Canadians should worry more about their own government than America's - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

gh0st · 02-23-2005, 02:40 PM

Fiddy Cent

xxxdesign-net · 02-23-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

What did old George say he wanted from us? Just "moral support"? Well if he said that, it must be true. He must not want to place missles and troops in Canada, and have us pay if we want to be protected ourselves. I mean, if Bush said it, you know it's 100% true. He'd never bend the truth to get what he wants.

troops and missile on the Canadian land..? Oh the horror!! Why do you think might happen from that.. concretely..?

Second.. if they ask us for money... We CAN say no you know..

btw.. here's a good article on the subject..
http://www.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/20...237884-cp.html

Without a partnership on the BMD ... we might just lose NORAD...

Webby · 02-23-2005, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRISK

I predict this thread will descend into stupid name calling

Course it will!

It's a banal thread started by a retard donkey - but that means some disrespect to donkeys :-)

Odie · 02-23-2005, 02:51 PM

I think he wants you to use countries like Haiti and Qatar..they have a stronger hold in the arms race lol...

DomBuyer · 02-23-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

What did old George say he wanted from us? Just "moral support"? Well if he said that, it must be true. He must not want to place missles and troops in Canada, and have us pay if we want to be protected ourselves. I mean, if Bush said it, you know it's 100% true. He'd never bend the truth to get what he wants.

xxxdesign-net · 02-23-2005, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Seriously, how old are you? These comments blow my mind.

You realize that the "world" doesn't open up and make laws, right? Countries have to set rules themselves, which they do by the way of treaties. There was an anti-ballistic missile treaty, which was as close to the "world making it illegal" as possible. Bush has withdrawn from this treaty to go ahead with SDI, and Canada would have to do the same to be a part of it.

lol.. do I really need to explain what I meant by "world" ?? REally? Should I have used a word like Convention to make it clearer for you?

Oh.. and Treaties can be modified and renogotiated to fit the times...

The ABM Treaty was signed in 1972 ...

rickholio · 02-23-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

That's the one that really blew my mind. If not China and Russia, who?

I honestly think this guy has a small child's understanding of the world, I'm going to stop wasting my time.

India. Pakistan. North Korea. Japan (don't laugh, they have the technology, and if the nationalist sentiment grows it could be bad news), Israel (What? The zionists biting the hand that feeds? Don't rule it out.), Germany, France...

Basically, if someone has a missile, there's a possibility it'll be used. It's currently unthinkable that, say, Japan would get uppity... but then it was unthinkable that men could fly, that women could vote, or that a little guy with 1 ball and a funny stache could use an economic downturn and a country's nationalism to brainwash the population into genocide and empire.

For the record, I think 'missile shields' in their current incarnation are retarded, for the basic reason that they just plain ol' DON'T WORK. The 'patriot' missile system is a perfect example, with reportedly less than 1-in-5 success rate (and possibly much lower), and that was only against a single re-entry vehicle that could be tracked from launch. This system they want to throw money at is something that can barely, if the weather is right and the stars are in the right alignment, take out single reentry, non-obscured, non-decoyed ballistic only weapons. Add ANY factor to countermeasure the system and it's rendered essentially useless. A factor like powered re-entry, or MIRVing warheads, or simply taking the fucking warhead in a briefcase or crate into the center of town and leaving it on top of a relatively tall building.

Systems MIGHT be developed to take out these things... imo, projectile vs. projectile will never amount to much more than a convient excuse to line the pockets of the mil contractors. Energy weapons vs. projectiles though, that's far more likely to be effective, and THAT'S where the weaponization of space comes in. Laser and particle accelerator platforms orbiting that can melt the fuckers mid-air. Of course, the problem with that kind of scenerio is that if you can melt a missile, you can melt a city... once that happens, control of the world is lost to those who's fingers are on the buttons, and those people are NOT going to be your favorite government du jour, it'll be the corporations.

Sorry I didn't decend into frivilous name-calling. I'll try to be more banal in the future.

xxxdesign-net · 02-23-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxdesign-net

Oh.. and Treaties can be modified and renogotiated to fit the times...

Russia was the main threat then , the treaty was signed with them ... now the theat is other nations.. THe US doesnt have a treaty with other nation and shouldnt have their hands tied because of it..
ANd btw... Russia has missile defense system to protect Moscow ..

rickholio · 02-23-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

What did old George say he wanted from us? Just "moral support"? Well if he said that, it must be true. He must not want to place missles and troops in Canada, and have us pay if we want to be protected ourselves. I mean, if Bush said it, you know it's 100% true. He'd never bend the truth to get what he wants.

Heh. Nice.

12clicks · 02-23-2005, 09:04 PM

hahaha, all the trolls took the bait. webby with his nothingness, Rich with his loud talk and no links. too typical

12clicks · 02-25-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

Carolyn Parrish has a pretty decent resource regarding SDI on her website, for the misinformed children who still buy the CNN line that this is a realistic, functional, defensive system that won't cost Canada a penny.

http://www.carolynparrish.parl.gc.ca...e%20(BMD).html

you two must be related. You both either lie to make your point or are just unaware of the world around you.

