I pit some Canadians for making me want to defend Bush administration...

[QuickSilver]

@World Eater

Asshat bigotry in govt picked up by the populace, say it ain’t so! Wasn’t there something with “Freedom” fries a few years back or was that my imagination?

I’m not suggesting that the US always takes the high road. Are you suggesting that this justifies the Canadian gov’t sinking to the same level?

[World_Eater]

@QuickSilver

I guess my reluctancy to try and convict the US as a brutal imperialist is due to the fact that a good half of the country voted against this administration. The pendulum will swing back and things will go back to a more “reflective” stance in the next election (or two).

The US has been brutally meddling with other countries for a long, long time. If 9/11 didn’t make us reflect on things, nothing ever will.

[QUOTEI’m not suggesting that the US always takes the high road. Are you suggesting that this justifies the Canadian gov’t sinking to the same level?[/QUOTE]

Maybe it’s nuance, but I don’t feel that calling out the US is sinking to their level. I see a big difference between renaming french fries to freedom fries and calling someone out for trying to pull a stunt with their soverignty.

[World_Eater]

What was that?

I said real post coding.

Now try it again, with me!

---

I guess my reluctancy to try and convict the US as a brutal imperialist is due to the fact that a good half of the country voted against this administration. The pendulum will swing back and things will go back to a more “reflective” stance in the next election (or two).

The US has been brutally meddling with other countries for a long, long time. If 9/11 didn’t make us reflect on things, nothing ever will.

I’m not suggesting that the US always takes the high road. Are you suggesting that this justifies the Canadian gov’t sinking to the same level?

Maybe it’s nuance, but I don’t feel that calling out the US is sinking to their level. I see a big difference between renaming french fries to freedom fries and calling someone out for trying to pull a stunt with their soverignty.

[QuickSilver]

@World Eater

The US has been brutally meddling with other countries for a long, long time. If 9/11 didn’t make us reflect on things, nothing ever will.

I don’t think I want to go down that road in this thread.

@World Eater

Maybe it’s nuance, but I don’t feel that calling out the US is sinking to their level. I see a big difference between renaming french fries to freedom fries and calling someone out for trying to pull a stunt with their soverignty.

If I’m not mistaken, Canadian and French officials have thrown childish and rude insults at various members of this administration in public venues. In my books, it shows poor diplomacy and class. A far cry from “freedom” fries. And, yes, there has also been a wealth of negative comments about France by American media. But I don’t recall anyone actually singling out French politicians. I may be wrong. Please correct me.

Anyway, it’s been fun but I’m tired and ready for bed. :o

Tomorrow is another day.

[Uzi]

@QuickSilver

What about the pyramids? I bet they cost a pretty penny and look how useful they turned out to be!

The gun registry would be the biggest waste of money ever. The pyramids are at least a good tourist draw.

[mks57]

@FinnAgain

You wouldn’t have a problem with US jets and missiles being in your airspace, and perhaps damaging civilian populations, as long as another country struck first? Let’s say North Korea lobbed a nuke at us and for some reason it passed over Canada (I think the geography for this is all wrong, but anyway…) America chooses to shoot it down near a major Canadian population center. The warhead detonates.

General prognosis: many megadeaths. No blame.
(My ass no blame!)

Doesn’t Canada have the right to dictate US terms of engagement within it’s sovereign airspace?

Your scenario is not plausible. Nuclear weapons do not detonate like conventional explosives. The system that arms and detonates a nuclear weapon is complex, relatively delicate, and requires precision timing. Any significant damage to that system would effectively disable the weapon.

[Uzi]

@FinnAgain

You wouldn’t have a problem with US jets and missiles being in your airspace, and perhaps damaging civilian populations, as long as another country struck first? Let’s say North Korea lobbed a nuke at us and for some reason it passed over Canada (I think the geography for this is all wrong, but anyway…) America chooses to shoot it down near a major Canadian population center. The warhead detonates.

General prognosis: many megadeaths. No blame.
(My ass no blame!)

Doesn’t Canada have the right to dictate US terms of engagement within it’s sovereign airspace?

I’m not interested in arguing the merits of this missle defense system as I don’t think a missile is going to be the delivery system used to get a nuke to the US. But, if someone did launch a nuke using a missile and if the US did have an effective method of destroying that missile in flight, then it would be naive to think that the US would wait until that missile was over its own territory before detonating it if it could do so sooner. Actually, I think it would be downright criminal of whoever would be in charge in the US at the time. Your government should be defending you, not worrying about how others might feel about it after the fact.

