PocketRocket

"God works in mysterious ways" "No one knows the mind of God" And so many more we could dig up if we wanted to. All have, at one time or another, been quoted by those selfsame people who will occasionally say "It's God's will". But hardcore believers, like the scriptures themselves, seem oblivious to their own self-contradictions. Now having said that, before anyone jumps on me about being a "non-believer" or a heretic or whatever, take note; I am neither of the above. My beliefs are my own. I simply choose to acknowledge the fact that I do NOT know God's will. I do NOT take the Bible as the literal truth (how can I when it is filled with so many contradictions??). Born Catholic, practised Protestant, now, for lack of a better term, Independent. My God, my beliefs, my religious practices, are all personal, based on my perception of who and what God is, and how I would want people to behave if I were God. Bottom line for me is simple, The Golden Rule.

The whole "image" issue works both ways. When you look at magazine ads targetted at men, most have those underwear-model type guys. Trim, fit, handsome, etc. All with a set of six-pack abs. Hardly the typical Canadian/American male. The same goes for ads targetted at women. Trim, fit, beautiful. Interestingly enough, not long ago, while sitting in a doctor's waiting room, I was passing the time reading magazines. The only mags available were women's mags. One of these had an editorial about this very topic, how women were being brainwashed by the media into thinking they must aspire to a certain aesthetic look. The article harshly criticized both advertisers and the media for doing this. It went on and on about how this is irresponsible, and how it fosters insecurity in women and drives them to measures that are sometimes dangerous to their health. It even hinted that women should boycott some of the companies that produce such ads, and even the media that carries the ads. And yet, on the very next page, and several pages following, were ads filled with, you guessed it, young, sweet, beautiful skinny models. And, to top it all off, at the top of the editorial page was an obviously airbrush-retouched photo of the editor, looking wonderfully radiant, thin and gorgeous, with a flawless hairdo, and perfect makeup. It kind of destroyed the credibility of the editorial.

For every Pit Bull that attacks someone, there are thousands that have never bitten anyone. Same for Rotties, Sheperds, Dobermans, etc. Rather than ban the dog for the horrendous act of being a dog, make the owners FULLY liable for any damage caused by their dogs. In the case of this child, the dog owner should be tried for murder. If they manage to plea-bargain down to a lesser charge like involuntary manslaughter, it's still something that'll make other dog-owners think twice. Elsewhere I posted about a friend whose huge Rottie acts as watchdog for all the neighbourhood kids when they are playing in his yard. That poor dog has little kids rolling all over him, pulling his ears, sitting on his back, and he simply loves it, and them. The only time you'll ever hear him growl is if an adult tries to enter the fenced-in backyard where "his" kids are playing. Only his master or mistress is allowed to remove one of the kids from the backyard so they can go home with their parents. Needless to say, there are no worries about pedophiles nabbing any of the kids from that yard. Every dog, regardless of breed, is an individual entity, with his/her own behavioral quirks. The dog owner should be aware of his/her dog's tendencies, and should take preventative actions, BEFORE anything untoward should occur. Muzzles are not expensive. I guess the gist here is simply this; blame the owner, not the dog.

Back to the core question, ie; Why DART wasn't already dispatched. To those who speculated that they did not have transportation, you get a gold star in your notebook. According to CBC radio news last night, DART is on it's way, in a couple air-freighters leased from Russia.

We don't have to invent thing that Bush is to blame for. I think he has done enough damage to world peace all on his own ( under Cheney's strings) LOL, isn't under Rumsfeld's strings? no wait Rove's strings... no... the fundamentalist Christian's strings... Good point. It does, after all, take more than one string to properly operate a puppet

I believe you're referring to the "Pashtun" people. Not only are they taken very seriously by neighbouring military forces. but they have a strict code of honor whereby anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who asks for sanctuary, is granted it. And, if one family grants sanctuary, any other family or tribe who violates the sanctuary given, even by a rival clan, brings great dishonor on themselves and their family. Combine this with the fact that these people know the land like the proverbial backs of their hands, it would make it very difficult to find anyone there.

