Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
CODE PROJECT For Those Who Code
  • Home
  • Articles
  • FAQ
Community
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Washington Post: HOLMES: U.S. backtracks on missile shield

Washington Post: HOLMES: U.S. backtracks on missile shield

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
comhelpannouncementlounge
114 Posts 11 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • L Lost User

    IlĂ­on wrote:

    "Fotress America" is not viable.

    Why not? Canada doesn't have 100's of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment spread all over the world defending ungrateful weasels and they seem to be getting along just fine.

    S Offline
    S Offline
    Stan Shannon
    wrote on last edited by
    #41

    Mike Mullikin wrote:

    Canada doesn't have 100's of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment spread all over the world defending ungrateful weasels and they seem to be getting along just fine.

    That's because they no longer have the financial ability to field an army thanks to their social welfare state.

    Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

    I L O 4 Replies Last reply
    0
    • S Stan Shannon

      Mike Mullikin wrote:

      Canada doesn't have 100's of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment spread all over the world defending ungrateful weasels and they seem to be getting along just fine.

      That's because they no longer have the financial ability to field an army thanks to their social welfare state.

      Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

      I Offline
      I Offline
      Ilion
      wrote on last edited by
      #42

      Nor, at present, snuggled right into Uncle Sam's armpit, as Canada is, the need.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • S Stan Shannon

        Mike Mullikin wrote:

        Canada doesn't have 100's of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment spread all over the world defending ungrateful weasels and they seem to be getting along just fine.

        That's because they no longer have the financial ability to field an army thanks to their social welfare state.

        Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

        L Offline
        L Offline
        Lost User
        wrote on last edited by
        #43

        This, Stan, probably causes you some displeasure US health system is plagued by high cost and waste: experts [^]. In light of that article, perhaps Canada isn't all bad.

        S 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • L Lost User

          73Zeppelin wrote:

          In other words, if Iran fires a missile at Europe, it's Europe's problem, not America's...

          Agreed. In fact, I'd take it even further and pull ALL U.S. military personnel, hardware and bases from all foreign countries - Japan, South Korea, Germany, UK, etc... All of it comes home and defends our ports and borders.

          L Offline
          L Offline
          Lost User
          wrote on last edited by
          #44

          How about things like this Pine Gap[^]?

          L 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • L Lost User

            How about things like this Pine Gap[^]?

            L Offline
            L Offline
            Lost User
            wrote on last edited by
            #45

            If it's truly a joint venture then let the Aussies buy our half and run it themselves. If they refuse, we should take our half of the equipment when we leave. It is long past time for the US to get out of the "World Police" business.

            L 2 Replies Last reply
            0
            • S Stan Shannon

              Mike Mullikin wrote:

              Canada doesn't have 100's of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment spread all over the world defending ungrateful weasels and they seem to be getting along just fine.

              That's because they no longer have the financial ability to field an army thanks to their social welfare state.

              Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

              L Offline
              L Offline
              Lost User
              wrote on last edited by
              #46

              Nor do we with our growing welfare state.

              S 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • L Lost User

                If it's truly a joint venture then let the Aussies buy our half and run it themselves. If they refuse, we should take our half of the equipment when we leave. It is long past time for the US to get out of the "World Police" business.

                L Offline
                L Offline
                Lost User
                wrote on last edited by
                #47

                Mike Mullikin wrote:

                If it's truly a joint venture then let the Aussies buy our half and run it themselves. If they refuse, we should take our half of the equipment when we leave. It is long past time for the US to get out of the "World Police" business.

                I'm not aware of who owns which assets there but the point I wanted to make is that there must be some advantage to the US in having access to that facility. I can't imagine that the US presence there is solely for the benefit of Australia. Surely the ability to control satellites from the southern hemisphere is an important part of your national security? We also have the Parkes Observatory[^] used by NASA

                L 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • L Lost User

                  If it's truly a joint venture then let the Aussies buy our half and run it themselves. If they refuse, we should take our half of the equipment when we leave. It is long past time for the US to get out of the "World Police" business.

                  L Offline
                  L Offline
                  Lost User
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #48

                  Mike Mullikin wrote:

                  "World Police" business

                  I rather suspect it is for the same reason that BMEWS at RAF Fylingdales exists. Not as a "World Policeman" but as a means for mutual defence. But since the end of the cold war, it is arguable that a need still exists, those Russians have not yet reached IMO the status of trustworthy friend.

                  O 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • L Lost User

                    Mike Mullikin wrote:

                    If it's truly a joint venture then let the Aussies buy our half and run it themselves. If they refuse, we should take our half of the equipment when we leave. It is long past time for the US to get out of the "World Police" business.

