speak for themselves, I 'm sure there are many other examples I could use, but basically I am saying maybe some day soon, someone will act the same as the Americans and the outcome will not be favorable to the US, but if the US were to intervene it would be disastrous.

That is the sort of thing that makes diplomacy so damn important, and why Canada is respected world wide, because we are a respected mediator, who for the most part aren't acting out of total self interests.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by jawapunk]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jawapunk
So Canada doesn't go along with your damn missile defence shield? Who cares? It is a colossal waste of money seeing that most people realize that using atomic bombs is deterrence enough and the ones that would try to explode a atomic weapon on us soil don't have long range weaponry.

So what does the US government retaliate with, cutting trade, pork, lumber banning our beef, what happened to NAFTA? It is called free trade not, do everything we think is right or else. And then the ambassador has the gall to say we are giving up our sovereignty over our airspace, IS he trying to cause a conflict? Give me a break!!!!



This thread is what we call a "Pharm Thread".

It has no links to credible data or enlightening information. It is solely a topic that will receive the maximum amount of replies in a short amount of time.

Components of a successful Pharm thread:
#1 Eye catching title, usually something offensive or outlandish (check)
#2 Strong language and accusations within the first line or two (check)
#3 Several insults regarding an entire nation or large group of people (check)
#4 Always ends in an open ended question (check)


I just want to congratulate jawapunk for posting a perfectly constructed Pham Thread. Guaranteed to get the most replies. Keep up the good work and enjoy your Canadian beef! (because we wont touch it)



P.S. I googled jawapunk and it turns out its a handle for Paul Martin!!



[edit on 8-3-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   
ha speaking of uncredible accusations. Yes this is Paul Martin, you found out Nancy Drew.

I didn't know there was a science to posting an opinion, nor that opinion counts for nothing? Isn't orginal thought fostered here, or do you have to back up an opinion with a fact? Hopefully it is taken for granted that I am saying is opinion, whatever.

Also, I would hope that a Pharm thread would generate more than a two way conversation between myself and MVM.

Anyways, thanks for posting something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, you really contributed alot, maybe this is all you do here, running around telling people your rules of etiquette. Thats what we like to call anal.

I never bashed Americans by the way, you must have noticed it was political, in fact i have been more on the side of being personally attacked and my country insulted if anything. Whatever though. I am sure you are what is called a lurker so I won't hear from you again.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jawapunk
. I am sure you are what is called a lurker so I won't hear from you again.



*Sharpen my plow for this Pharm Threads harvest.*

Jawapunk, you have honed your Pharm Thread technique to a matser level, actually taunt naysayers into posting again!!! KUDOS!!

Everybody, just sit back and watch this master Pharmer practice his craft. You go jawapunk!



Canadian beef, Canada's WMD? Mmmmm...



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
thank you, I appreciate the accolades. I will sit here and gloat.

Really though, you are the third person to respond, it hasn't been much of a discussion more of a one on one here.

Although I'd be interested to hear what you think on the subject. I mean missile defence, is it a waste of cash? Do you thinkthe program is shady at all?

[edit on 8-3-2005 by jawapunk]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Listen Jawapunk,

The Defence system being desiged and implemented is not a waste of time nor money.

The world is changeing into a very different place with the proliferation of Nuclear tech and balistic missle tech.

The Canadian government messed up by not letting the US use its airspace in a
Missle exchange.

Now instead of intercepting a ICBM carrying Nuclear Warhead in its boost phase over the north pole we will have them intercepted over Canadian Airspace.

******* LETS GO THROUGH THIS SCENARIO **********

NORAD DETECTS ICBMS COMING OVER NORTH POLE.

ALASKAN MISSLE DEFENCE CANNOT STOP THEM.

MISSLE DEFENCE IN MAINE LOCKS ON AND INTERCEPTS THE MISSLE.

ICBM HAS BEEN INTERCEPTED BUT THE WARHEADS MANAGE TO FALL OVER TORONTO.

1 WARHEAD ACCIDENTALLY DETONATES OVER THE CITY OF TORONTO.

************* END ***********

It would have been alot better if we could have intercepted the ICBM with our northern Canada defence system.

O well too bad.

- REASON



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
here is the more likely scenario.

1. United States spends trillions on a system that doesn't work.

2. Nuclear warhead is fired towards the US

3. Us retaliates launching multiple ICBM's

4. Other countries retalaiate against US launching more ICBM's towards US

5. Warheads over canada, too many for the anti-missile system to track and hit because really it can't even track and hit one, hahahha

6. warheads all hit home,

THE END



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I agree, If Canada does not want to pay to defend themselves that is a good thing. I am trying to get a couple of divisions of Tennessee's finest to come up there and conquer you girlie Canadians. I am paying to much for gas and oil. You guys have lots of petro for the taking. Plus we can kick the tails of some French without the added expense of getting across the Atlantic

What are you going to do when ten thousands rednecks screaming, "y'all got a pretty mouth" invade you?


