Harper's Missile Mindlessness Would Waste Billions

[Black Dog]

'sfunny to me that even the most cynical among posters here turn into wide-eyed naifs on this subject.

Because there's no way we can stop it, and if we agree to go along then at least we'll have some small say in things. Also, it won't cost us anything.

Erm...if we're not paying in, what makes you think we'd have a say? Hell, I doubt we'd have a say even if we were paying in. And if we did have a say, it wouldn't change the fact that missile defence is a wasteful, stupid and altogether useless idea. That last point is, to me, the most important.

You forgot another reason. We might get some aerospace supply contracts , and we could then reduce the meg-subsidies paid to private companies like Bombardier.

Muwahhaha. Like private sector success has any bearing on government subsidies. Shit, most aerospace/defense contractors are nothing more than fronts for the biggest scam on the planent, turning public dollars into private sector profits.

[BubberMiley]

Of course it's to supply military supply companies. I would say it is even incredibly naive to believe otherwise. The Iraq war was also started to supply companies like Haliburton with billions of dollars (and to loot the oil). The argument that it was because "Sadaam is evil" is laughable.

And that's why I could never vote for Harper, because I would never feel comfortable with a leader who would have blindly taken Canada into that quagmire.

I believe Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule (you break it, you own it), though I don't think the U.S. will follow that. They'll retreat for political reasons and leave a far worse situation than was there when they invaded, especially in terms of terrorism. Under Harper, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN EQUALLY TO BLAME.

I'm voting NDP, but no matter how much money he stole, I'll always dig Chretien for saving us from that.

[tml12]

Of course it's to supply military supply companies. I would say it is even incredibly naive to believe otherwise. The Iraq war was also started to supply companies like Haliburton with billions of dollars (and to loot the oil). The argument that it was because "Sadaam is evil" is laughable.

And that's why I could never vote for Harper, because I would never feel comfortable with a leader who would have blindly taken Canada into that quagmire.

I believe Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule (you break it, you own it), though I don't think the U.S. will follow that. They'll retreat for political reasons and leave a far worse situation than was there when they invaded, especially in terms of terrorism. Under Harper, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN EQUALLY TO BLAME.

I'm voting NDP, but no matter how much money he stole, I'll always dig Chretien for saving us from that.

Well, politically I'll let you off the hook for voting NDP...although far to the left it is probably the only respectful party other than the CPC.

Saddam is evil...of course oil played a part but you know what? With the Saudi Royal Family in trouble, the U.S. needed a Middle Eastern country behind them. Now, they have it.

And if Bush (who I am not a fan of...I did love his father though) can be sucessful, more power to the Americans.

[River_God]

Good Idea lets have the Americans put missile sites all over Canada so they won't need to send troops to steal our water.

It's very scary that Harper, Richard Perle and Conrad Black are all in bed together. Canada needs to wake up to this fact right away.

Hawkish author Tom Clancy (Patriot Games and The Hunt for Red October) "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle. "Perle was saying how Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."

Lawrence Wilkerson, General Colin Powell's chief of staff until January this year, alleged that US policy on Iraq before and after the March 2003 invasion had been hijacked by an alliance between Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, fostered by President George Bush's "detached" attitude to details of post-war planning.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americ...ticle330218.ece

Wilkerson even accused Vice-President Dick Cheney of creating the climate in which prisoner abuse could flourish, and implied that he might have committed war crimes.

Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/29/wil...w.ap/index.html

Richard Perle would have been a key puppeteer in this Hijacking of the US Government. If Perle’s Network penetrates into Harper’s Government (see diagram above) Canada could face the same kind of neo-fascist hijacking that happened in the US.

Complacent conservatives, of course, assure us that whatever happens, Canada has a strong constitution and the rule of law prevails.

However, the Perle network in the US led the Bush Administration to withdraw from several international treaties, and contravene several international laws.

