CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 125
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:36 pm
 


Scape Scape:
If the choice was a cure to cancer, AIDS, eradication of poverty and pollution, accessible and free health care, education and transportation for all major cites vs weapons in space then which would you choose? This is an either or choice as the cost is that high as we are talking in trillions.

The trillions that will be spent on this could be spent on more effective projects. The credence that weapons in space will better defend rings hollow when you consider just how expensive it is. Weapons in space should be considered when we have colonies in space that we derive resources from, thus something to defend and with the means to support said weapons.



$1:
f the choice was a cure to cancer, AIDS, eradication of poverty and pollution, accessible and free health care, education and transportation for all major cites vs weapons in space then which would you choose? This is an either or choice as the cost is that high as we are talking in trillions.


Unrealistic. How close do you think ANY of those things are even close to being accomplished? I think weaponization of space is alot closer than any of those. Even if those things are accomplished, the threat of terrorism will still be there and will ultimatly be greater than ever. Dont forget, some of these terrorists blame the west for their misfortunes and poverty.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 28955
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:44 pm
 


Precisely because your willing to throw trillions away on a crap shoot that is weapons in space. What is unrealistic is thinking more weapons is the going to lead to more peace when it is driving deficit spending. Running the books in the red with this will not ensure anything but poverty.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10896
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:46 pm
 


W.Bush Esquire W.Bush Esquire:
Dont forget, some of these terrorists blame the west for their misfortunes and poverty.



don't you mean:

Dont forget, some of the people on this forum blame the west for their misfortunes and poverty.

????


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1682
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:47 pm
 


as well as he's democratizing the Middle East the only real effect will be to farther screwuperize the American people. You can quoterize me on that.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 125
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:51 pm
 


figfarmer figfarmer:
as well as he's democratizing the Middle East the only real effect will be to farther screwuperize the American people. You can quoterize me on that.


He can democratize the Middle East if the people would actually LET him. Muslims as a whole appreciate his efforts, the small minority of fundamentalists oppose his efforts. Err do you mean screw up the world...or just the American people because it affects everybody.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3854
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:52 pm
 


Scape Scape:
If the choice was a cure to cancer, AIDS, eradication of poverty and pollution, accessible and free health care, education and transportation for all major cites vs weapons in space then which would you choose? This is an either or choice as the cost is that high as we are talking in trillions.

The trillions that will be spent on this could be spent on more effective projects now. The credence that weapons in space will better defend rings hollow when you consider just how expensive it is. Weapons in space should be considered when we have colonies in space that we derive resources from, thus something to defend and with the means to support said weapons.


Don't ask the U.S. this question. Ask the other shady countries that force us to continually be the country who has to counter every bad seed.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12283
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005 7:56 pm
 


If any terrorists decide to nuke the US it will NOT be with ICBMs. If the purpose of the missile defence shield is to protect America from terrorists or "rogue states" it won't work.

Man, what a complete waste of money...


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 125
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005 8:01 pm
 


Freaker Freaker:
If any terrorists decide to nuke the US it will NOT be with ICBMs. If the purpose of the missile defence shield is to protect America from terrorists or "rogue states" it won't work.

Man, what a complete waste of money...


Your right it wont be with ICBMs. I hardly consider N.Korea a terrorist state..China possibly...Iran to name a a few.

To say its a waste of money is too presumptious. Maybe it will work, maybe in the future but saying its a waste of money now is assuming too much.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 10896
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005 8:02 pm
 


Freaker Freaker:
If any terrorists decide to nuke the US it will NOT be with ICBMs. If the purpose of the missile defence shield is to protect America from terrorists or "rogue states" it won't work.

Man, what a complete waste of money...


It’s an offensive weapon not defensive like they say. But they need to sell it so ……..


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12283
PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2005 8:17 pm
 


W.Bush Esquire W.Bush Esquire:
Freaker Freaker:
If any terrorists decide to nuke the US it will NOT be with ICBMs. If the purpose of the missile defence shield is to protect America from terrorists or "rogue states" it won't work.

Man, what a complete waste of money...


Your right it wont be with ICBMs. I hardly consider N.Korea a terrorist state..China possibly...Iran to name a a few.

To say its a waste of money is too presumptious. Maybe it will work, maybe in the future but saying its a waste of money now is assuming too much.


MAD worked just fine to protect America during the cold war and will continue to deter other nations from using ICBMs in the future. Therefore, the missile shield is a waste of money.

Unless....
$1:
It’s an offensive weapon not defensive like they say. But they need to sell it so ……..
....Georgie and the boys have been telling more lies and have a different purpose in mind for BMD. 8O


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 327
PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2005 12:18 am
 


Freaker Freaker:
If any terrorists decide to nuke the US it will NOT be with ICBMs. If the purpose of the missile defence shield is to protect America from terrorists or "rogue states" it won't work.

Man, what a complete waste of money...


Well guess what, I unlike you am paying for this through my taxes and I happen to think it is a GREAT idea.

In light of the anti-US hostility recently demonstrated by our so-called "allies," it is more important than ever for us to maintain leverage in terms of diplomacy, economic might, and most importantly military power. A great battle will be fought between the USA and the have-nots in the coming decades, and BMD is one essential component of our forthcoming victory.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron
 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.