ARGUS: It seems we agree more than not. We've reached the point where we are arguing semantics, but on the core issues, we seem to be in accord. I agree, punishment for AbuGharaib should be doled out from Rummy on down. About not defending the acts (torture), but defending the country (USA), again, I agree. The acts were despicable. Admittedly not as bad as many committed by others, but still despicable. But again, I agree that the USA is a far more civilised country than many. As for "them" allowing the AbuGharaib pictures to "get out", they were idiots for letting the pics be taken in the first place. The existence of a picture implies pride taken in the actions, and the wish to display those actions. It's like kids who steal cars to go joyriding and videotape themselves doing it, then get convicted, with the videotape being used against them as evidence. How many times have we seen that scenarion play out on those true-crime TV shows??? More than a few. We seem to disagree on the lesons of history and how they are playing out today. Nothing wrong with that. The other point of contention lies in the level of civilization. I simply believe that "civilization" as a word is simply a veneer. It's like a nice fresh layer of paint which covers our baser instincts. Given the proper circumstances, I believe the larger portion of our population could easily revert to the kind of behaviour we're seeing elsewhere. On this, we also seem to disagree. That's okay, it makes for some intelligent discourse, but I don't believe we'll reach an accord on those points, so I'm going to simply let it lie rather than either of us flogging a dead horse. BTW, I appreciated your closing with a line about "as bad as Bush and company is...." or something of the sort. And yeah, I agree he's bad, I also agree that, bad as he is, I'd rather have him for a neighbour than Saddam. So, I think we've come as far as we can on the points we've exchanged. Thanks for the intelligent and insightful replies on the points we've discussed.

ARGUS: Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this one, but I havent had the time to do more than check my email and drop in for a couple minutes in the past week or so. Not applicable here??? How many times has the USA meddled in the internal affairs of other countries, only to have it come around and bite them in the backside a few years later??? They practically created Saddam, along with helping to arm Osama in the 80's, and helping to give him credibility among his throng of followers. I'm sorry, but history is repeating itself as we speak, and GWB is not remembering history, or if he is, he is certainly not learning anything from it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the USA should also be learning from the history of others. TThe USSR went bankrupt investing money into an endless war in the middle east. How's the American debt coming along thanks to this mess in Iraq??? How many hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent over there up until now??? How many more yet to be spent??? And Osama comes right out and says his master plan is to lure the USA into an un-ending war that will eventually bankrupt the country. BWG has learned as much from that statement as he did from the pre-9/11 warnings he received, ie; nothing to speak of. Not applicable??? Sorry, I cannot agree. I don't think it's illogical at all. Do you expect every country in the world to change at exactly the same rate, and in exactly the same way??? But that's okay, if you want to play that game, let's look back a little farther, say 5,000 years or so. No white men on North America. Europe and the western world still scratching at the ground with sticks, and having trouble starting a campfire. Meanwhile, China had developed a written language, was already beginning to keep a recorded history, had already had several dynastys rise and fall. China was, for millenia, a major seat of civilization. Fine art, pottery, silk trade, etc etc etc. Sorry, you can't just point to the past 30 years or so, and use that brief period as a basis to judge how much more civilised than the rest of the world we are. 30 years is barely a heartbeat in a historical timeframe. The entire history of the USA, and Canada for that matter, is a brief footnote in the recorded history of ancient countries like China and Japan. Civilizations rise, and they fall, and to believe that the USA is the be-all-end-all-final-product of the quest for civilization is another example of not learning from history. That would depend on how you define the "rest of the world". I can't recall too many human-rights abuse stories coming out of Denmark. Not very many stories about people being tortured in Holland. Haven't heard much about the Japanese torture chambers lately. Or the Australians. Sorry, I couldn't resist that one Well, I don't consider myself to be in a state of "hysteria" over all this. But I do believe that the USA, who is supposed to be the champion of human rights (at least that's the way they are painting themselves), should be better than those they are crusading against. My stand on this is simply that GWB in particular, and his administration in general, are a bunch of hypocrites. It all comes back to "Well, we're not supposed to torture these guys, but as long as our torture is less severe than their torture, it's alright". That seems to be the basis for your defense of these acts. That being said, I would rather be on the receiving end of the American torture, than that being performed by the insurgents in Iraq. But better yet, I'd rather keep myself a good distance from both. I make no secret of the fact that I don't like Bush or his cronies. But I have to say that when he decided to go into Afghanistan seeking Osama, I fully supported that move (not that my support means a drop of sparrow-spit to GWB). Iraq, however, was a totally different ballgame for a variety of reasons that I won't go into here. But Korea, China, Iraq et al, are the "Bad Guys". We expect this kind of behavior from them. We (or at least I) do not condone it, but realize it is there. And I do indeed criticize this behavior whenever the subject arises, be it in forum or conversation. Given the opportunity, I would gladly put a bullets in the heads of each and every one of the a$$es who performed the beheadings we were seeing a few months back. But I strongly doubt I'll ever get such a chance. I will, however, applaud the man who does so succesfully. But that was not the subject raised here. If Canadians were found guilty of the abuses the Americans committed in AbuGharaib and GuantanamoBay, I would be criticizing them, my own countrymen, as vociferously as I am the Americans who committed the deeds, and the administration who let it happen. And you say I'm being silly??? Okay, I'll give you silly. Assuming you are straight, the next time you shake some guy's hand, remember that it's only a matter of degrees, and you just had sex with him, at least to a small degree BTW, it's not my girlfriend, it's my wife. And she'd simply tell me to be sure and wear a condom. I married a rather open-minded girl. Actually, you should check some of the more recent news coming out of China. Penalties are a lot less harsh than they used to be. China has come a long way in the past few years, and it seems the progress is continuing. Yeah, I know, it's still only 20 years since Tianenmen Square, but then again, it's only about 35 years since Kent State University. As for you being the same a Mother Theresa, that's the best joke I've heard all day. Let me shake your hand Shaw, as was pointed out earlier. I always liked that one. But my favorite is Winston Churchill. Upon being told by a woman "You Sir, are drunk". He replied, "And you, Madam, are ugly, however, tomorrow morning I shall be sober". Which begs the Question, is Bush drunk, or ugly???

