Stoker

Why?

Is my wish of wanting all sadists to burn in Hell awful? I know it's not very Christian........ May I ask, what type of kool aid have you been drinking? You understand how many further deaths will occur with a failure in Iraq right?

As you said in your quote........they were Soviet missiles and Fidel had no say on how they were to be used..........Just as West Germans, South Koreans, British and Turks had no say on how Americans nukes on their soil were to be used........ Though I'm not opposed to the ideals of preemption, I never brought that up as an option for the defence of Canada (in this thread), in the sense of a "first strike" capablitiy. What i do hope to accomplish, is to have the abilty to counter another preemption onto us or our intrests by another, and if need be, doing it on our own. But answer this honestly, if you are out at the bar and some drunk guy comes up and starts telling you how he's going to give you free dental work, are you going to wait for him to punch you in the nose first? Oh yes And we could make the streets out of gum drops and the skies would rain sweet milk chocolate upon us in the big green fields in which people with disagrements held pillow and tickle matches..........

And my point is hinged on yours. Yes, Canada is willing to defend it security, but only does such once the threat is apparent........and we have been lucky and blessed with geograghpy, the same can't be said for most of Europe pre WW II. Why not ready ourselves for the worst possable conflict, so when the next nasty war comes to us our Men and Women will have a greater chance of survival and in turn, success? Ahh, but on the list that mentioned Canada, many of the other countries on that list (Spain, Australia) have suffered an attack directed at them on their soil or near it, in the case of the Bali bombings. I should have qualified my question more: What third world dictator has had the ablitiy to directly threaten the United States proper before...... So why than, do they commit actions that will quite obviously draw a negative responce from the United States and the western world? I asked this question to somebody else in another thread, and I'll repeat for you: Of the nuclear powers of today (and aspiring nuclear powers), which countries are no longer developing ICBM?

......and I stated the first and second world war........the same logic can be appliyed to all countries not just us....... Ask yourself, and think about it.......who would be better prepaired for war.......a kid from stubblejump Saskatchewan that was in school and worked on the family farm, than was sent off to fight with just a few weeks training and some cast-off equipment we got from the Brits or the Americans -OR- A professional soldier that spent years training the body and the mind for the horrors of war and is equiped with the best weapons that money and technolgy can allow. They were targeted, not us. Would have hitting Toronto had the same affect as hitting New York? Perhaps ego was another reason....... So by using that logic........since I've never been arrested and/or in a crash due to drunk driving, I should have carte blanche to drive snapped? Has a dictator ever had the option to directly threaten the American homeland? What does a Kim Jong Ill have to lose? What about an Iranain Ayatollah? i wouldn't be quick to right off people of this ilk....... WRT terrorists getting ahold of ICBMs, IMHO, a likely place could very well be a Pakistain or a nuclear Iran......Even Chenyan rebels taking over a Russian ICBM site could pose a threat......I'm sure there are many of senarios that we are not privy to.

.........forget the "non existent enemies" Canada faces for the moment, and let's reflect on the need of American aircraft and logsitcal support to our government to deal with the Manitoba floods and the Quebec Ice Storm...... When have I moaned for our lack of military independence? I moan becasue of our American dependence........ Still, I fail to see the problem you see with this stance.... First and Second world wars. Why would we be a more tempting target? Again, your point is moot, we were not targeted or attacked on 9/11. So it nullifies your remarks that Canada won't be attacked because of our "relative virtues" and "respective approaches to the world". Ahh, but thats the rub........these nations don't always reflect the views and behaviours of the people......seeing as how they tend to be governed by a dictator and all. Those that had the "bomb" also had much to lose in using it.........how does the quote go? "Fear the man with nothing to lose"? (and a trip to a paradise full of virgins to gain)

Could you connect the dots for me please? Who's saying that it's "hogwash"? Who said the United States is happy to shoulder the burden? Which people are those? History has also shown that thousands of poorly equipped and trained young Canadian boys died because they were "rushed to war" due to our insufficient, pre-war, professional military. Your first point is moot........was Canada targeted on 9/11? As for your second, smug responce, you seem to forget that Canada has also been mentioned by OBL as being on his "hit list"......... This point suggest that BMD technology will become static......I doubt it won't be "ever growing" so as to encompass new technologies. All Mackenzie is doing here is to suggest a precedent, in that wholesale suicide is not outside the realm of possablitiy.......namely when one can expect twenty virgins and a ticket to paradise for doing so. I've yet to see anything to suggest that the Americans expect us to provide any funds towards BMD......have you? Whats the rate of succes for BMD in it's infancy? 5-15%? something like that IIRC............What was the rate of success in destroying a ICBM without BMD? What does that have to do with our involvment in the program? We joined NORAD and NATO, did this force us to join in the Vietnam, Falklands or recent Iraq war? I don't follow your logic.........

Here's a well thought out article by Lewis MacKenzie on BMD and the negative spin put on it: BMD doesn't deserve such a bumpy ride I enjoy this part: As noted by the above quote, I guess it depends on how you ask them......

They are on after O'Reilly right? I'll have to check them out......did they have on Lynn Cheney the other night? I agree 100%, it is a breath a fresh air....... But honestly, I haven't found any bias as of yet on the actual news reporting.......I like the format, espacially how they have a quick, to the point, update(d) every 15-30 mins report, instead of the standard "loop" reporting that is common on Newsworld and CNN.

