yeah it most deifintely should, i was just kiddin. in fact, we have tried to invade canada 5 different times in our nation’s histroy, and we have not succecded once
Those Canadians sure can be courageous little buggers. ^_^
I’m not a great communicator so forgive as I lean on the better communication skills of others. The essay linked to below pretty much says everything I think and feel about Bush’s state of the Union speech. The author elquently points out several flaws in Bush’s logic that I for one would like answers to before agreeing that we need to go to war.
Sum Kritik - i am a doctor (almost)
Zero - Hear hear!
And yes, we Canadians are courageous, thanks.
Those Canadians sure can be courageous little buggers. ^_^
Yeah, I try my best not to piss of the Canadians. Drunken polar beers from Canada are never the solution.
yeah it most deifintely should, i was just kiddin. in fact, we have tried to invade canada 5 different times in our nation’s histroy, and we have not succecded once
That was before we had a military 100 times as powerful as theirs and before we bought 90% of their exports.
Anyway, I said we should annex not invade.
Yanny, artillery rockets for delivering sarin … Those pipes he mentioned are probably for rockets delivering nerve gas, not for enriching plutonium for nukes.
Well, if you denied them artillery, they would be totally defenseless to any country deciding to invade for any reasons.
Even a grenade launcher can be used to deliver chemical weapons, as can those little planes that are used to spay insecticides (sp?), let alone any person with a glas or plastic bottle….
So, unless we find the ammunition that is designe dto carry chemial weapons, you can only suppose that the arti would be used for that reasons and not with conventional weapons.
@F_alk:
Yanny, artillery rockets for delivering sarin … Those pipes he mentioned are probably for rockets delivering nerve gas, not for enriching plutonium for nukes.
Well, if you denied them artillery, they would be totally defenseless to any country deciding to invade for any reasons.
Even a grenade launcher can be used to deliver chemical weapons, as can those little planes that are used to spay insecticides (sp?), let alone any person with a glas or plastic bottle….
So, unless we find the ammunition that is designe dto carry chemial weapons, you can only suppose that the arti would be used for that reasons and not with conventional weapons.
That’s a complete oversimplification. The weapons inspectors are able to determine the probable use of the artillary shells by their dimensions, capacity, etc. Iraq is allowed to possess shells up to a certain range, but nothing beyond that.
5km range is artillery, and nothing else. I could put Biological weapons in a coke can if I wanted to.
Artillery is probably the most important force on the battlefield, after the individual soldier. Iraq is aloud to have Artillery, as any nation should. Bush competely lied to us when he said these weapons were prohibited.
This concept of current borders created by Evil EUROPEAN Imperialists being sacrosonct is ludicrous.
@Deviant:Scripter:
@F_alk:
Yanny, artillery rockets for delivering sarin … Those pipes he mentioned are probably for rockets delivering nerve gas, not for enriching plutonium for nukes.
So, unless we find the ammunition that is designe dto carry chemial weapons, you can only suppose that the arti would be used for that reasons and not with conventional weapons.
That’s a complete oversimplification. The weapons inspectors are able to determine the probable use of the artillary shells ….
See what you wrote:
shells
See what i wrote:
ammunition
So, where is the difference?
You need the shells/ammunition to decide wether they are for chemuical weapons or not……
This concept of current borders created by Evil EUROPEAN Imperialists being sacrosonct is ludicrous.
True…
but you can be sure that no country would give away a whiff of territory…
And Iraq already tried once to overrule that concept… and lost the support of the US earning their animosity for it.
Ironically, Kuwait is culturally and socially accurate in it’s borders
TG Moses VI, No, I didn’t get to meet him. There were 5000 at the seminar. I think he’s 119 :P !
…Kuwait is culturally and socially accurate in it’s borders
… as per the Quran?
…When we annex Canada and combine RI and CT into one state we should make Canda into a state called “New Washington”
…But what would you call RICT?
I hope Canada and Mexico invade the US. We can surrender quickly and give CA to Mexico. We can give New England and WA to Canada. We can arrange reparations at the same time and give NY to the African Americans, FL to the Hispanics(or to Cuba) and Seminoles, and NC to the Cherokees. Some states in the Midwest and Plains states will have to be split up among the other Original Native Americans.
We must at least get rid of CA, WA and New England!
As Bush mentioned 15.2 billion for AIDS in Africa…
And yesterday added 16 billion for AIDS in the US…
(I looked back and found no AIDS topic until page 6 of General Topics [actually STDs])…
His plans do not include condoms… thank a deity…
But, how would drugs help? The Africans would, most likely, not be as reliable at taking meds, and this would help develop drug resistant strains of HIV.
If we send money it will end up in Bill Clinton and Nelson mandella’s hands and their cronies. Clinton has been over there a lot lately. He and Mandella have already set up a ‘support’ program for America to support :wink: ! Where do you think the money will go :roll: ?
How about New New Jersey?
The people of Kuwait have been a semi-autonomous, homogenous group of people residing there for centuries.
@Sum:
TG Moses VI, No, I didn’t get to meet him. There were 5000 at the seminar. I think he’s 119 :P !
…Kuwait is culturally and socially accurate in it’s borders
… as per the Quran?
…When we annex Canada and combine RI and CT into one state we should make Canda into a state called “New Washington”
…But what would you call RICT?
I hope Canada and Mexico invade the US. We can surrender quickly and give CA to Mexico. We can give New England and WA to Canada. We can arrange reparations at the same time and give NY to the African Americans, FL to the Hispanics(or to Cuba) and Seminoles, and NC to the Cherokees. Some states in the Midwest and Plains states will have to be split up among the other Original Native Americans.
We must at least get rid of CA, WA and New England!
LOL, Canada invade us? :lol: Canada’s most important part of their military consists of a guy holding a telephone with the United States on speed-dial……
I know, if anyone invaded Canda we would be called in to defend them
Keep in mind, if the US got into a Third World War, Canada would be the first country to rally behind us.
Keep in mind, if the US got into a Third World War, Canada would be the first country to rally behind us.
exactly.
and not just with material goods either.
D:S - i realize you were kind of joking, but here are some facts:
By US standards, Canadian defence spending is abysmally low, but at just over over $12 billion Canada is in the top 10 per cent of military spenders worldwide. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) lists the defence spending of 160 countries in 2001, with Canada ranked at 16.1 The former US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, in its last report, used 1997 figures to rank Canada 16th from the top of a list of 167 countries (and 6th from the top in military spending per soldier).2 The International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London ranks Canada as the 7th highest military spender of NATO’s 19 member states (within the top third of non-US members). In a list of 46 European and North American states, IISS ranks Canada as 8th from the top – in other words, Canada ranks within the top 20 per cent.
In terms of the personnel strength of the armed forces (regular military personnel), IISS ranks Canada 11th out of 19 in NATO, and 17th out of 46 in Europe/North America.
The one measure by which Canadian military spending has ranked well below the global average over the past several decades is as a proportion of Gross National Income (GNI).
now why would a country with so few enemies require such spending as to be in the top 10% of the world with one of the smallest populations (30 million people)? Nato and peacekeeping commitments are the first to come to mind. We have token defence in terms of our Arctic Rangers, as well as a reasonable naval patrol, however the vast majority of our resources are in NORAD, NATO and UN peacekeeping forces. So shut up.
:P
