• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

21-gun salute for ship built with 9/11 steel

I gave you an actual video and you refuse to listen to it. Whatelse can I do to help you???

U Tube run on FAUX NETWORK is not a source that I any confidence in. here is not reason to watch or listen to a source that does not have a honest reputation.
 
If it can move troops around for the sake of warfare, then it's a war ship.

Really then all Cruise Linner are Warship then in your eye's. look you have no idea what your talking about I suggest you cook some bacon and have some Labates
 
Really then all Cruise Linner are Warship then in your eye's. look you have no idea what your talking about I suggest you cook some bacon and have some Labates

If a cruise liner is converted to a troop deployment vessel, yes it would then be considered a warship.

Thanks for playing.

P.S. Labatt? Gross.
 
As for you photo Catz of the F-14A which is a US Naval Aircraft...

So the next time some of you want to post crap about what the US Military has I suggest you do your homework before or you will get your arse call on it.

Scorp...



Pull yourself together. I'm trying to think of a crafty way to say that "Canada's Navy," doesn't actually mean "US Military," in the context of Catz's post.

There are other windmills to fight mate.
 
U Tube run on FAUX NETWORK is not a source that I any confidence in. here is not reason to watch or listen to a source that does not have a honest reputation.

Ya know the whole, "Fox is lieing", routine is loosing steam, really fast?
 
Canada relies on the size and expense of America's military. While Canada contributes to military actions abroad, and NATO, Canada relies heavily (as does most of the western world) on U.S. contributions to NATO et. al.

Canada’s Once Powerful Military Struggles With Underfunding Unambiguously Ambidextrous

I speak about the fact, that the Canada which had a vastly smaller population and was many times poorer in 1944, could field two corps (five divisions total), plus an independent armoured brigade, fly 78 squadrons, and could float the world’s third largest navy … cannot today maintain a 2500 member Afghanistan force indefinitely, in what is an incredibly low intensity conflict. Afghanistan is, by any historic measure, child’s play. Yet, Canada’s armed forces are being pulled out not only because of a lack of will among her populace, but because the forces themselves are becoming spent by the effort.

In short, one of the richest countries on the planet, one so wealthy that it has shrugged off the second worst recession of a hundred years, and one that can provide a vast welfare state without breaking a sweat, has a tiny and in many respects, poorly equipped Army, Navy, and Air Force. And this, despite the fact that Canada has the longest coastline on the planet, is a member of NATO, and owns one of the largest chunks of real estate on earth.

Let that sink in … a post-modern country of 30 million people which is one of the richest in human history can’t field a force of 2500 individuals without burning out the military.

I'm grateful that Canada is at least mildly supportive of what U.S. forces and other allies are doing abroad, but putting 2500 people in Afghanistan is hardly a make/break commitment. And Canada is struggling to do even that.

I find it ironic that a Canadian poster is criticial of the U.S. Navy using steel from the WTC towers to field a new ship. And yet, he will be the first to speak up for spending on social programs.

It's a matter of priorities. The reason that Canada has been able to spend so much on social programs is that Canada's defense is subsidized by U.S. spending.
 
Since we'regoing on about Canada, I want to take this oppurtunity to salute our 30,000 Candian brothers who served with us in Vietnam.
 
I think its great symbolism. I cannot think of a better way to be eulogized.

This would have been great symbolism, too.





newwtc.jpg
 
If a cruise liner is converted to a troop deployment vessel, yes it would then be considered a warship.

Thanks for playing.

P.S. Labatt? Gross.

Hmm really then I suggest you have no idea what your talking about what a surprise you do understand what the USS New York is used for oh wait look who I'm asking the question to. here let me explain it to you in simple words when a Major Natural Dist. hits the World and Food and Medical Supplies need to be on the ground as fast as they can well US Naval Ships like the USS New York are one of the first of Station.
 
Canada relies on the size and expense of America's military. While Canada contributes to military actions abroad, and NATO, Canada relies heavily (as does most of the western world) on U.S. contributions to NATO et. al.

That is the trade off that we have enjoyed, yes, but it has also brought other benefits to your country. The opportunity cost of investing in our military has been funneled to peace keeping and infrastructure projects abroad. It has honed its peace keeping tactics given that it cannot provide huge amounts of military support.

The Harper government put $64 billion into vamping up Canada's navy in order to deal with the upcoming battle over arctic sovereignty, something that greatly affects North American trade.

It's not as black and white as saying that Canada is enjoying a free ride while your government protects us. We are the biggest oil exporter to the United States. 50-60% of your oil comes from Canada. If our companies had instead been channeled into militarization, I doubt the oil sands projects would be as advanced. Furthermore, without our oil, your military will be frozen in your own country. But no, Canadians will not begrudge you over this... we will happily sell you our oil at bargain rates under NAFTA, because you are our ally.

