I want to say to you and to the rest of our Canadian friends that I totaly respect and care about you. I would gladly give my life to defend a friend of America.

I am so ******* pissed off right now
I just spent over an hour writing a response i go to post and IT WANTS ME TO SIGN IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AGAIN!!!!!

ALL WASTED!!!!!!!!!!

You'* can argue this out yourselves, im done with this crap

Come now. Like Will said, we were having a mature (or mostly so) conversation. There isn't anything wrong with a little debate...it helps everyone involved to clearify and strengthen their views.

I like your opinions Matt dont stop. I might not agree 100% with you but I do agree you should have your opinion and be allowed to voice it.

If your going to type out a full hour responce maybe you should do it in word and then cut and paste to here just in case theres a glich?

Okay well lets take this back to the main idea of the post, the missile defence shield.

Theres many reasons why the missile defence shield is already a failure.

The main idea of the missile shield is in sense a good one, but if you dig deeper (which obviously no one has) it has fatal flaws. Recall that the only nation to ever use Nuclear Weapons in warfare is the US when they dropped two atomic bombs on the city centers of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

One is its going to spark another arms race. With the natural suspicious of other nations, the development of this new weapons program is going to pursuade other countries to develop more sophisticated weapons to combat it, such as Russia developing their new nuclear balistic missile which is designed to over come the missile defence shield. The missile is supposed to manouver in ways and speeds which cannot be intercepted by any type of missile.

Two. With the number of nuclear missiles the US already has, why would they not see this as enough detterant to a nuclear missile attack from a foreign nation. This idea has already worked for over 50 years, even during the cold war.

Three. 2nd and 3rd world countries, with already extremely low GDP'*, are going to spend more money on military purposes when they already cannot afford to feed their own population. This is going to cause more regional wars, especially over resources and food to combat the already bad famine levels in the world.

Fourth, there are going to be new alliances forged, something like NATO and their rival the Warsaw Pact. These organaztions were formed by the Western "good guys" and the pure evil "eastern guys" in the late 50'* and early 60'*. Countries are going to get more suspicious about many actions other countries take, and there is going to be alot of funneling of money towards the military sectors, when what we need is to develop infrastructure and economies, and the education of my generation should be a top priority so wars in our time can be avoided.

Fifth, the main nuclear attack that may occur against the US will not be from the skys, but will come from a backpack bomb, which will be impervious to the missile defence shield unless a backpack nucleonic sensor suite with personal backpack teleportonic removal systems are incorporated into its design, which i dont think will happen.....

A nation isn't stupid enough to use nuclear weapons today, because if they do there are nuclear alliances which will surely obliterate them. Funding should be used to upgrade security protocols at nuclear silos so that a missile canot be accidentally, or intentionally fired by a large group of terrorist which have been trained in firing and programming nuclear missiles.

It seems that the motivation behind development of the MDS is to destablize the world further so that the US government can use this as a frightening tactic to ensure they can go into other nations which will contain the scarces resources they need.

Now. The US so firmly believes that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Why? Because the government has the reciepts for them, they know they are there, because they sold them to Saddam. Iraq was armed with american weapons during its war against Iran when the US backed Shah of Iran was ousted from power during the Iranian Revolution. Suddenly their support shifted from Iran fighting Iraq, to Iraq fighting Iran (while the ever so evil Saddam Hussein was in power in both periods) When someone says the Iraq wars are not about oil, i only shake my head because they dont know history whatsoever, and cant dig deeper than what their leader tells them.

The only reason the US supported Iran is because they weren't part of OPEC. This meant they could sell their oil at very low prices, substantially lower than what OPEC nations were allowed to sell for (which Iraq happend to be a part of). This meant that by supporting the Iranian government, and their war with Iraq, the US could get very cheap oil. Since they don't have that option now, what else are they left with other than to invade Iraq, oust the government, and remove their status in OPEC since that government no longer exists. This will drive the price of oil back to almost nothing when taking it from Iraq.