A friend of mine has a rather large backyard just outside a small town in Northern Ontario. He has a Rottie. A 160-lb brute of a dog. He also has a 4-year old daughter. His backyard is completely fenced in. When his daughter's friends come over to play, they are all put in the backyard, with the Rottie. The kids climb all over that poor dog. They pull his ears. They sit on his back. He loves it. The only time he has EVER made a threatening sound or gesture, is when an adult comes to the gate to try enter the backyard. But this only happens when the kids are out there playing. My friend or his wife has to go get the kids out of the backyard so their parents can take them home. As far as the Rottie is concerned, no one else is allowed in the backyard when the kids are back there playing. Best protection a kid could possibly have, as most adults are terrified of the dog. He won't let anyone other than his masters near any of those kids. As long as they are in HIS backyard, they are his to protect. Outside of his own backyard, he's fine with anyone, anytime. A few of the neighbouring parents would not, at first, let their kids play back there. But once they saw the way the dog protects the kids, they changed their tune rather quickly. That particular dog is so in tune with the kids, that if one of them falls and hurts himself, or starts crying for ANY reason, that dog will howl at the door of the house until my friend or his wife have come outside to attend to the child. There are always exceptions, of course, but the behavior of a dog is largely a product of his upbringing and training. A dog owner should be smart enough to realize how his dog will behave in different circumstances, and should take whatever measures are necessary to insure that his dog causes no harm. Banning dogs is like banning guns, or knives. A responsible owner will take appropriate measures. It's the irresponsible dog owners we need to legislate against, not the dogs themselves.

THELONIUS: I'm not quite sure what would constitute an "unsafe" grow-op. Maybe the lights are not wired properly??? Whatever. As for the roving, singing stoners, I'd be more worried about them butchering yet another rendition of "Radar Love" than about whether or not they'd try to steal my Doritos. Cheetos are out, man And Kumbaya is like, so sixties

Do you think it's OK to beat someone up if that person is threatening to murder you? Defending yourself from a murderous attack can hardly be described as beating someone up. The one is self defense, the other is inflicting physical violence upon a helpless victim. But you inititally pooh-poohed the post about the abuse of prisoners in AbuGharaib and Guantanamo Bay by saying that their treatment was mild compared to torture inflicted by the other side. For that, I pointed out that you're condoning the one simply because of the severity of the other. But your comparison above holds no water. A helpless prisoner can hardly be said to be threatening immediate murder.

Regulated and taxed, pot could be a huge source of additional income to the government coffers. Spin off incomes would include increase tourism. Every pot-smoking kid in the States, not to mention many other countries, would want to come up here for a Hash-Holiday. The arguments against legalization have always been feeble at best. Pot is a rather benign drug, whose long-term effects are far less severe than those of the harder drugs, and even alcohol. This could also contribute, albeit in a small way, to the reduction of violent crime. After all, alcohol adds fuel to the fire in the event of an argument, and often causes escalation to full-blown fistfights, and even more severe violence like stabbings and shootings. Have the same antagonists smoke a joint or two together, and they're suddenly quite "mellow", and fighting seems to lose it's appeal. Legalize legalize legalize.