Check,Check,Check,Check,Check

[edit on 8-3-2005 by Reaganwasourgreatest]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jawapunk
here is the more likely scenario.

1. United States spends trillions on a system that doesn't work.

2. Nuclear warhead is fired towards the US

3. Us retaliates launching multiple ICBM's

4. Other countries retalaiate against US launching more ICBM's towards US

5. Warheads over canada, too many for the anti-missile system to track and hit because really it can't even track and hit one, hahahha

6. warheads all hit home,

THE END


So how would this scenario be any better without the shield? MORE missiles would hit home, instead of at least some of them being blocked.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
And yes, terrorists WOULD attack Canada if they got the chance. Just like they've been doing to other countries who don't even support the U.S. in the war on terror. Don't forget what started the war on terror. There was no war before the taliban bombed the WTC buildings, and they still did it. They'll attack anyone they want. That's why they're called terrorists. They terrify people into meeting their demands. With Canada so close to the U.S, there are many things the terrorists might want out of you. Maybe they'll want you to close off trade, or attack us...who knows. I seriously hope you guys don't get attacked, that'd be horrible. I feel like this is a bad move on your countries part.

By the way, if it weren't for this "un-necessary war", Saddam would still be in power, Afghanistan would still be run by the taliban, 75% of the Taliban wouldn't be caught or killed, 2/3 of the al qaeda leaders wouldn't have been caught or killed, lebanon wouldn't be doing their thing with syria pulling their troops out, and Egypt wouldn't have been encouraged to start up their own democracy. I think we've done good things, really good things. Yes, there have been bad things involved in this war, but nothing is ever 100% good or 100% bad. You have to look at the bigger picture, and how this will benefit the future.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:33 PM
link   
i never called the war in Afghanistan unnessary.
I totally agreed with that war, in that case there was a world coalition, supported by the UN to hunt down and capture/kill people that were responsible for the attacks on the US.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, nor did he harbor weapons of mass destruction, his removal was a plan that the admisitration and the pentagon have had on the back burner for quite sometime, he wasn't playing ball, and he is sitting on the world's 3rd largest oil reserves.

I am simply going to ignore anyu threat of attack from the United States, guess what, we all look like you , dress like you and share the same culture, for the most part. Do you know how easy it owuld be for a "girlie" Canadian to get into your country and destroy something? We have an open border, and t is pretty damn easy to get weapons in your country, both legally and illegally. This is besides the point however because the biggest threat to anyone is a random psycho with a chip on thier shoulder, and a little military experience. There will be no Canadian American war, it is almost stupid to conjecture about it, and if you want our resources you can pay for them just like everyone else!

I am saying the missile defense shield is worthless, and your argument of atleast it could stop some of the warheads is stupid. It will still cause millions of deaths either way so why spend trillions on it if it can't stop all missiles? It will only lead to the weaponisation of space and a new and vastly more expensive buildup of both nuclear and anti-nuclear weaponry.

We as neighbours should be concentrating more on sealing up our huge coastlines and borders and coming up with a system to handle the millions of people that enter both our countries every year. That would be alot cheaper and much more efficient.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
jawa if you researched more on this you'd know canada was paying nothing and wasnt expected to pay for anything, we are and were paying 100% of the cost with some israeli help,


Somehow I dont think thats true.


As stated above, Australia appears to be only interested in participating in the mid-course and terminal Phases of missile defencewhich are by far the most technically difficult. Realistically, this restricts the alternatives to either the Patriot Missile (PAC3) for ground-based defence, or the Aegis Weapon System with SM-2 missiles for sea-based defence.

Patriot is a very expensive system, with earlier versions reportedly costing US$200 million per battery, and the PAC3 missiles costing upwards of US$2 million each.(3)

A requirement for the inclusion of sea-based ballistic missile defence would mean that the RAN's new Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD) to be acquired under Project SEA4000 would have to be Aegis-equipped destroyers such as the US Navy's Arleigh Burke-class. The basic unit cost for such vessels is about US$945.9 million (A$1454.6 million).

Here where I got the info from. Now I know that Bush and cronies have more money then sense but how could any person think $200 millon is Free?
Now your going to have to think here Australia is a smaller econmy then Canada surely If Canada took part took part in the program wouldnt the costs be higher then listed above?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jawapunk

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, nor did he harbor weapons of mass destruction, his removal was a plan that the admisitration and the pentagon have had on the back burner for quite sometime, he wasn't playing ball, and he is sitting on the world's 3rd largest oil reserves.


