Mel Hurtig Speaks On BMD

Russia and China are supposed to be some kind of 'Gentle Giants' that would never develop nuclear missiles if it wasn't for the Americans? Tell that to Taiwan or the Ukraine or Russian and Chinese citizens.

Naivety is one thing, but it is unlikely Hurtig is that naive - so this can be reduced to the usual promotion of a brand of Canadian nationalism that is based on anti-Americanism.

If that's all that Canada has to be proud of, the fact that we're not Americans, then it can be seen that Mel Hurtig doesn't really have that much respect for Canada.

Get Real, have you read the book? There is far too much info against BMD for anyone to claim to be naive, about this issue! Mel is not speaking out simply to be Canadian Nationalistic, but humanistic; our survival depends on people standing against this star wars plan. I suggest you get the facts, before you make generalisation on this issue, it's really too big to ignore. It is certainly not simply being anti-American, if you look at the entire plan, you'll see, it is about world domination, total control of the planet, as well as space; and as for defending us against missile attack, after the billions of dollars have already been spent and much more will be invested, it doesn't work!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

'World Domination'? Perhaps you haven't heard, but the Americans are having difficulty controlling one country against the will of a small percentage of insurgents, to believe that their mission is to control the entire world through military domination is totally far-fetched.

If it doesn't work, why are you worried that it will lead to world domination? That's a bit illogical.

Just because they 'can't' doesn't mean the idiots won't try.
PNAC - look it up and educate yourself. Enough said.

BMD which is really an old idea, only came to light after 9/11. Almost like 9/11 some how made for a good time to introduce BMD to the public. What is funny though is how fear brought on from 9/11 is making people support this BMD plan. Doesn't make sense considering BMD would have never stopped those terrorist on 9/11.

And who can tell me how more money into the BMD, taking away from on the ground security, makes sense when the real threat has always been terrorist on the ground using American products to attack the United States.

In my opinion which I believe is pretty intelligent, considering I'm not a president of a country. Is that looking at the result of 9/11, and the war in Iraq, money should be going towards improving intelligence for over seas matters, and on the ground security.

Until the U.S learn's from their mistake and increase their security budget on the ground all across the U.S (not just parts of the U.S) there will always be future attacks. I believe that there will be a day where a terrorist will not only be from a muslim country. They will be uprising of people from all different countries. Bold statement I know. As the saying goes, hatred breeds hatred.

Kevin

---
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
--Bertrand Russell

With that said. I like Americans. Just disagree with the political system.

Kevin

---
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
--Bertrand Russell

<p><i>Novermber of 2001, in a letter addressed to the U.S. Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the House Minority Leader, the Federation of Ameican Scientists, including fifty Nobel Prize Winners in chemistry medicine, physics, and economics, wrote.... <p>In the interest of national security we urge you to deny funding for any program, project, or activity that is inconsistent with the Anti-Ballistic Missle (ABM) Treaty. The tragic events of September 11 eliminated any doubt that America faces security needs far more substantial than a techically improbable defense against a strategically improbable Theird World ballistic missle attack. <p>Regarding the probable threat, the September 11 attacks have dramatized what has been obvious for years: A primitive ICBM, with its dubious accuracy and reliability and bearing a clear return address, is unattractive to a terrorist and a most improbable delivery system for a terrorist weapon. Devoting massive effort and expense to countering the least probable and least effective thread would be unwise.</i> <p>Seems to me some Americans do get it. Probably safe to say many share these views. We won't consider the Bush re-election as a true mandate that the majority of Americans support what his admin is doing. We all know he was elected by the majority of voters, which is still a low turnout for such a large country. <p>Two American defence and security analysts wrote.... <p><i>If defeating terrorism remains the top U.S security goal, why is the Bush administration spending billions on major weapons systems more appropriate to the Cold War? Why maintain 12 aircraft-carrier battle groups and fund new nuclear-powered attack submarines and three fighter-plane programs?</i> <p>Next is one of the best most truthful quotes I have ever read in a long time. <i><p>I want to know why there is always so much money for war and so little for human condition. If we launch a war on Iraq, the world will find $7 billion, $8 billion, $10 billion, a month for bombing, but there's always a huge shortage of funds required to fight AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis.--Stephen Lewis</i> <p>---<br>"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."<br />
--Bertrand Russell

Stephen Lewis still hasn't figured it out - it's no wonder the United Nations was a good fit for him. He doesn't understand that his freedom to not figure things out was won by brighter and stronger people who have figured things out. If they hadn't figured things out, Stephen Lewis might well have been born in a country ruled by some kind of tyrannical regime or another - and no one would have ever given him the time of day to try and figure things out.

Even a Stephen Lewis that, as you say, "hasn't figured it out", will likely have done more with his life than all the unnamed know-it-alls that come here just to attack people that actually care about the human condition.

I agree Kevin, that complaint has always been one of mine as well. With the kind of money that gets spent on killing people, peace could be purchased ten times over. But hey, who the *%&$ wants peace?

---
"Yeah, well, [Mr. President] we used all five fingers because that's the way our mittens are made." Antonia Zerbisias

Isn't it ironic, how that Anon above quickly jumbed to attack another person, and totally missed the issue of poverty. I guess he lives a comfortable financial life, so why bother to address someone else's problems. It seems to be a recurring response amongst some Anon's that post here. Always attacking like a bunch of bully's in school. They never seem to address the issues. I'm open to hear what they have to say, but its hard to take them serious.

With that said some Anon's contribute some good material here, even those who disagree with the theme of this site. I think its all in how they present their points. Some choose a childish way to present, and some choose a more intelligent way to present their points.

That Anon above can pertained to know why countries don't pull together for the poor, but the fact is the truth is not what they want to hear. The system they preach and believe in, where corporations run the show. Has created an environment where lobbying is what stops any chance of countries pulling together to help poverty.

Kevin

---
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
--Bertrand Russell

<p><b>Watch for an upcoming article regarding meetings at the WHO that fell apart cause of good old Lobbying.</b> <p>Kevin<p>---<br>"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."<br />
--Bertrand Russell