Ever hear the saying "Those who do not remember their history are doomed to repeat it"??? What Americans were doing a generation ago is supremely important. Scratch off the fresh paint, and you still find the same old wood beneath. Good question.... So what you're saying is that it's okay to torture, because the other side uses techniques of torture that are far worse than what the Americans have done??? That's like saying "Beating someone up isn't so bad, because there are guys out there who actually murder people". And therein lies the answer to your previous question; we have no right to stand on the soapbox because by your very post you have just stated that the difference between us and them is only a matter of degrees of severity.

Haven't you folks read the papers??? He's working in Nevada as an Elvis impersonator. No shit, it was on the cover of World Weekly News, right beside the latest "Bat Boy" story. And we just KNOW that everything in that paper is the God's-honest truth

I cannot believe this thread is actually being taken seriously, or was posted seriously. A knife, when used as a weapon, is a stabbing instrument. As has already been pointed out in this thread, many things can be used to stab. Many things can be modified to become stabbing weapons. Many household tools could be used to stab WITHOUT any modification. Screwdrivers are the first thing to come to mind. Hell, even a stick can have one end sharpened and be made into a lethal weapon. Should we be banning/licensing ANYTHING which can be used as a stabbing weapon??? Are we gonna take away people's carpentry tools??? The tools they use to work on their cars??? How about knitting needles??? Those bloody things could be deadly with no modification at all. As long as we're going that far, better license all the trees in the country, because they can be made into an awfully lot of sharpened sticks. Better license windows because broken glass can be a deadly weapon, in the right hands. Watch out, those used CD's and DVD's could have the edges honed and be thrown like shurikens Sorry, but the whole concept is ludicrous. Beyond the current legislations regulating concealed weapons, or limiting the length of a blade which can be legally carried, the rest would be nearly impossible to implement, and silly to even try.

Back to some semblance of being serious..... A lot of points have been raised here, from heroism, to jingoism, to friendly fire, to under-training of troops. But it seems that many have ventured into the territory of whether or not any soldier is heroic. My spin is simple. A soldier does not become a hero when he gets shot. He does not become a hero after committing some daring deed in battler. To me, a soldier becomes a hero the moment he enlists, provided he enlists under the full knowledge and expectation that he may indeed be called upon to give his life for his fellow troops, his countrymen, his country. Those few who enlist just because they expect to get a good education through the military, and don't expect to ever go into battle are a slightly different story. But their time to prove their own heroism comes if and when they a called upon to go into a war zone. They do not need to prove their courage to me, or to you, only to themselves. Some have bailed out because they never expected to be called upon to fight, and when the time came, for some reason or other, they refused to go. But I will give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who enlists no matter what their reason, because the bottom line is this; they have answered the call. They are in the forces, prepared to do their duty, to protect their homeland. They are the shield behind which we all stand safe and secure. They have not the luxury to choose where they are sent, nor have they the power to determine the quality of their own training, In this they are pawns to higher powers. But the fact that they stand ready is, in and of itself, enough to warrant our respect. I salute anyone who has enlisted.

Well, it seems like a few of the more radical types in this forum have done that, yeah. Personally, I have a great deal of respect for anyone who is willing to put his life on the line to defend his country. But one of the things these troops fight for is the right to free speech, which, as you can tell, is being exercised on this board. Or perhaps you think that only your fellow Americans have the right to criticize your forces??? Check out some of the american forums, you'll see a hell of a lot worse than anything posted here. Try Democratic Underground for one. At least we haven't seen anyone on this board calling the troops "Rapists and baby killers" Your own fellow Americans do enough of that And a very Merry Christmas to you too. But waitaminute; "Screw you guys", kinda sounds like Bush's attitude towards the UN. Come to think of it, sorta sounds like his attitude towards anyone who doesn't agree with him, after all, didn't he say "With us or against us"???? Hmmm. In Iraq, we weren't with him. I guess he'll have to declare war on Canada next, after all, we have some oil fields, too. Good, solid diplomatic statesmanship. Yup. Gotta love him. Methinks this person be watching too much WWE wrestling. We can't end up being your 51st state. That's what Puerto Rico has become, in all but name. I think #52 is taken as well; US Virgin Islands. By the time you get around to Canada, you'll be up to about 150 states. Does anyone remember what happened the last time the USA decided to invade Canada??? Can you say "War of 1812"??? Nice job on rebuilding the White House, though. But if you're determined to invade, then dress warm, but leave the beer at home. When you get here, you can enjoy some of the good stuff Cool. I'll give you $500.00 for Lousiana. After all, lots of French-types there, so you should be itching to get rid of it. Good Cajun cooking, too. Honestly, you should use some high-SPF sunscreen. Your neck seems to be getting a tad red. In any case, HALFCANUCKISTANI, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you. Keep your head down, and watch out for friendly fire.