If this is not true, then why would Bush ask countries to forgive Iraqi debt when they are sitting on billions of barrels of oil which equal hundreds of billions of dollars of profit which they could use to pay off their debt, while other nations such as African nations starve to death and their debts accumlate daily (keep in mind they have no valuable resources) with no hope in sight. Obviously the price of their oil is going to be lower than can be profitable for them to sell if they were part of OPEC still.

Something else to think about. If the living conditions were so bad in Iraq, and thats the new main reason for invading it, why did they not go somewhere like Chechnya where terrorists from the Georgia and Chechnya attack civilians of both countries, and Russia. Or somewhere like Sudan where children and women are raped and murdered by government troops, and starved to death because they are not given access to food. Those places to me seem to have a greater priority than Iraq. But, keep in mind they don't have oil reserves like Iraq.

No responses yet?

Come on people lets keep this going

Thats pretty sad. People do their service, and then they are forced to risk their lives longer than they agreed to? Seems to me like a precursor to the draft returning. All of this for what? Oh, to "give" (with deadly force, and no choice) democracy to them, my bad.

How can he speak for the people of another nation? Hmm. If he was the president of the world, i would take that seriously.

Wow. Thats not a nice figure, how many murders does it take for it to be considered a crime? I know in Canada its 1 and you get a minimum 25 years in jail. According to my calculations, if he was Canadian, he would be due for 2,531,875 years minimum, and thats not counting the bodies that haven't been found. wonderful.... And he wouldn't be executed.

Well i'll be damned! Didn't some leader say after bombing the hell out of Fallujah and sending a bunch of troops through the streets to blow everyone away, terrorist activity would be much lower? I guess he made a mistake. Forgive and forget.

Matt, every US Serviceman or woman signs a contract when the enlist that they understand in times of conflict or war, enlistments can be extended. Canada has the same policy, and also used it in 2 world wars. This has been true in the US since the Spanish/American war. And in Canada for nearly as long. If you want to criticize this policy (that every serviceman is aware of and agreed to), start in your own country

How can Bush say this? Because it'* a well-known fact that the terrorist 'freedom fighters' are killing more Iraqi'* than any other group. Iraqi civilians to be exact. And the comment on democracy is true. There are alot of oppressed Arab nations. Seeing Democracy work may be inspirational to them. How do you interpret this as Bush "speaking for another nation"?

Matt, this is a War. Not a murder situation. We are removing from power a man that killed Millions of his own people and Iranians as well. Now we are removing those that supported him, and would try to take power back after we leave Iraq. We're also dealing with those that supported the Terrorist attacks on Sept 11. Remember the attacks where Canadian Citizens died in the World Trade Center Towers?

Should we prosecute Winston Churchill for 'MURDERING' thousands of Germans?

Matt, this is called 'flushing them out'. They must be dealt with before any Coalition Forces pack up and go home. They were just sitting there waiting for that. We don't want to have to go back there again. We're going to do it right, then leave the country free. FREE. Just what they've wanted for dozens of years, and couldn't have. The vast majority of Iraqis want just that, and know that we're giving that to them.

By WE I mean ALL the countries that have forces in Iraq.

Still nobody ha even tried to touch on the main idea of the post other than me. Everyone is defending their right to start war, and that seems to be it.

I guess my comments on another arms race are 100% true and everybody agrees to them. I think thats really cool, thanks dudes.

Oh and will, those servicemen signed a contract for 1 year of service with the military. They have been there for almost 2, and they are not being allowed to leave. That to me, is illegal, no matter ifyou are at war or not. If they so desperately need soldiers, then reinstitute the draft, otherwise get outta something you can't handle.

Drafting was abolished after WW2 here. With good reason too.

Obviously we needed it during the World Wars we were fighting for the sake of every nation in the world (while the US was quietly keeping its nose out of it until american territory was attacked), not for the sake of pumping fuel into our SUV'* and BOnnevilles

Great ally if you ask me, Canada was at war 13 days (or less i forget) after the rest of the Allies declared war on the Axis powers.