Bush was recently quoted as saying the US Constitution was just a GOD-DAMN PIECE OF PAPER.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush said. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

http://www.comlinks.com/polintel/pi051214.htm

Remember how furious Harper was that Chrétien wouldn't let Canadian soldiers die "shoulder to shoulder" with Americans over Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction --- even when it was completely obvious that Iraq didn't pose any near-term threat to anybody?

Well the war drums are still beating. The neo-cons still have Iran, Syria and Venezuela in their gun sights.

How has Harper changed in the last few years. Probably not much -- though he may be more cunning.

If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now.

Richard Perle

It's hard to believe that key neocon puppeteers like Perle could change their philosophies that much overnight.

[Argus]

Martin was pretty wishy-washy about Iraq. There were rumours he was against Chretien's position, but there's little evidence to support that (though he probably was).

Martin is pretty wishy-washy about almost everything.

Harper's position was clear. How can you possibly say that isn't a reason to not vote for him? Demonstrating the lack of judgment to oppose a war that was clearly morally bankrupt is the best reason I can think of not to vote for him (and I can think of a lot).

But if someone is voting against him for that reason, they should probably be uncomfortable voting for Martin too and go NDP.

Because I supported the war in Iraq and still do, albiet for other reasons.

It's very scary that Harper, Richard Perle and Conrad Black are all in bed together. Canada needs to wake up to this fact right away.

You are obsessed with Harper's sleeping habits. This is about the sixth place you have posted this. Don't you have any new material? Surely you've got reams more conspiracy theory stuff tucked under that tinfoil hat of yours.

[River_God]

I supported the war in Iraq and still do, albiet for other reasons.

what other reasons Argus? Be honest and thorough if you can stomach it.

[Kula]

Hey RG, can you keep your posts down below 10,000 words?

[River_God]

Hey RG, can you keep your posts down below 10,000 words?

Do you have trouble reading Kula?

[Argus]

I supported the war in Iraq and still do, albiet for other reasons.

what other reasons Argus? Be honest and thorough if you can stomach it.

If I can stomach your posts I can stomach anything. I've explained my reasons before. I don't feel the need to explain anything much to you as I strongly suspect you won't be around for very long anyway.

[River_God]

I supported the war in Iraq and still do, albiet for other reasons.

what other reasons Argus? Be honest and thorough if you can stomach it.

If I can stomach your posts I can stomach anything. I've explained my reasons before. I don't feel the need to explain anything much to you as I strongly suspect you won't be around for very long anyway.

Once again argus, you are cluttering up this board with your mindless ignorance instead of clearly articulating your real agenda.

[scribblet]

I supported the war in Iraq and still do, albiet for other reasons.

what other reasons Argus? Be honest and thorough if you can stomach it.

If I can stomach your posts I can stomach anything. I've explained my reasons before. I don't feel the need to explain anything much to you as I strongly suspect you won't be around for very long anyway.

Once again argus, you are cluttering up this board with your mindless ignorance instead of clearly articulating your real agenda.

Thats a personal attack and against forum rules.

[Argus]

I supported the war in Iraq and still do, albiet for other reasons.

what other reasons Argus? Be honest and thorough if you can stomach it.

If I can stomach your posts I can stomach anything. I've explained my reasons before. I don't feel the need to explain anything much to you as I strongly suspect you won't be around for very long anyway.

Once again argus, you are cluttering up this board with your mindless ignorance instead of clearly articulating your real agenda.

I don't really have an agenda, per se. But I am sort of having some petty laughs mocking your loony, poorly articulated conspiracy theories.

Once again argus, you are cluttering up this board with your mindless ignorance instead of clearly articulating your real agenda.

Thats a personal attack and against forum rules.

Ah, everything he's done is against forum rules, but he does at least provide cheap laughs.

[River_God]

Ah, everything he's done is against forum rules, but he does at least provide cheap laughs.

That's doublethink argus. You guys have been mindlessly blasting my posts all day. When I point it out to you, you say I'm not playing fair and try to get me banned.