Naw....It can't be about oil, after all, Bush SAID it's not about the oil and we all know that HE'D never lie

Merry Christmas, everybody. I hope it finds you all well, and may you all find happines in the coming year

Good question. I suspect we'll never know the answer. But I think it's safe to say that Bush has never given us a truthful answer to that question. After all, if you've told the truth first time around, then you don't need to change your reason/excuse on a regular basis. But take note that during his address to the UN......... .....which certainly was not the original (WMD's) reason, or the second (Harboring terrorists) reason, or the third, fourth...... and so on ad nauseum. ....while using UN resolutions as justification??? Well, when you consider that by using the UN resolutions to justify his war, which he lauched WITHOUT UN approval, and AGAINST the specific wishes of the security council, well, I guess it could be argued that he's a hypocrit. It's kind of like seeing a jaywalker, and beating him up because he broke the law. Neither act is legal, but by breaking the law to punish someone else for breaking the law, you've invalidated your own point. And then he wonders why the UN doesn't like him and doesn't want to help him rebuild in Iraq. Personally, I don't like cleaning up messes made by others, and I don't expect them to clean up mine. Hypocrisy in all its glory. Well, let's see now, attacked a country without direct provocation. Attacked without UN approval. Arguably, broke international law in doing so. You make a pretty good case. But hey, it ain't an illegal war, after all, congress approved of it

Well, Okay...... Following quotes from Dictionary.com Can it be successfully argued that the USA does NOT benefit from us being her neighbour??? I think not. We are not a drain on USA's resources. Nor are we a source of cheap-labour-illegal-immigrants like Mexico. We are not the recipients of huge American monetary handouts, like Puerto Rico. We have never become a potential threat by allying ourselves with an enemy, like Cuba during the cold war. If for no other reason than Canada is non-aggressive to the extreme, our position as neighbour benefits the USA. But, we are also a major provider of various resources, which, despite NAFTA, the USA does not seem to mind placing tariffs on. We also provide brilliant minds. Many of our best professionals move to the USA to make more $$$, and to earn it in US dollars. Our police forces co-operate with those of the USA. The list goes on and on. So, in short, we are definitely a benefit to the USA, not simply a drain on their resources. We may be the greater benefactor of the relationship between our two nations, but to describe Canada as being "parasitical" would be ludicrous.

It is NOT a fact. That is your viewpoint and a lot of Americans. Actually, it is arguable that he's right, but only inasmuch as the Americans contributed HUGE amounts of arms to both Britain and Russia via the Lend-Lease act. Without those arms, Britain may indeed have fallen. As for the rest, there are a huge nember of war historians who disagree, and who say that Germany would still have lost without American intervention. Japan is another story altogether.

STOKER and KIMMY: Again, thanks for the great replies. I've learned a fair bit from both of your posts, and to me, that's what these forums are all about. Only got a minute today, so I can't really address any specifics, except for; yes, STOKER, I was joking. Thanks again to you both. I'll get back on this in the next couple days when I have some time.

Heya KIMMY. Thanks for the elaboration on STOKER's reply. Well reasoned. I like it. But, as with STOKER, I must address a few points..... And history shows us that this may not have been the wisest of moves for either country. Warhead delivery, yes. Missiles would be faster. But the justification here is that the development of Russian missiles were to blame for the Arrow's demise. But then, why use the BOMARK missile, designed for shooting down bombers, as a "replacement" for the Arrow??? According to STOKER's information, the BOMARK would be useless against incoming missiles. The whole reaction to the Sputnik was not well reasoned. The Arrow was scrapped for political reasons, and little more. We got sucked in to investing in US defense technology, which turned out to be essentially useless. Well, agreed. We are not a warlike nation. Nonetheless, it never hurts to walk softly and carry a big stick. As a nation, we do indeed walk softly. No stick, though. Back to the Arrow. If we had stuck to our guns, completed development of the Arrow, there is little question that we would be the undisputed leaders in flight technology today. Probably space-technology as well. This would be an immense economic benefit to the country. The technology that went into the Arrow could easily have been applied to civilian aircraft, spacecraft, etc etc. Why then, was the project completely scrapped, and all blueprints and research information destroyed??? Bad deal. The result of a deal with the USA. The crappy end of the stick. As a neighbour, I trust the USA not to attack us. As a business partner, I DO NOT trust the USA not to stab us in the back, no matter whether it's NAFTA, or defense systems. I agree with the last sentence, and am happy we are not one of the world's great aggressors. But the Arrow technology could have been so much more than just a fighter-interceptor. And with that technology, the air force that we DO maintain would be among the best in the world, rather than one of the most outdated. As I said to STOKER, it's nice to get such well thought-out replies. Thanks, KIMMY.