                    I'm not aware of who owns which assets there but the point I wanted to make is that there must be some advantage to the US in having access to that facility. I can't imagine that the US presence there is solely for the benefit of Australia. Surely the ability to control satellites from the southern hemisphere is an important part of your national security? We also have the Parkes Observatory[^] used by NASA

                    L Offline
                    L Offline
                    Lost User
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #49

                    Josh Gray wrote:

                    Surely the ability to control satellites from the southern hemisphere is an important part of your national security?

                    Does Australia require the control of satellites from the Northern hemisphere for proper defense? If we aren't defending/policing the world our requirements are significantly reduced.

                    L O 2 Replies Last reply
                    0
                    • L Lost User

                      Josh Gray wrote:

                      Surely the ability to control satellites from the southern hemisphere is an important part of your national security?

                      Does Australia require the control of satellites from the Northern hemisphere for proper defense? If we aren't defending/policing the world our requirements are significantly reduced.

                      L Offline
                      L Offline
                      Lost User
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #50

                      Mike Mullikin wrote:

                      Does Australia require the control of satellites from the Northern hemisphere for proper defense?

                      Probably

                      Mike Mullikin wrote:

                      If we aren't defending/policing the world our requirements are significantly reduced.

                      Oh FFS

                      L 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • L Lost User

                        Nor do we with our growing welfare state.

                        S Offline
                        S Offline
                        Stan Shannon
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #51

                        I agree completely. But thats an argument againt the welfare state, not the military.

                        Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                        L 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • L Lost User

                          Oakman wrote:

                          By the way, at least in theory, the U.S Government does not make economic investments but leaves that to private companies.

                          This is as true today as it was when Britain militarily protected its interests around the globe in those Empire days. And in respect of Washington's comments, if you are not seen to be protecting your foreign assets then those assets may be seized with you being unable to suitably respond to rectify the seizure. To protect the interests of Haliburton you might indeed find distasteful or unappetizing or even objectionable but if that company is a source of revenue that your government can tax then protection of that revenue stream could be as important to the American Government as Hong Kong (Opium Wars) was to the then British Empire.

                          O Offline
                          O Offline
                          Oakman
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #52

                          Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                          This is as true today as it was when Britain militarily protected its interests around the globe in those Empire days.

                          Oh, back then both countries and at least half of Western Europe practiced gunboat diplomacy.

                          Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                          if you are not seen to be protecting your foreign assets then those assets may be seized with you being unable to suitably respond to rectify the seizure.

                          For better or for worse, neither country is self-sure enough these days to reclaim assets taken by jolly jumpup Beloved Leaders. Venezuela, Mexico and Saudi all own oil production facilities started by the UK and US and we have done thing about it.

                          Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                          if that company is a source of revenue that your government can tax then protection of that revenue stream could be as important to the American Government as Hong Kong (Opium Wars) was to the then British Empire

                          These days the largest corporations seem to be costing us money, not providing it. However, if they need protection, I am sure Blackwater would be glad to provide it. Many of their employees are ex-Green Beanies or SAS and are paid commensurately with the risk involved. Better their blood be spilled, if blood must be spilled, than that of some 19 year old pimple-face who thought he'd make a little extra dough by joining the National Guard.

                          Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

                          L 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • L Lost User

                            This, Stan, probably causes you some displeasure US health system is plagued by high cost and waste: experts [^]. In light of that article, perhaps Canada isn't all bad.

                            S Offline
                            S Offline
                            Stan Shannon
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #53

                            Which is an argument for returning to a true free market health care system.

                            Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                            L 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • S Stan Shannon

                              Mike Mullikin wrote:

                              Canada doesn't have 100's of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment spread all over the world defending ungrateful weasels and they seem to be getting along just fine.

                              That's because they no longer have the financial ability to field an army thanks to their social welfare state.

                              Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                              O Offline
                              O Offline
                              Oakman
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #54

                              Stan Shannon wrote:

                              That's because they no longer have the financial ability to field an army thanks to their social welfare state.

                              It's also because they are almost totally dependent on the US for defense against any serious threat.

                              Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

                              S 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • L Lost User

                                Josh Gray wrote:

                                Surely the ability to control satellites from the southern hemisphere is an important part of your national security?

                                Does Australia require the control of satellites from the Northern hemisphere for proper defense? If we aren't defending/policing the world our requirements are significantly reduced.

                                O Offline
                                O Offline
                                Oakman
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #55

                                Mike Mullikin wrote:

                                Does Australia require the control of satellites from the Northern hemisphere for proper defense?

                                Of course not, they expect us to do it for them and pay them for the privilege. I'm not faulting the Aussies. They've got a good thing going, but we're the ones who set it up and we're the ones who act like it's a matter of national security to police the entire world.

                                Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

                                L 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • L Lost User

                                  Mike Mullikin wrote:

                                  "World Police" business

                                  I rather suspect it is for the same reason that BMEWS at RAF Fylingdales exists. Not as a "World Policeman" but as a means for mutual defence. But since the end of the cold war, it is arguable that a need still exists, those Russians have not yet reached IMO the status of trustworthy friend.