We contribute more advancements to the robotics industry than the U.S. I would imagine this applies to your military technology as well.

The list goes on. So yes, it's true, Canada relies on the U.S. for protection, but in exchange our opportunity costs shift to other projects which in turn benefit your nation.

I'm grateful that Canada is at least mildly supportive of what U.S. forces and other allies are doing abroad, but putting 2500 people in Afghanistan is hardly a make/break commitment. And Canada is struggling to do even that.

Then it should be even more sad that those 2,500 troops have been the make/break factor in the retention of Kabul and most of the Southern front while the U.S. administration twiddled its thumbs.

I find it ironic that a Canadian poster is criticial of the U.S. Navy using steel from the WTC towers to field a new ship. And yet, he will be the first to speak up for spending on social programs.

The military-industrial complex in your country has FAR more power over domestic and foreign policy than in any other nation. It's not as simple as saying that Canada can afford more social programs than the U.S. because we don't need as much of a military; your country could also afford more benefits for its population if it had different priorities. Instead, your nation's foreign policy for 50+ years has been an interventionist one, and your population has suffered. Couple that with the incessant fear of anything 'socialist' and you have a recipe for a population that doesn't support socialized benefits as well as an administration with tighter reigns over foreign incursions.

It's a matter of priorities. The reason that Canada has been able to spend so much on social programs is that Canada's defense is subsidized by U.S. spending.

This was debunked above.

I will continue to be grateful for the relationship that Canada and the U.S. shares even if, on a political level, there are many disagreements. I am grateful that every day there are men and women from both our nations that dedicate their lives to either our protection or our betterment... and even when faced with Americans who attack the Canadian way of life without basis, such as criticizing our social systems, our "liberalness", or continue to refer to us in a jingoistic manner as just another U.S. state, I will still be grateful to those people.

What I see here is you trying to make up for the fact that you made a stupid, out of line remark both against my nationality and against an ally of your country that has provided so much. Instead of taking your foot out of your mouth and apologizing or simply saying NOTHING, you are only embarrassing yourself further.

Keep digging your grave deeper, by all means. Like I said, despite your attacks on me and my country, I will still love the U.S. for its friendship, even if some of its citizens are less than friendly towards Canadians.
 
Last edited:
So, honouring the dead of the Twin Towers = okay and acceptable for conservatives.... guess it is because Bush ordered the ship.

But honouring returning dead from war = horrible political photo op...?

Interesting double standard there...

One would think that honouring both would be on the mantra of the US right wing.. guess not.

The Messiah didn't have to bring the cameras. So it was nothing more than a photo-op. Just like when the soon-to-be Messiah refused to visit the hospital in Bitzberg, Germany because the command refused entry to the camera crews. The STB Messiah wasn't going to waste his time on no broken down wounded sojers if he couldn't get his face on TV with those pitiful props to show how patriotic he was.

When your country gets an army some day you'll understand. Just be glad for your sake that we still have ours.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's keep this civil folks. At least one thread ban has already taken place and more will follow if the attacks continue.
 
So, honouring the dead of the Twin Towers = okay and acceptable for conservatives.... guess it is because Bush ordered the ship.

But honouring returning dead from war = horrible political photo op...?

Interesting double standard there...

One would think that honouring both would be on the mantra of the US right wing.. guess not.
Do you have a point?
 
Last edited:
Since we'regoing on about Canada, I want to take this oppurtunity to salute our 30,000 Candian brothers who served with us in Vietnam.

Ahem...

Canada had little to no involvement in Vietnam. Perhaps you got your info from Ann Coulter.*

*she is a terrible source, in case you're wondering. Check out this video:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmcZG87Fmxc"]YouTube - Ann Coulter, Canada, & Vietnam[/ame]


On edit: Many Canadians did volunteer to fight, but not under the Canadian military.
 
Last edited:
That is the trade off that we have enjoyed, yes, but it has also brought other benefits to your country. The opportunity cost of investing in our military has been funneled to peace keeping and infrastructure projects abroad. It has honed its peace keeping tactics given that it cannot provide huge amounts of military support.

The Harper government put $64 billion into vamping up Canada's navy in order to deal with the upcoming battle over arctic sovereignty, something that greatly affects North American trade.

It's not as black and white as saying that Canada is enjoying a free ride while your government protects us. We are the biggest oil exporter to the United States. 50-60% of your oil comes from Canada. If our companies had instead been channeled into militarization, I doubt the oil sands projects would be as advanced. Furthermore, without our oil, your military will be frozen in your own country. But no, Canadians will not begrudge you over this... we will happily sell you our oil at bargain rates under NAFTA, because you are our ally.

We contribute more advancements to the robotics industry than the U.S. I would imagine this applies to your military technology as well.