Wow. Great reply STOKER. Let me address some of it. BOMARK. That's the one. The point I was making is that co-operation with the USA's defense schemes has not always been in our best interest. Also, your point about the BOMARK needing a nuclear warhead; why would we buy a missile, without buying the warhead required to make it work as intended??? Were we sold only the missile, sans warhead??? If so, why would that be??? Makes no sense, like so many other deals we've had with the USA. I have no problem with co-operating with the BMD. My problem would be with actually putting Canadian money into it. It seems that whenever we do so, we get the short end of the stick. Jedi Mind Tricks. Heh heh heh. I like it.Ever hear the saying about not putting all your eggs in one basket??? But why, with the rest of the world developing better jetcraft, did we go along with Ike??? Consider the fact that the R&D done on the Arrow project was just beginning to pay dividends, with the sale of engines and housings to France, etc. Why scrap the whole project??? Why take such a loss??? Why didn't we sell the whole thing??? Sell the technology??? We could have made gazillions. I believe there was more to the deal with Ike than meets the eye. Can't prove anything, unfortunately, so it's simply one man's opinion. Maybe it was Jedi mind tricks. Heh heh. So you are saying that the United States created the North Korean and Iraninan missile and nuclear weapons programs? No. Both these countries were merely examples of the American attitude. I mean "with us or against us". Gimme a break. How about "disinterested third party". "There's bad guys out there, we gotta go get 'em" That seems to be the American attitude. Doesn't it seem strange to you that the USA gets involved in a war at least once a decade??? If there's a credible enemy, they go after him. If there's not, then they create him with rhetoric. Show me a country that has been a credible threat to the USA since WWII ended (Russia excepted). Then, show me why America has NEEDED to go to war so often in the past 50 years. Boeing Airborne Laser Cool. Good link. In all honesty, I wasn't up on this. Thanks. But I noticed a few things upon perusing the site, or perhaps the absence of a few things. First, I didn't find a description of how long it would take the laser to scrap a missile. Five second burn??? Ten??? Second, I notice that they "expect" to complete laser tests in 2004. Any updates??? Have they tested, and if so, how did the tests turn out??? Third, the automations systems. There was a notable absence of their test results as well Fourth, how many of these things can one country afford to maintain and have in the air all at once??? One?? Ten?? A lot of questions yet, but as a part of a multi-faceted defense, it would definitely be useful if they get it off the ground Again, thanks for the link. When you start saying a Micheal Moore movie is quite accurate in a debate, you tend to lose creditablity....... That's a Moore movie???? Are you serious??? I first saw the thing about 2 years ago. At the time I didn't even know who Moore was. The reason it came to mind was I saw the last hour of it on tv a couple weeks ago. I honestly didn't know that it's a Moore flick. Still funny, though. No it hasn't.......late sixites, same time as the Russians. Only difference, the Russians seployed a working system. Okay, then. Forty years. I stand corrected. Or, rather, sit corrected, with coffee in hand. But maybe we should be considering going with the Russian system if it's actually functional. That'd get GWB's panties in a knot. I don't think I said that the BMD would start a new arms race. I did allude to something else starting one. Be that as it may, Russia has theirs. You can bet that sooner or later, the USA will finally get it right, so then they'll have theirs, and everyone will be happy. My contention is that we should not be pouring any money into helping develop the BMD. Nor should we put money into deployment. If the USA wants ot have several in northern Canada as a first-line defense, fine. But they can foot the bill. STOKER: Thanks for the reply, well researched and intelligent. I'm glad I found this site. If you're typical of the members here, I'm going learn a lot, and enjoy doing it.