But are you saying you're against the removal of Saddam Hussein? Are you saying it was a bad thing for us to do?


I am simply going to ignore anyu threat of attack from the United States, guess what, we all look like you , dress like you and share the same culture, for the most part. Do you know how easy it owuld be for a "girlie" Canadian to get into your country and destroy something? We have an open border, and t is pretty damn easy to get weapons in your country, both legally and illegally. This is besides the point however because the biggest threat to anyone is a random psycho with a chip on thier shoulder, and a little military experience. There will be no Canadian American war, it is almost stupid to conjecture about it, and if you want our resources you can pay for them just like everyone else!


I never said anything about a Canadian-American War. Maybe that question wasn't directed at me. Moving on...


I am saying the missile defense shield is worthless, and your argument of atleast it could stop some of the warheads is stupid. It will still cause millions of deaths either way so why spend trillions on it if it can't stop all missiles? It will only lead to the weaponisation of space and a new and vastly more expensive buildup of both nuclear and anti-nuclear weaponry.


How exactly will this cause deaths? It's just a defense system. If anything, it prevents deaths! And if we build it well enough, it COULD stop all the missiles launched at us. Even if it's not percet, which is better; 20 bombs hitting us, or 1 bomb hitting us? And just because you're not part of the war on terror doesn't mean that you won't get attacked. They've attacked other countries that weren't apart of it.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I didn't say the defense shield would cause deaths, learn how to read, I said that even if 1 bomb gets through millions will die so why build a system that costs trillions of dollars if it isn't 1% effective let alone the 100% that you would want.

And dod I think removing Saddam is a good thing, sure, do I think it was legal? Hell no. Can you imagine a coalition of countries banding together and invading the US to remove Bush? And before you say anything, depending on the countries it isn't impossible for it to happen.

Anyways, you obviously think that frivolous spending and creating enormous fiscal deficits are responsible things to do. I on the other hand agree with my leadership in not backing this idea/project/whatever it is. I think that like them and like I have said before if they really want to protect their country we should be spending all that money on sealing up the gaps in our borders and creating a network of intelligence that will prevent these maniacs getting into our countries.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jawapunk
I didn't say the defense shield would cause deaths, learn how to read,


That's funny, because I could swear you did.


Posted by jawapunkI am saying the missile defense shield is worthless, and your argument of atleast it could stop some of the warheads is stupid. It will still cause millions of deaths either way so why spend trillions on it if it can't stop all missiles?



posted by jawapunk learn how to read


Awww......should I sayyy it??? hmmm, no. I'll just leave this one up to your imagination.

And would it really cost the Canadian govt. trillions of dollars? I haven't read anything about the cost yet. But don't you think something like this would be important? Couldn't we do both the border thing, and the missile defense system?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
The "IT" I was implying was not the defense shield dumbass, it was the missile that you said didn't matter if it got through. I was saying why spend trillions then, if one or more (missiles) can still get through, it,(the bomb) would still kill millions.

AGAIN LEARN HOW TO READ

You have been working on this defense shield since atleast the eighties with no results. Just a test runs into the millions of dollars, just one test so I am assumong billions or trillions of dollars either have been spent or will be or both to try to make this work.

The Canadian government cannot foot this kind of bill. We just don't, and it is fairly obtuse for other countries to call us pansy's and cowards because we have a little fiscal common sense.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by jawapunk]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   
I am not implying you said anything trashy to me man, but if you read through this post it has been either said or implied numerous times. It is a little annoying, completly false and doesn't lead to any constructive discussion whatsoever. I am gald you agree that we should work on some kind of border type system, I think that is really important in the near future.

Anyways I was going to say something else but it has kind of slipped my mind at the moment. I don't want mean to rip into you man, it just seems that on this thread I have had my back against a wall or something, I am just trying to get my point heard, and hopefully people will re evaluate their views on the system.

I just remembered now what I was going to say, the whole reason for this thread wasn't necessarily to discuss the drawbacks of an expensive missile system but rather to discuss the tactics that the US government are using to try to force the Canadians to buy into this system.

Putting trade barriers on our goods is only hurting both economies, and although it hasn't been blatantly said by any politicians that the reason was because we are backing out, it has been seriously implied by a few statesmen including the Ambassador to Canada, who should seriously reevaluate his diplomatic skills, he is a little orugh around the edges for someone supposed to be representing his government.

Anyways, I don't think that trashinng the NAFTA agreement shoudl be the course to take to try to coerce us, do you?



[edit on 10-3-2005 by jawapunk]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join