Sorry for digging this topic up again, but for the month of January my digital cable provider has been having a "free preview month". This didn't really "excite" me, since I already subscribe to all the channels that intrest me, until tuesday morning when in my feverish state, all doped-up on Neo-Citron and Buckleys, I noticed up in the really high channels (where one would find the likes of Hustler, Greek Soap Operas and re-runs of three's Company and Batman) the FOX News Channel. Now I fully admit a right-wing bias on the part of myself, but to be totally honest, [EDIT] I didn't see one on FOX (as of yet). Infact, I even noticed some polite "jabs" at the right.....they aired the new JibJab cartoon which mocks Bush and interviewed the creators. And even though it may sound unlikely, even Bill O'Reilly was questioning the sences in spending 40 million dollars on the Bush Inauguration........ IMHO FOX News has a faster pace than CNN or CBC Newsworld, less idle banter between anchors and more importantly, like they say in their (new?) motto: "We report, you decide" Of the regular anchors, I regonize and like Chris Wallace, Tony Snow and Brit Hume (also from Fox news Sunday, which can be seen on the regular FOX network) and Greta Van Susteren (was once a legal expert on CNN). Added to a few new faces (to me) like Shepard Smith, Linda Vester and Neil Cavuto. I also look forward to watching Oliver North's program this weekend.......I'll pass on Geraldo Rivera.... Now this brings me to one of my new favorite television programs......ta-da.......the The O'Reilly Factor The show's frigging awsome.......and not what I expected at all.....the first night I watched it, he had on as his focal guests Zell Miller and Donald Trump. Tonight he had on a former Bush speechwriter, Benjamin Netanyahu and very inspirational interview with Jerry Lewis. I still enjoy Larry King and Dennis Miller, but neither hold a candle to O'Reilly in terms of interviewing style and entertainment value..... IOW.......check and see if your local cable provider is doing a free preview and if they carry FOX News..........I'd recomend the station to any other fellow News/Current events/political junkies.......be you of the right, left or middle.

Of the current nuclear powers, which ones are not developing ICBMs? What do you propose to stop these Suitcase bombs with?

Personnal attack. Attack on ones political ideals. So what does this post have to do with the Conservative stance on funding of the miltary and tax cuts? caesar, I suggest you read this thread again: Off-Topic Discussions, The Forums are NOT Your Personal Website Now to clarifiy, i don't have thin skin and I fully admit that i can give it just as well as other can and do, but atleast the majority of others and myself on this site can remain with some semblance to the topic at hand.

For shits and giggles: Encarta Dictonary Perhaps you are mistaken LLL?

Did you keep the bill of sale? God

But Neocons also understand that a miltary can be used to further and defend a nations economic intrests and general well being. With that said, i did post a thread a month or so back asking if Canada should outsource it's military to the United States..........

These are your posts from this thread. Which ones deal with Conservative values related to Defence funding and tax cuts? Here are my posts: Who's posts tend to be relating to this thread's topic? Now really caesar, do you have anything to contribute or are you going to contiune to waste Greg's bandwidth and in turn, money?

What don't you "get"?

I'm glad you understand the concept. How long did it take for you to figure out if you don't mind my asking? Whatever floats your boat. IMHO, being condemned to Hell is more of a concern then having a lump of coal in my stocking.......... "Therefore, thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things."

You seem confused......God is real, but ones faith in the Lord is an emotion. So do you love your family members? Is Love real? Or just a mere emotion? Can it be both? A verb and a noun if you will? I don't feel the need to "prove anything" regardless, untill such a times as you start to anwser questions also. Do you love your family?

Though I don't think that I'm hedging my bets (not that thats a bad term to describe some people's faith), one could look at like what do they have to lose? Is having one life centered around a book a bad thing? If one gains hope or pleasure in serving the lord, how is that a bad thing? I can't stress the point, if religion was a hoax, what have religious people lost? But if it's true.........the non believers are fucked

Ever hear the story of Darwin's deathbed conversion Another question posed/statemtent by Darwin in his Autobiography is: Would it not be in the best intrests of a sinner for Christianity to be false? And if Christianity is false (not that I beleive that), what have Christians given up with having faith within the lord? Who has the real vested intrest? Do you have a family? Do you Love your family members? If so, prove it!

How do know that that "version" of reality, is not infact the reality? Why? Whats the title of thread? Progress. I don't see how any Church that was formed after the reformation can be blamed for the Catholic churchs fault(s). Now anwser my question. What have you observed to prove faith false? What have you experienced to prove faith false? What have you reflected on that has proven faith false?

What does any of that have to do with proving or disproving religion?

How so? Sure, every word spoken by another could be a lie, but does that make it so? Ahh, but generaly speaking, Christanity does not encourage battery of ones spouse........... But is the indivdual forced to follow the religion by the lord? I disagree, a religous person has the freedom of leaving his or her religon.......is that not freedom into itself? How is it not? Does modern Christanity issue fatwas? What century did the crusades etc take place? what century is it today? Whats your estimate based on?

What Science has proven faith to be false? Is Love and friendship also false? How does Science prove them? Why do we have the ablitiy to use Science? About what? I feel no guilt. I'm not confused with my faith, nor to I feel that I've been lied to. Are you speaking of Christanity? How's that? Ones free to choose their course of life, any person, at any time can choose to leave a church. Which one does that today? Perhaps in Islam......... How do you know it to be false?