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content...at=8&id=328931

WASHINGTON ? The United States carried out a successful interceptor flight test for a sea-based ballistic missile defense system on Thursday, the U.S. Defense Department's Missile Defense Agency said.

It was the fifth successful interception in six tests for the Standard Missile 3 interceptor, the type which Japan plans to buy and install on its Aegis-system destroyers when it begins establishing its missile defense shield from the end of fiscal 2006. (Kyodo News)

jimmyf · 02-25-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Odie

you had to start something today didn't you Ron??:P

he must have run out of cheaters today

clickhappy · 02-25-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Canadians should worry more about their own government than America's

You mean like Americans flooding Canadian politicians with letters urging them not to allow same sex marriages in Canada?

rickholio · 02-25-2005, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

you two must be related. You both either lie to make your point or are just unaware of the world around you.

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content...at=8&id=328931

WASHINGTON ? The United States carried out a successful interceptor flight test for a sea-based ballistic missile defense system on Thursday, the U.S. Defense Department's Missile Defense Agency said.

Kindly don't mis-represent the results of one test and claim it has relevance to the other. AEGIS and similar short range systems have around for some time now, with 'variable' success.

I'd be curious to know if these 5-out-of-6 were actual KILLS, with shit blowing up, or just simulated intercepts or 'fly bys'... you'll pardon my skepticism, but these are the same guys who claimed that patriot missiles (which are basically the precursors to this system) took out 75% of incoming SCUDs from Iraq, when really they hit nothing but sky.. before falling to earth and doing damage themselves.

Additionally, these systems are only even somewhat effective against short range ballistics, and pretty useless against short range cruise missiles which are only marginally more difficult to manufacture. There's also a BIG difference between trying to catch an inbound ICBM essentially making a re-entry from the outer atmosphere barrelling downwards at several mach and a sub-sonic just-launched short range missile. There have been zero successful anti ICBM tests to date that I'm aware of.

12clicks · 02-25-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickholio

Kindly don't mis-represent the results of one test and claim it has relevance to the other. AEGIS and similar short range systems have around for some time now, with 'variable' success.

I'd be curious to know if these 5-out-of-6 were actual KILLS, with shit blowing up, or just simulated intercepts or 'fly bys'... you'll pardon my skepticism, but these are the same guys who claimed that patriot missiles (which are basically the precursors to this system) took out 75% of incoming SCUDs from Iraq, when really they hit nothing but sky.. before falling to earth and doing damage themselves.

Additionally, these systems are only even somewhat effective against short range ballistics, and pretty useless against short range cruise missiles which are only marginally more difficult to manufacture. There's also a BIG difference between trying to catch an inbound ICBM essentially making a re-entry from the outer atmosphere barrelling downwards at several mach and a sub-sonic just-launched short range missile. There have been zero successful anti ICBM tests to date that I'm aware of.

let me know which of the following words you don't understand so I can explain them to you:
"successful" or "ballistic" or "missile defense system"

rickholio · 02-25-2005, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

let me know which of the following words you don't understand so I can explain them to you:
"successful" ro "ballistic" or "missile defense system"

I understood each quite clearly. Perhaps you should re-read my comment so you can undertand what's in there. I'll use smaller words for you next time, if it'll help.

12clicks · 02-25-2005, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickholio

I understood each quite clearly. Perhaps you should re-read my comment so you can undertand what's in there. I'll use smaller words for you next time, if it'll help.

comments are like assholes.
I'll await your links proving that patriot missiles "hit nothing but sky", that the test I quoted have anything to do with "AEGIS and similar short range systems " or that Aegis systems have "'variable' success" or that the test I posted had anything to do with "short range ballistics" or that cruise missiles "are only marginally more difficult to manufacture"

I'll wait. but this is usually the part of the show where you blow away or start explaining how the info is out there but you won't bother getting it.

Spunky · 02-25-2005, 11:34 PM

Same old shit...bla bla bla Canadians are inferior and Americans are superior pig shit....snore fest propaganda

RRRED · 02-25-2005, 11:37 PM

I hear Canadians have small penises

12clicks · 02-25-2005, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RRRED

I hear Canadians have small penises

shit, I've seen that!

02-23-2005, 02:51 PM	#54
Odie Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The WATER BABY! Posts: 7,040	I think he wants you to use countries like Haiti and Qatar..they have a stronger hold in the arms race lol... __________________ Odie [email protected] Are you Mobile???? MMACanada ICQ # 166208354 See Who I Am At AdultWhosWho.com!

02-23-2005, 09:04 PM	#60
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,789	hahaha, all the trolls took the bait. webby with his nothingness, Rich with his loud talk and no links. too typical __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

02-25-2005, 11:34 PM	#68
Spunky I need a beer Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: ♠ Toiletville ♠ Posts: 133,944	Same old shit...bla bla bla Canadians are inferior and Americans are superior pig shit....snore fest propaganda __________________ *YOUR INFORMATION HERE*

02-23-2005, 02:40 PM	#51
gh0st So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 928	Fiddy Cent

02-25-2005, 11:37 PM	#69
RRRED Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: WA Posts: 6,754	I hear Canadians have small penises