PocketRocket Posted December 16, 2005 Report Posted December 16, 2005 Well, seeing as this thread started out being about BMD, I'll simply address that issue and leave the partisan bickering to the rest of you. Speaking of BMD's, has the USA had even a single successful test yet??? As of last spring, their batting average was 0-3 in rigged tests that should have been a cakewalk for the system. Personally, I don't like the idea of having misslies fired over my head to chase other missiles fired over my head, knowing full well that the second set of missiles has not completed a successful test, and could decide arbitrarily to land pretty well anywhere it chooses. Presumably the first set of missles would be aimed at a static ground target, and considering normal ballistic missiles have a proven track record for accuracy, odds are that it'll at least go off when and where intended. Odds are also pretty high that the missile would be aimed at the USA, not Canada for the simple reason that Canada poses no threat to any7 nuclear power. The USA on the other hand...... No, IMHO, Bush can have his newest military tinkertoy all to himself. As long as the USA is the sole superpower, and considers herself to be threatened by other powers, it is in her best interest to protect both Canada and Mexico, and in so doing, keep her enemies beyond arm's-length. Quote I need another coffee
Montgomery Burns Posted December 16, 2005 Report Posted December 16, 2005 Yet another example of Paul Martin saying one thing, yet doing another when push comes to shove. Here are a number of, credited, quotes when he wasn't *fundamentally opposed* to BMD.Somebody save us from *another* term or Martin's flip flopping... "What possible benefit is it for us to stay away from the table?" (Toronto Star, April 29, 2003). "If there is going to be an American missile going off somewhere over Canadian airspace, I think Canada should be at the table making the decisions." (CBC, May 1, 2003). "We have to be at the table to essentially make sure that whatever decisions that are going to be taking place are taking place in Canada’s interests." (Ottawa Sun, January 9, 2004). "In response to a question about why the PM is in talks with U.S. President George Bush regarding the missile defence system, he said Canada can't walk away because it would lose control of its own air space. The PM said that 'nobody should trifle with Canadian air space unless Canadians say it's okay,' he said, making clear that 'I will not sign any agreement that involves the weaponization of space.' (Liberal Party Press Release, June 23, 2004). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's not flip-flopping, that's John Kerryesque "nuance". Us dumb rubes just aren't sophisticated enough to understand it. Quote "Anybody who doesn't appreciate what America has done, and President Bush, let them go to hell!" -- Iraqi Betty Dawisha, after dropping her vote in the ballot box, wields The Cluebat™ to the anti-liberty crowd on Dec 13, 2005. "Call me crazy, but I think they [iraqis] were happy with thier [sic] dumpy homes before the USA levelled so many of them" -- Gerryhatrick, Feb 3, 2006.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.