Everybody should understand that extremist neo-cons have no interest in debate. They are aggressively pursuing their agenda and try to demean anyone who questions them in four ways.

examples are:

(1) A petty, completely mindless, attempt at diverting the question, without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge it.

Try using the "Insert Image" feature.

Or, rather, please don't (by PocketRocket)

This has been used to a highly cluttering degree on this site

(2) Make fun of the question without making any attempt to answer it.

Can you provide a link with a picture of these guys holding hands??? That would make a wonderful addition to my collection of "Strange Bedfellows" pictures.

I can put it right beside Sonny and Cher (by PocketRocket)

A moderately funny attempt at diverting the question, without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge the issue.

(3) Moderate Belligerence under the guise of Humor

I'm afraid your tinfoil hat is wrapped a little too tight. Do you even read what you post? (by Cybercoma)

This is a moderately aggressive, completely mindless, hate filled attack. Note that cybercoma even sounds like Darth Vader (aka key neo-con puppeteer Richard Perle)

(4) Outright hate filled belligerence

With a nickname like RiverGod, hopefully the song they sing will be "Smoke on the Water", right after you and your conspiracy theories get nuked.

My word, you are certainly obsessed. (by PocketRocket)

Again a completely mindless attack without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge the issue.

The neo-con movement has clearly become unbalanced when media giants like FOX NEWS label the biggest capitalists in the world as “left-wing” if they don’t pledge unquestioning blind allegiance to Cheney and Bush’s Administration.

The American fanatical-right are trying to create a culture of double-think, where people who question the Iraq War are left-wing traitors who are endangering the troops. Stunningly, zealots who want to expand the crusade to Syria, Iran and Venezuela are supposedly keeping the troops safely out of harms way.

The sad reality is, of course, that the fanatical right is becoming more entrenched as the neo-fascist right (Pillaging National treasuries in the process). The neo-fascist corporate welfare scheme of pork-barreling military contractors and oil companies doesn't seem to be concerned with democracy, freedom or capitalism--it is far closer to an ideology of theft and repression.

[shoop]

Since RG cut and pasted his reply into two threads, I`ll do the same.

Actually it was a very fair question. They probably weren`t actually holding hands. So why would you say that they were? Why are you avoiding this question? pot-kettle kettle-pot

QUOTE(River_God @ Jan 9 2006, 12:12 PM)

Can you provide a link with a picture of these guys holding hands??? That would make a wonderful addition to my collection of "Strange Bedfellows" pictures.

I can put it right beside Sonny and Cher (by PocketRocket)

A moderately funny attempt at diverting the question, without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge the issue.

[PocketRocket]

River,

Chretien sent soldiers to Iraq secretly...

Only a few TML12, and Cretien would have much rather given the inspectors more time.

"Only a few". So that means it was not a secret, or not deception???

Is that like a teenage girl saying to her parents "I'm pregnant, but only a little bit"???

By the time the US invaded Iraq, Hussein had conceded everthing the US asked (except leaving the country or producing non-existent WMDs.)

I tend to believe this line of thought myself, but whatever does it have to do with the missile shield, or Harper's role in the upcoming election???

It was pretty obvious by March 2003 that Iraq had no WMDs, and the US didn't even alow Iraq time to dismantle the few mid-range misilles that did turn up.

See reply above.

All the high explosives at al-Qua were ignored for days after the invasion even though the weapons inspectors repeatedly told the US that this was a highest priority target.

See reply above

These same explosives, of course, were later used by Iraqi militants to kill and maim thousands of US troops.

But not any of the troops that Canada sent "secretly". Probably because we sent "only a few" troops secretly, so we were involved, but "only a little bit".

BTW, congratulations on a post without any capitals, large fonts, or colours.

I knew you could do it if you tried. Even if you only tried "a little bit", and even though, by comparison with some of your other posts, you used "only a few" words.

None of this is, however, related to Harper and the upcoming election. Not even a little bit.