Frankly, you only have as much sovereignty as you have the ability, or willingness, to defend. It is only by the good will of the US that we have any say in the matter at all because there is little we could do if they decided to get ornery (Waiting for the usual War of 1812 reference at this point…).

[World_Eater]

@Uzi

I’m not interested in arguing the merits of this missle defense system as I don’t think a missile is going to be the delivery system used to get a nuke to the US. But, if someone did launch a nuke using a missile and if the US did have an effective method of destroying that missile in flight, then it would be naive to think that the US would wait until that missile was over its own territory before detonating it if it could do so sooner. Actually, I think it would be downright criminal of whoever would be in charge in the US at the time. Your government should be defending you, not worrying about how others might feel about it after the fact.

So if Canada gets intel that a hijacked airplane is headed for Toronto they can fly into US airspace and shoot it out of the sky right?

[Uzi]

@World Eater

So if Canada gets intel that a hijacked airplane is headed for Toronto they can fly into US airspace and shoot it out of the sky right?

A mouse living next to the elephant does what the elephant wants unless the elephant agrees otherwise, not the other way round. I’m not saying it is right, but it is reality. Read what I said about ability and willingness.

[World_Eater]

@Uzi

A mouse living next to the elephant does what the elephant wants unless the elephant agrees otherwise, not the other way round. I’m not saying it is right, but it is reality. Read what I said about ability and willingness.

The US violates Canadian airspace to save lives, but Canada can’t do the same?

Just asking

[Gorsnak]

@World Eater

So if Canada gets intel that a hijacked airplane is headed for Toronto they can fly into US airspace and shoot it out of the sky right?

Well sure. You’ve heard of NORAD, right? North American air defense is coordinated under a unified command.

[World_Eater]

@Gorsnak

Well sure. You’ve heard of NORAD, right? North American air defense is coordinated under a unified command.

The same thing can be said for missile defense.

[Uzi]

@World Eater

The US violates Canadian airspace to save lives, but Canada can’t do the same?

Just asking

I’m not saying they couldn’t. I’m just saying that if Canada violated US airspace, the consequences to Canada could be far graver than the reverse. What could Canada do if their airspace was violated other than bitch about it? The US could do many things if they wanted to. Again, I’m not saying it is fair, or right, but it is the reality. If you are being picked on by a larger neighbour you can always call the cops to stop it, but what do nations do? Call the UN <snort…chuckle…BwaHAHAHA!>?

[Gorsnak]

@World Eater

The same thing can be said for missile defense.

Except that the NORAD agreement doesn’t cover missile defense, where it does cover all manner of fighter interception of aerial threats. Pesky things, those treaty things. You keep having to live up to the stuff that’s in them, but not the stuff that’s not. It’s just so unfair.

[World_Eater]

@Uzi

The US could do many things if they wanted to. Again, I’m not saying it is fair, or right, but it is the reality. If you are being picked on by a larger neighbour you can always call the cops to stop it, but what do nations do? Call the UN <snort…chuckle…BwaHAHAHA!>?

I dunno, someone could fly a few planes into some buildings, or detonate a nuke in DC. Who knows? Spending all our money chasing ghosts (ICBM missile defense) in lieu of taking actual precautions (securing shipping ports) might even make that easier to accomplish. Not acting like some raging global asshole probably doesn’t help either.

[FinnAgain]

@mks57

Your scenario is not plausible. Nuclear weapons do not detonate like conventional explosives. The system that arms and detonates a nuclear weapon is complex, relatively delicate, and requires precision timing. Any significant damage to that system would effectively disable the weapon.

I do not believe you’re correct, and evidently some others agree.

The Airborne Laser was conceived by the U.S. Air Force as the most effective near-term defense against the growing threat of tactical and theater-range ballistic missiles. The ABL will consist of a 747-400F jet equipped with extremely precise targeting systems and a powerful chemical oxygen-iodine laser capable of shooting down ballistic missiles during their vulnerable “boost” phase shortly after launch. The ABL’s laser is designed to cause ballistic missiles to break apart or explode while they and, more importantly, their warheads are still over the enemy’s territory. Thus, the fear that nuclear, chemical or biological warheads might detonate within a rogue regime’s borders could deter the launch of ballistic missiles armed with such warheads.