Clearly liberals are promoting durg addiction again - Page 4

Clodfobble · 03-02-2005, 02:50 PM

Personally, I think they'd shoot at Europe first.

jaguar · 03-02-2005, 02:53 PM

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 Can't blame them for not wanting to support a deeply flawed, politically outdated, internationally hostile US military-industrial porkbarrel project.

Silent · 03-02-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If the shield works, and the US says it won't necessarily shoot down north-bound items, Canadian cities become "unhardened targets" representing the west in general. If the shield works it would become a waste of time and money to shoot at Seattle. But Vancouver...!

"If" the method of an attack against America is missile.
"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.

Undertoad · 03-02-2005, 03:44 PM

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.

BigV · 03-02-2005, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaguar

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 Can't blame them for not wanting to support a deeply flawed, politically outdated, internationally hostile US military-industrial porkbarrel project.

Jag--I wish I could have said that.

Bravo!!

Well, except for that part about the cow.

Silent · 03-02-2005, 05:36 PM

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.

jaguar · 03-02-2005, 05:55 PM

*shrugs* Rice always came across as a class A bitch to me.

Happy Monkey · 03-02-2005, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie

Unless, of course, one of the missles hits Toronto instead of Buffalo which, on the bright side, would produce about 162 million kilos of Canadian bacon. Mmmmmm. Bacon.

The bonus I was referring to was the avoidance of having to host a Condi visit.

Schrodinger's Cat · 03-02-2005, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If the shield works, and the US says it won't necessarily shoot down north-bound items, Canadian cities become "unhardened targets" representing the west in general. If the shield works it would become a waste of time and money to shoot at Seattle. But Vancouver...!

Why bother? As has already been discussed, Canada's military is pretty toothless right now. So, someone wipes Canada right off the map. Then what? Whoever the entity is that decides to attack Canada has wasted a bunch of perfectly good weapons for nothing, because they didn't do anything about the biggest, meanest kid on the block who happens to live next door.

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?

03-02-2005, 02:53 PM	#47
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	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. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

03-02-2005, 05:55 PM	#52
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	shrugs Rice always came across as a class A bitch to me. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

03-02-2005, 02:50 PM	#46
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Personally, I think they'd shoot at Europe first.

03-02-2005, 03:44 PM	#49
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	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.

03-02-2005, 05:36 PM	#51
Silent Romanes Eunt Domus Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 702	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.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)