[Public_Domain]

[Public_Domain]

[Public_Domain]

[Tman1]

Tokimini Tokimini:

RUEZ RUEZ:

C.M. Burns C.M. Burns:

That's awfully nice of y'all to offer but I'm sure we'll be fine. Just look after your own airspace and we'll look after ours.

After all, it's not as if you have a great track record, now is it.

You ever hear of Norad?

Norad is an antiquated relic of the cold war and should be disbanded like the Warsaw Pact was. Let Canada defend Canada and the US defend the US. Why should Americans spend millions of dollars to provide security for the Canadian olympics?

They aren't and ignorant comments like that doesn't help and I'm sure Canada is more than capable to defend against any such attacks. What the article is talking about is that the U.S will have jets in the air in proximity of Seattle to Vancouver on their side of the border but (of course) wouldn't have a problem if Canada asked them for aid. Key word is...asked.

[Tman1]

Tokimini Tokimini:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I don't see what the big deal is here. Canadian fighters fly patrol for the US and we return the favor. Friends do stuff like that.

Unless someone wishes to propose that we not be friends anymore.

Just pick any one of these forums. No matter what it's supposed to be about the odds are at some point someone will go off on an anti-American rant. I think most reasonable people would conclude that our friendship, which has been tenuous at best for more than a few years, is pretty much shot.

Likewise for someone going off on the "anti-American, boo hoo" rant. Seems your attitude is concurrent with the so called "anti-Americans" who post about America and its policies.

[Tman1]

Tokimini Tokimini:

I'm American, and besides crappy TV shows you get a market for 80% of your exports (a lot of which used to be made in US factories) and employment for millions of your people. You make billions, we pay billions.

Yeah, for energy. Remember that next time you drive your SUV.

You complain about anti-American posts but from what I've read of yours, it seems to me you just don't like Canada. Bitter, jealous, I don't know what your problem is.

[Tman1]

Besides, I heard Canada is buying some new radar equipment which should take effect right on time for the 2010 olympics. Personally, I don't think all that security is needed, especially in the air.

[Public_Domain]

[Gunnair]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Experience, junior, is what divides adults from children - which is why I think you're a child. Mind, experience doesn't necessarily teach 'em anything. I suspect you'll be in that group.

By the way, Canada has not had an anti-American relationship add that to the list of your mistakes there, junior. A better observation mnight be that Canada has briefly had an antagonistic relationship (and that was between the UK and the US with Canada stuck in the middle as a colony), we had a cautious and wary relationship at times, and generally have a good and productive relationship.

Oh, and you continuing to try and punch so far above your weight class and consistently failing makes you an idiot.

Like I said, politically, since WWI, we've been fine.

It's these people who are Anti-American, which is, once again, what I'm saying.

Currently, 15% of Canadians say they are "Anti-American at heart". Not a majority, but certainly a substantial amount of people, no?

I don't know how you say that this makes me look liek an idiot, when you are the one persisting to accuse me of claiming or saying things I did not say or even try to mean.

I'm curious to see this poll. Most of the ones I found stated that Canadians were over-whelmingly anti George W. Bush and his administration - which of course is not anti-American.

"on a people level, Canadians have always and will always resent Americans" - I think you forgot what you wrote.

Idiot.

[Public_Domain]

[herbie]

Comox? Air Force Base? The one right across the salt chuck?
Thanks guys, we'll call ya if we need ya.
You know, just in case the 'terrorists' attack the Olympics with a Bear bomber...

[RUEZ]

herbie herbie:

Comox? Air Force Base? The one right across the salt chuck?
Thanks guys, we'll call ya if we need ya.
You know, just in case the 'terrorists' attack the Olympics with a Bear bomber...

[Johnny_Utah]

C.M. Burns C.M. Burns:

Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:

RUEZ RUEZ:

And? They were taken by surprise by terrorists who hijacked commercial jets. Obviously when their mission is to patrol an event surprise won't be an issue.

Yes they were taken surprise because their training was for Air Attacks coming outside from United States Air Space not from within so on 9/11 NORAD was caught with it's pants down..

Of course facts like that doesn't matter to Mr Burns..

You've GOT to be kidding, right? Facts???
After 50 years of NORAD planning they never once thought them damn Commies or Terrrrists would try a sneak attack from inside the country? Is that what you really think? They have the some of the best planners and military minds in the world and they never once thought there might be a sneak attack from inside the US?

Despite 40 years of the Cold War, the HUAC hearings and McCarthyism, when there was a red under every bed just waiting to strike.
Even after the WTC was bombed in 1993.
Even after the USS Cole was bombed.
Even after the US embassy bombings in Africa
Even after Timothy McVay
Despite the fact that bestselling author Tom Clancy featured a fully-fuelled 747 attack on Congress in 'Executive Orders', [Harper Collins 1998].

Despite the August 6 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing, which was entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States"

NORAD never had a plan for this one?
If all that could happen and NORAD STILL didn't have a plan for an attack like this - and that's what you believe - then they are most incompetent bunch of ...

But they did have plans.

The truth is they didn't need to know what kind of attack it was going to be. It started out as a hijacking, then two hijackings then three, then four.
NORAD, the FBI, the FAA and the air traffic controllers ALL had plans in place for hi-jacking going back to the early 70's.

But still, not one single fighter came within striking distance - even to protect the nation's most valuable target.

You don't know what you're talking about, Johnny_Utah.

I know what I'm talking about and again NORAD for all it's planning was caught with it's pants down on 9/11 because their planning was still for a Cold War type attack on North America which was never going to take place because NORAD tactics should have been updated a long time ago..

AS for the PDF Bush recived it was vague on what style of attack was going to take place and the other attacks you listed from the WTC bombing in 1993 to the USS Cole in 2000 happen under Clinton's watch..

As for Tom Clancy, yeah it's kind of creepy how he predicted an attack like that maybe because as an author he has the ability to think outside the box where as those in power don't..

When Bush came into office 8 years of Clinton's cut backs on the Military possibly did play a role in the lack response to 9/11, but for all the training and preperation NORAD had it was still caught with it's pants down because no one could ever have envisioned 4 high jacked air liners being used as WMD's..

[C.M. Burns]

You've conveniently ignored the fact that what happened was a hijacking and plans have been in place, and exercises conducted since the late 70's.

Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:

I know what I'm talking about and again NORAD for all it's planning was caught with it's pants down on 9/11 because their planning was still for a Cold War type attack on North America which was never going to take place because NORAD tactics should have been updated a long time ago..

When Bush came into office 8 years of Clinton's cut backs on the Military possibly did play a role in the lack response to 9/11, but for all the training and preperation NORAD had it was still caught with it's pants down because no one could ever have envisioned 4 high jacked air liners being used as WMD's..

You know what you're talking about, do you?

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons - 4/18/2004 USA Today:

$1:

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

Or CNN

$1:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sometime between 1991 and 2001, a regional sector of the North American Aerospace Defense Command simulated a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a building in the United States as part of training exercise scenario, a NORAD spokesman said Monday.

Or the New Yorker

Wanna update 'what you know'?