The list goes on. So yes, it's true, Canada relies on the U.S. for protection, but in exchange our opportunity costs shift to other projects which in turn benefit your nation.



Then it should be even more sad that those 2,500 troops have been the make/break factor in the retention of Kabul and most of the Southern front while the U.S. administration twiddled its thumbs.



The military-industrial complex in your country has FAR more power over domestic and foreign policy than in any other nation. It's not as simple as saying that Canada can afford more social programs than the U.S. because we don't need as much of a military; your country could also afford more benefits for its population if it had different priorities. Instead, your nation's foreign policy for 50+ years has been an interventionist one, and your population has suffered. Couple that with the incessant fear of anything 'socialist' and you have a recipe for a population that doesn't support socialized benefits as well as an administration with tighter reigns over foreign incursions.



This was debunked above.

I will continue to be grateful for the relationship that Canada and the U.S. shares even if, on a political level, there are many disagreements. I am grateful that every day there are men and women from both our nations that dedicate their lives to either our protection or our betterment... and even when faced with Americans who attack the Canadian way of life without basis, such as criticizing our social systems, our "liberalness", or continue to refer to us in a jingoistic manner as just another U.S. state, I will still be grateful to those people.

What I see here is you trying to make up for the fact that you made a stupid, out of line remark both against my nationality and against an ally of your country that has provided so much. Instead of taking your foot out of your mouth and apologizing or simply saying NOTHING, you are only embarrassing yourself further.

Keep digging your grave deeper, by all means. Like I said, despite your attacks on me and my country, I will still love the U.S. for its friendship, even if some of its citizens are less than friendly towards Canadians.

I'm trying hard to remember when Canada needed protection, and listed the aid of American Military forces. Can you think of any, Orius?
 
The article said they used 7 1/2 tons of WTC steel in the ship. My main concern would be compromising the functional capabilities of the warship. Granted, I don't think it would be a problem in this case, but we live in a time where the f-22 just happened to have manufacturing interests in 46 different states. I dislike the trend in which weapons are constructed with obligations to non-military requirements. Its fine to honor a warship after the towers, but that should be reflected in symbolic features like the name, not the materials used to build it.

It's not like they took the wreckage and welded it in. :roll:

It was re-smelted and re-processed and certainly met the acceptance criteria for whatever application it was used in. That they kept track of the lots and could point to whatever it was the steel was used on is merely a matter of paperwork.
 
I think its great symbolism. I cannot think of a better way to be eulogized.

From their deaths, you will have created a machine of war. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

Oh Crippler! You're such a mean American brute! Can't you be nicer!?

:2razz:
 
I'm trying hard to remember when Canada needed protection, and listed the aid of American Military forces. Can you think of any, Orius?

None. The only time North America suffered an incursion of any meaningful scale was Pearl Harbor, but Canada was already involved in WWII well before the Americans.

We do share a role in NORAD though which I think is important to the integrity of our borders, as well as missile defense and arctic sovereignty.

The idea is that without American help, Canada would theoretically be invaded by any number of foreign powers... probably the most threatening of which would have been Russia back in the day. People forget though that Canada has an ongoing alliance with all the Commonwealth nations as well as most of the European powers. Not to mention, losing Canada to an enemy would be a huge strategic loss for the U.S. If we are taken over, their borders become that much less secure. American defense of Canada is in America's own interest.
 
Last edited:
I can't imagine any ways that hegemonic U.S. political regimes and their jingoistic proponents protect the general welfare of Canadians either, inasmuch as most people tend to punch when someone spits in their face, and Canada's regional proximity to the U.S. will likely place its citizens at increased risk of terrorist assault. That hasn't manifested into anything yet, but hell, what happens when someone tries to biologically contaminate Lake Superior? :shrug:

Yea, I'm sure Canada would rather be next to Mexico...
 
Agnapostate said:
I can't imagine any ways that hegemonic U.S. political regimes and their jingoistic proponents protect the general welfare of Canadians either, inasmuch as most people tend to punch when someone spits in their face, and Canada's regional proximity to the U.S. will likely place its citizens at increased risk of terrorist assault. That hasn't manifested into anything yet, but hell, what happens when someone tries to biologically contaminate Lake Superior?

Canadian intelligence has actually thwarted some planned terrorist attacks since 9-11, but not on the scale of the attack on the WTC. It just goes to show that the propaganda about the fundamentalists in the ME who have a thing against the West is just a big one-liner. If that were true, most Western nations would have been attacked by now.

When NYC was attacked, Toronto was on full alert. I remember because people there were freaking out... but nothing ever came, not even to this day.
 
Well, this is along the lines of what I was thinking. The terrorists wanted a war, they wanted unrest...

Okay. True.

...they wanted the West to shed its peaceful veneer and get down and dirty.