[PocketRocket]

(1) A petty, completely mindless, attempt at diverting the question, without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge it.

Try using the "Insert Image" feature.

Or, rather, please don't (by PocketRocket)

This has been used to a highly cluttering degree on this site

Actually, you had asked for help as to how you could attach a graph, so it was a direct answer to your request.

The "please don't" was my own humorous(??) addendum to the information which you had requested.

So, no diversion, but rather a direct answer to your question.

Strike one.

(2) Make fun of the question without making any attempt to answer it.

Can you provide a link with a picture of these guys holding hands??? That would make a wonderful addition to my collection of "Strange Bedfellows" pictures.

I can put it right beside Sonny and Cher (by PocketRocket)

A moderately funny attempt at diverting the question, without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge the issue.

Well, thank you, it was a bit funny, wasn't it??

However, your post explicitely said they were "holding hands".

I asked for proof of this. While the request was phrased humorously, it was directly addressing your allegation, so it cannot be called diversion.

Strike two.

(3) Moderate Belligerence under the guise of Humor

I'm afraid your tinfoil hat is wrapped a little too tight. Do you even read what you post? (by Cybercoma)

This is a moderately aggressive, completely mindless, hate filled attack. Note that cybercoma even sounds like Darth Vader (aka key neo-con puppeteer Richard Perle)

Well, this one came from someone else, so I cannot take responsibility for it.

I can, however, agree with both the accuracy of the statement, and its general sentiment.

(4) Outright hate filled belligerence

With a nickname like RiverGod, hopefully the song they sing will be "Smoke on the Water", right after you and your conspiracy theories get nuked.

My word, you are certainly obsessed. (by PocketRocket)

Again a completely mindless attack without making any attempt to either answer or even acknowledge the issue.

"Hate filled belligerence"???

BWAH-HAH-HAH-HA-HA.

Sorry, but your paranoia may be sad, and sometimes amusing, but it is certainly not of sufficient consequence to arouse "hate" from me, not even mild anger.

Exasperation, perhaps. And if I was going to attack you with either hate or belligerence, it would not be done in the form of a one-liner.

Sorry.

Strike three.

The neo-con movement has clearly become unbalanced when media giants like FOX NEWS label the biggest capitalists in the world as “left-wing” if they don’t pledge unquestioning blind allegiance to Cheney and Bush’s Administration.

The American fanatical-right are trying to create a culture of double-think, where people who question the Iraq War are left-wing traitors who are endangering the troops. Stunningly, zealots who want to expand the crusade to Syria, Iran and Venezuela are supposedly keeping the troops safely out of harms way.

The sad reality is, of course, that the fanatical right is becoming more entrenched as the neo-fascist right (Pillaging National treasuries in the process). The neo-fascist corporate welfare scheme of pork-barreling military contractors and oil companies doesn't seem to be concerned with democracy, freedom or capitalism--it is far closer to an ideology of theft and repression.

While I may agree with you on some (only some) of the tendencies of the American far-right, it is still completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is Harper, and his role in the upcoming election.

All of you repetition will not serve to add relevance to this non-issue.

[PocketRocket]

I don't really have an agenda, per se. But I am sort of having some petty laughs mocking your loony, poorly articulated conspiracy theories.

Yes, he has been a wonderful source of amusement, hasn't he???

Hopefully he'll be around for quite some time.

[CoachCartman]

err

post Yesterday, 11:20 PM

Post #23

They wanted Canada to be a "partner" and put up $10 Billion if I remember correctly. They also want their weapons stationed all over Canada... All over the east coast... all over the west coast, and all over the north...

You are NOT remembering correctly. No money from Canada and no missles on Canadian soil.

[shoop]

Really err this isn`t like you.

Flat out lying about a reason to object to a policy decision.

The deal that was on the table when Martin walked away is as follows. No money from Canada, no weapons stationed anywhere in Canada.

So just because you *remember* it falsely doesn`t make for any sort of a reason.

