![]() |
Personally, I think they'd shoot at Europe first.
|
lucky canada. Now tell the cow to stay out of my back yard as well. Can't blame them for not wanting to support a deeply flawed, politically outdated, internationally hostile US military-industrial porkbarrel project.
|
Quote:
"If" the shield works beyond any organizations desire to test it. And the big one, "If" for some reason an attacker lumps Canada and the US in the same catagory. Sounds like a lot of "If"s to get involved in a project that may very well cause an increase in the rest of the world to view Canada and the USA as the same. To me, that sounds like the far more dangerous option. |
Oh, I dunno whether it's a good or bad idea. I don't know whether it will work or what the type of attack will be. I'm glad I don't have to be the one to decide.
However, I do know the rest of the world doesn't recognize your level of nuance. 80% of Canuck trade is with the US, ergo the interests are wildly connected no matter what any pol says. Terror in an unhardened Toronto target would be highly effective to the rest of NA. And actually, it doesn't have to work to be effective. |
I could not have said it better.
Quote:
Well, except for that part about the cow.http://www.cellar.org/images/newsmilies/eyebrow.gif |
Nobody gets attacked for who their trading partners are.
You'll note who's been targetted since Iraq. Countries who were at least seemed to partner with the US militarily, politically or ideologically. |
*shrugs* Rice always came across as a class A bitch to me.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
When's the last time the US ever gave a rat's ass about Canada, anyhow? Look at the comments at the beginning of this thread. Someone bombing Canada would mildly irritate the US, but so what? Nice symbolic gesture, can we switch the channel back to "The Simpson's" now? |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.