I think that's the exact opposite of what the terrorists want; General Jack Pershing would win the "war on terror" in a year or so, using tactics that are "down and dirty", but America doesn't use tactics that are down and dirty anymore, in actuality, the Western military powers are relatively neutered.

The terrorists understand that the West's main weakness is social and political. They know the American people don't have the stomach to win a protracted and difficult war anymore, and they know the media - not a suicide vest - is the most effective weapon in their arsenal. The more the terrorists undermine our ability to strike fiercely, decisively, and justly the closer they will come to victory.
 
Okay. True.

I think that's the exact opposite of what the terrorists want; General Jack Pershing would win the "war on terror" in a year or so, using tactics that are "down and dirty", but America doesn't use tactics that are down and dirty anymore, in actuality, the Western military powers are relatively neutered.

The terrorists understand that the West's main weakness is social and political. They know the American people don't have the stomach to win a protracted and difficult war anymore, and they know the media - not a suicide vest - is the most effective weapon in their arsenal. The more the terrorists undermine our ability to strike fiercely, decisively, and justly the closer they will come to victory.

I just realized a flaw in this debate.. we don't really "know" what "they" are thinking, whoever "they" are. Non-state actors are who they are, and are difficult to deal with, because we don't really know what they want.

But for the sake of argument...

We can speculate that they just wanted to create chaos in the bureaucracy of the West, and I think in that department they have succeeded. Many freedoms have been encroached upon in the name of stopping terrorism, our coffers have been emptied in a protracted conflict, and more people are hating what we represent with each passing day. The true colours of the nature of our governments have been shown.

And frankly, most of what is happening in the ME is the result of past deeds by the U.S. and the British Empire. The thirst for conquest has bred multi-generational hatred, and the present conflict is stoking that fire.

You're right that they capitalized on social and political weakness, but it isn't one from the past 5 years. The entanglement in the ME has been 50+ years in the making. We made this monster.
 
Canadian intelligence has actually thwarted some planned terrorist attacks since 9-11, but not on the scale of the attack on the WTC. It just goes to show that the propaganda about the fundamentalists in the ME who have a thing against the West is just a big one-liner. If that were true, most Western nations would have been attacked by now.

The reason they aren't concerned with Canada right now is because they're too busy trying to destroy America. They're fighting us all over the globe. We have hundreds of thousands of troops in the field. They're kind of busy at the moment.

Ultimately, they see no difference between an American and a Canadian; we're all infidels whose head they would gladly cut off.

When NYC was attacked, Toronto was on full alert. I remember because people there were freaking out... but nothing ever came, not even to this day.

If America suddenly withdraws its military presence from across the globe the terrorists will follow us back to our borders. Do you really think Islamo-Nazis see a future with Canadians in it?
 
Last edited:
Given the two useless wars being fought right now, the dollars and lives lost doing it, and the political strife in the aftermath, I find it incredibly ironic and twisted that the steel from the fallen towers was used to make another apparatus of war.

It doesn't honor them. It disgraces them.

Wow and here I thought you were honoring those who give you the right to come here and talk ****.
 
I just realized a flaw in this debate.. we don't really "know" what "they" are thinking, whoever "they" are. Non-state actors are who they are, and are difficult to deal with, because we don't really know what they want.

Warfare isn't about certainty. It's about identifying the strengths and weaknesses of both yourself and your enemy.

The West's critical weakness is social and political. The terrorists KNOW this, therefore they will attempt to exploit it. They are cunning and ruthless. Underestimating them would be a fatal mistake.

But for the sake of argument...

We can speculate that they just wanted to create chaos in the bureaucracy of the West, and I think in that department they have succeeded. Many freedoms have been encroached upon in the name of stopping terrorism...

I believe this is true to some extent, but not as much as some would like to suggest.

Our country has always been quick and loose with the Constitution; I'm not saying that's right but if I HAVE to sacrifice a liberty for some reason I suppose military reasons are the best.

...our coffers have been emptied in a protracted conflict...

Our financial problems have nothing to do with wars.

...and more people are hating what we represent with each passing day.

What? Like Europe? Oh well. America should look to its own interests first, just as every other country in the world does.

The fanatic Arabs? They've always hated us; nothing new there.

Moderate Muslims? They're too wimpy to fight either America or the terrorists.

And frankly, most of what is happening in the ME is the result of past deeds by the U.S. and the British Empire. The thirst for conquest has bred multi-generational hatred, and the present conflict is stoking that fire.

What specifically are you referring to?

You're right that they capitalized on social and political weakness, but it isn't one from the past 5 years. The entanglement in the ME has been 50+ years in the making. We made this monster.

The West had nothing to do with Islamic radicalization. Yes, there is some blowback we’re dealing with now but I don’t think that’s a sufficient justification ANYMORE for withdrawing globally.
 
Back
Top Bottom