They wanted Canada to be a "partner" and put up $10 Billion if I remember correctly. They also want their weapons stationed all over Canada... All over the east coast... all over the west coast, and all over the north...

Isn't that good enough of a reason....

[Shady]

If you'll stop and think for a moment, there's good reason not to implement the Star Wars system. Supposing they can get the accuracy up to say 80% hit rate on the defence shield (which is highly unlikely). What do you think the future mystery assailant will do ???? The most likely scenario is that they won't use an ICBM (inter-continental ballistic missile) that the Star Wars is to defend against. Wouldnt they show up near the coast in a fishing boat with a short-range missile.... Or how about delivering it in a suitcase. Or how about firing 10 of them... the fallout in the atmosphere would do the job anyways....

Suppose they can eventually get the accuracy up to say 100%? Or suppose that the time and money spent on this technology leads to new and better technologies? Why are you so against innovation? The implementation of "Star Wars" isn't necessarily to defend against individual "mystery assailants", it's to defend against accidental launches and/or rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. As for fishing boats and/or suitcases, that can already be attempted, no matter what type of security apparatus you wish to erect. You can try and play defense for the whole game, but it's not a very successful strategy. That's why the most logical and effective action is to go on offense, and change these people and the environments they develop in. However, it doesn't mean you leave the back door open, just because there's some windows that haven't been closed.

[River_God]

It doesn't mean you leave the back door open, just because there's some windows that haven't been closed.

You are right Shady. The Defense shield is a nice idea. So is the idea of using lithium-crystals to power cars (The Starship Enterprise, after all, has been running on lithium for decades)

You should look at what the chances are of making the Defense Shield / Star Wars project work before you start building silos and committing billions of dollars of tax money to the project.

The fact is, many top physicists, engineers and weapons experts have said that it isn't worth the cost considering the very low chance of success.

Moreover, it is absolutely clear that pursuing the shield will trigger another arms race--greatly increasing the chances that terrorists will get their hands on a nuke.

It's hard to convince Iran not to build nukes when you are spending $billions upgrading your own arsenals. Like El Baradei said "you don't have much credibility telling someone to quit smoking while you are chain-smoking yourself"

Of course, the defense shield has best been described as "the Biggest Corporate Welfare Scheme in the History of the World." Free enterprise at it's worst.

The only sensible thing to do with the shield is to put it on the back burner until there is a reasonable chance that it can be made to work.

There are far greater security risks than rogue-missiles to deal with.

Read my first post on this thread for more info, and/or do a web search to learn for yourself. It's ridiculous that conservatives are still backing this plan. It's more likely that they want to get on the corporate welfare gravy train.

[tml12]

It doesn't mean you leave the back door open, just because there's some windows that haven't been closed.

You are right Shady. The Defense shield is a nice idea. So is the idea of using lithium-crystals to power cars (The Starship Enterprise, after all, has been running on lithium for decades)

You should look at what the chances are of making the Defense Shield / Star Wars project work before you start building silos and committing billions of dollars of tax money to the project.

The fact is, many top physicists, engineers and weapons experts have said that it isn't worth the cost considering the very low chance of success.

Moreover, it is absolutely clear that pursuing the shield will trigger another arms race--greatly increasing the chances that terrorists will get their hands on a nuke.

It's hard to convince Iran not to build nukes when you are spending $billions upgrading your own arsenals. Like El Baradei said "you don't have much credibility telling someone to quit smoking while you are chain-smoking yourself"

Of course, the defense shield has best been described as "the Biggest Corporate Welfare Scheme in the History of the World." Free enterprise at it's worst.

The only sensible thing to do with the shield is to put it on the back burner until there is a reasonable chance that it can be made to work.

There are far greater security risks than rogue-missiles to deal with.

Read my first post on this thread for more info, and/or do a web search to learn for yourself. It's ridiculous that conservatives are still backing this plan. It's more likely that they want to get on the corporate welfare gravy train.

River,

Again I respect your decision. Actually, we agree 100% that missile defence is stupid, dumb, costly, and silly.

Why do I support it? Simple. It is about having a seat at the table.

If the U.S. is defending Canada and we don't know about it or how they are doing it, I have a lot of issues with that.

Martin's position that the U.S. will have to let Ottawa know is ridiculous. We backed out...we don't have to know anything.

The Liberals maintain only they can defend our sovereignty. But they can't even keep this country together. Martin promised strong leadership and was a consistent finance minister. I even almost voted Liberal in 2004 because I thought Martin could restore the dignity the Liberals had before years of Chretien loathing, arrogance, and scandals.

Yet after this Liberal government fell and I had time to analyze it over the holidays I realized what went on was shameful. Canada is no longer seen as a proud nation around the world. It is no longer seen period. People don't know what to make of us or who we are. Is this something to be proud of? Martin probably would have made a great PM. Instead, he was too self-assured...confident that he could take multiple positions, dither, and receive the support of everyone. Instead, his nature of extreme confidence proved him the ultimate ditherer. Once he got to the top, there was no more. Nothing greater he could strive for.

Sadly for them, the Liberals must face the punishment of bringing Canada to this level. I am voting Conservative because I believe that Harper can do a better job...

[River_God]

River,

Again I respect your decision. Actually, we agree 100% that missile defence is stupid, dumb, costly, and silly.

Why do I support it? Simple. It is about having a seat at the table.

If the U.S. is defending Canada and we don't know about it or how they are doing it, I have a lot of issues with that.

A seat at the table is a good thing along with keeping an eye on how security can be better upgraded.

Harper wanted more than a seat table though. He wanted to start building silos., and he was furious that Martin wouldn't back him up.

[shoop]

No he didn`t. My evidence the CPC Web site.

Any proof of this *wanted to start building silos* theory?

Harper wanted more than a seat table though. He wanted to start building silos., and he was furious that Martin wouldn't back him up.

[Shady]

You are right Shady. The Defense shield is a nice idea. So is the idea of using lithium-crystals to power cars (The Starship Enterprise, after all, has been running on lithium for decades)

Hmm, let's see. I'm not talking about Star Trek, and I thought it was dubbed "Star Wars", so why the reference to the Enterprise? However, I'd like to point out that this is a non sequitur argument.

You should look at what the chances are of making the Defense Shield / Star Wars project work before you start building silos and committing billions of dollars of tax money to the project.

Well, when you don't research and test, like you propose, I guess the chances drop dramatically.

The fact is, many top physicists, engineers and weapons experts have said that it isn't worth the cost considering the very low chance of success.

And many top physicists, engineers and weapons experts have said that it is worth the cost and experimentation.

Moreover, it is absolutely clear that pursuing the shield will trigger another arms race--greatly increasing the chances that terrorists will get their hands on a nuke.

Well, we all saw what happened to the Soviet Union the last time there was an arms race. It would be a shame if North Korea and Iran went bankrupt.

It's hard to convince Iran not to build nukes when you are spending $billions upgrading your own arsenals. Like El Baradei said "you don't have much credibility telling someone to quit smoking while you are chain-smoking yourself"

How exactly is protecting yourself from smoking like chain-smoking? Must be some new fancy "liberal logic".

Of course, the defense shield has best been described as "the Biggest Corporate Welfare Scheme in the History of the World." Free enterprise at it's worst.

No, it's not anything like welfare. These companies (people and families when you get down to it) actually do work for their money. Big difference.

The only sensible thing to do with the shield is to put it on the back burner until there is a reasonable chance that it can be made to work.

Again, if you stop the research and development, when exactly is the "time" that there will be a reasonable chance that it can be made to work? Maybe the same thing can be said about the gun registry?

There are far greater security risks than rogue-missiles to deal with.

So what, it doen't mean you don't try and protect yourself from them. Again, must be some fancy new "liberal logic".