                                  O Offline
                                  O Offline
                                  Oakman
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #56

                                  Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                                  Not as a "World Policeman" but as a means for mutual defence.

                                  With all due respect for the UK, exactly how much defending of the US can we count on?

                                  Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                                  those Russians have not yet reached IMO the status of trustworthy friend.

                                  They haven't yet reached the status of civilized nation, have they? The new Russia seems to be ruled by thugs from the NKVD who were smart enough to become crime lords before their friends did.

                                  Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

                                  L 1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • O Oakman

                                    Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                                    This is as true today as it was when Britain militarily protected its interests around the globe in those Empire days.

                                    Oh, back then both countries and at least half of Western Europe practiced gunboat diplomacy.

                                    Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                                    if you are not seen to be protecting your foreign assets then those assets may be seized with you being unable to suitably respond to rectify the seizure.

                                    For better or for worse, neither country is self-sure enough these days to reclaim assets taken by jolly jumpup Beloved Leaders. Venezuela, Mexico and Saudi all own oil production facilities started by the UK and US and we have done thing about it.

                                    Richard A. Abbott wrote:

                                    if that company is a source of revenue that your government can tax then protection of that revenue stream could be as important to the American Government as Hong Kong (Opium Wars) was to the then British Empire

                                    These days the largest corporations seem to be costing us money, not providing it. However, if they need protection, I am sure Blackwater would be glad to provide it. Many of their employees are ex-Green Beanies or SAS and are paid commensurately with the risk involved. Better their blood be spilled, if blood must be spilled, than that of some 19 year old pimple-face who thought he'd make a little extra dough by joining the National Guard.

                                    Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

                                    L Offline
                                    L Offline
                                    Lost User
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #57

                                    Oakman wrote:

                                    Venezuela, Mexico and Saudi all own oil production facilities started by the UK and US and we have done thing about it

                                    I'll not comment about Mexico, but, if it wasn't for the influence of the then Soviet Union (and now Russia) I'm pretty sure that Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and other countries that continue to taunt, would be suitably controlled. And Britain would still have ownership of the Suez Canal. But with a policy to permit independence for the former Empire countries to manage and rule themselves, we can't now really complain if they so choose to form friends elsewhere and stick up 2 fingers to their former colonial masters.

                                    Oakman wrote:

                                    Blackwater

                                    Wild Geese never really solved anything, not in real life nor in the Richard Burton film of the same name. They just created more problems and complicated issues.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • O Oakman

                                      Mike Mullikin wrote:

                                      Does Australia require the control of satellites from the Northern hemisphere for proper defense?

                                      Of course not, they expect us to do it for them and pay them for the privilege. I'm not faulting the Aussies. They've got a good thing going, but we're the ones who set it up and we're the ones who act like it's a matter of national security to police the entire world.

                                      Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

                                      L Offline
                                      L Offline
                                      Lost User
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #58

                                      Oakman wrote:

                                      Of course not, they expect us to do it for them and pay them for the privilege.

                                      Do we? Can you actually show some evidence of this or it is just an assumption? Seems to me there is a lot of mutual benefit in us sharing access to the Pine Ridge installation. A few highlights from the Wikipedia article Pine Gap was set aside for the United States Air Force's control station for Defense Support Program satellites that monitor heat emissions from missiles, giving first warning of ballistic missile launches. He described the CIA-run facility as the ground control and processing station for geosynchronous satellites engaged in signals intelligence collection, outlining four categories of signals collected: * telemetry from advanced weapons development, such as ballistic missiles, used for arms control verification; * signals from anti-missile and anti-aircraft radars; * transmissions intended for communications satellites; and * microwave emissions, such as long distance telephone calls. My personal favorite In 1999, with the Australian Government refusing to give details to an Australian Senate committee on treaties, Intelligence expert Professor Des Ball from the Australian National University was called to give an outline of Pine Gap Seems to me its important to someone. Trust me, not many people would want to live out there by choice. If you guys dont want it we could always give it back to the "Traditional Land Owners" :)

                                      O 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • O Oakman

                                        Stan Shannon wrote:

                                        That's because they no longer have the financial ability to field an army thanks to their social welfare state.

                                        It's also because they are almost totally dependent on the US for defense against any serious threat.

                                        Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

                                        S Offline
                                        S Offline
                                        Stan Shannon
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #59

                                        Oakman wrote:

                                        It's also because they are almost totally dependent on the US for defense against any serious threat.

                                        Absolutely. It should be interesting to see what happens after the US social welfare state eliminates that protection for them. I suspect the "Original Nations" or whatever they call their Indians up there, will just kick their asses and take over again.

                                        Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                                        O 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • S Stan Shannon

                                          I agree completely. But thats an argument againt the welfare state, not the military.

                                          Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

                                          L Offline
                                          L Offline
                                          Lost User
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #60

                                          From what I can see that ship has already sailed.

                                          S 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups