I Think Not makes a good point in that people who take great glee in bashing the US get very defensive when something is said against Canada, especially when it is true as ITN has posted.
Canada a quiet participator.
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
RE: Canada a quiet partic
Funny...something that originally brought me here was an article about Martin. It was very critical of him. It was written by one of the posters here.
Funny...something that originally brought me here was an article about Martin. It was very critical of him. It was written by one of the posters here.
If you have any info of such I'm quite curious to find out.
Here's some info for you
http://www.cnp.ca/issues/sc-fait-pl...n Uranium Exports: For peaceful purposes only
http://www.cnp.ca/issues/sc-fait-pl...n Uranium Exports: For peaceful purposes only
The trade deal we have with the US for uranium states very clearly that it can't be used for weapons. The way the Canadian government avoids being called on that is that the US does not keep track of which material gets used for which purpose. Depleted uranium is used for everything from ballast for stock cars (might want to keep that in mind next time you see somebody hit the wall) to medicine to the military. To further complicate things, armoured vehicles are kind of a grey area. Some consider them weapons and others do not.
Does Canada supply 80% of the DU used in American weapons? Probably not, that much since 80% of DU does not go into weapons. If it could be proven that Canadian DU is being used in weapons we could put some real pressure on our government to quit selling DU to the US.
You should all get a hold of your MPs though. Get them to make this an issue because there is little doubt that some Canadian DU is finding its way into the banned weapons the US insists on using.
The only thing that confuses me about that article is that with the seriousness of the nuclear threat during the cold war and Canada's role in NATO. Why hasn't the US made a big deal out of it? It's worse that Mad Cow, Soft lumber, and potato wart, and being friendly with Cuba combined. We're already being screwed unfairly because of those. The US could have done many things such as Hitting us with Huge sanctions, kicking us out of NATO with a serious charge like that. After all the Soviets were the Evil Empire where was the american vehemence against those that work against them? At least the backlash would have been understandable.
That's it, I'm going to buy a island in the pacific and start my own little world.
As one of the people who is complicit in the allegations made in the article about Canada's attack on iraq, I feel compelled to respond.
The article is full of deliberate distortions made in order to amplify Canada's participation and deceive the public.
I'll deal with the allegations that directly involve me.
First, Canadian ships that were in the Gulf were there as participants in the Maritime Interdiction Force, enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq (which were still in force) and interdicting the possible movement of Al-Qaeda and Taliban fugitives from Pakistan to Oman (under another UN resolution) - not escorting American forces in their attack on Iraq. At least one Canadian vessel has been part of this force since 1990.
The Canadian personnel manning the AWACS were monitoring air traffic over the Gulf in support of the MIF as part of the UN resolutions against Iraq - again we have been participating since 1990.
Canadian officers in Doha were there in support of the MIF not the American invasion and had no direct contact with the invasion forces.
American planes overflying Canada have been doing so since the Second World War and continue to do so as part of our NATO obligations.
Canadian troops going to Afghanistan did so as part of our commitment to the UN - long before the Americans decided to invade Iraq - what the Americans decide to do with their troops that leave there is their concern, not ours.
The Canadian troops who were serving on exchange programs were doing so as part of an ongoing program and is our only direct involvement in the attack.
-----
Canada's most questionable involvement relates to the capture of Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives by JTF2 in Afghanistan and the seizure of suspected Taliban or Al-Qaeda operatives by HMCS Algonquin: All of these people were turned over to American authorities and there is no record that I know of of their fates.
----
As far as the rest of the article goes, after reading the distortions with regard to the events I have personal contact in I have no doubt that the author is using the same techniques to distort the other allegations that he makes - all in order to promote his anti-war message.
The article is full of deliberate distortions made in order to amplify Canada's participation and deceive the public.
I'll deal with the allegations that directly involve me.
First, Canadian ships that were in the Gulf were there as participants in the Maritime Interdiction Force, enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq (which were still in force) and interdicting the possible movement of Al-Qaeda and Taliban fugitives from Pakistan to Oman (under another UN resolution) - not escorting American forces in their attack on Iraq. At least one Canadian vessel has been part of this force since 1990.
The Canadian personnel manning the AWACS were monitoring air traffic over the Gulf in support of the MIF as part of the UN resolutions against Iraq - again we have been participating since 1990.
Canadian officers in Doha were there in support of the MIF not the American invasion and had no direct contact with the invasion forces.
American planes overflying Canada have been doing so since the Second World War and continue to do so as part of our NATO obligations.
Canadian troops going to Afghanistan did so as part of our commitment to the UN - long before the Americans decided to invade Iraq - what the Americans decide to do with their troops that leave there is their concern, not ours.
The Canadian troops who were serving on exchange programs were doing so as part of an ongoing program and is our only direct involvement in the attack.
-----
Canada's most questionable involvement relates to the capture of Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives by JTF2 in Afghanistan and the seizure of suspected Taliban or Al-Qaeda operatives by HMCS Algonquin: All of these people were turned over to American authorities and there is no record that I know of of their fates.
----
As far as the rest of the article goes, after reading the distortions with regard to the events I have personal contact in I have no doubt that the author is using the same techniques to distort the other allegations that he makes - all in order to promote his anti-war message.
Derry McKinney said:
Q: What are the past and present consumer products that contain depleted uranium?
A: The uses and markets for depleted uranium (DU) are fairly limited and are typically unrelated to its radioactive properties. It primarily finds application as ballast in commercial aircraft and ships because of its high density and in the manufacture of pigments and glazes. Other relatively minor consumer product uses include incorporation into dental porcelain used for false teeth to simulate the fluorescence of natural teeth and in uranium-bearing reagents used in chemistry laboratories. Because of its high density and high atomic number, depleted uranium is sometimes used for shielding gamma radiation, but such usage is limited and hardly could be considered a consumer use. Ditto for munitions, where depleted uranium is used for penetrating rounds, again, hardly a consumer use.
Ronald L. Kathren, CHP
Professor Emeritus
Washington State University
I guess you better start the pen and paper to your MP's. Looks like a chunk of it can only be used for weapons.
Re: RE: Canada a quiet participator.
I knew that meathead, and what does that have to do with my original comment you are trying in vaine to refute?
I think not said:
I knew that meathead, and what does that have to do with my original comment you are trying in vaine to refute?
And here is some info on Depleted Uranium
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1205632.stm
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1205632.stm
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
Jo Canadian said:
You know, I haven't heard too much about the trade of Uranium between Canada and the states. I am aware that there are Uranium mines in Canada, but our choices of customers are limited though. If we traded with anyone else, such as oh, maybe Russia or France I would bet there would be a backlash from the states in regards to those activities. So besides using it in Nuclear powerplants what else would we do with it to maintain a profit?? We do have a free market of sorts and if there is a demand for something that we have and don't use much I'm sure selling it would be the next step.
I don't know where the 80% stat came from for the weapons being used with our uranium. I'm just curious to how much of the Uranium that we do trade in gets used for fuel?? I would like to find that out...And I don't think Canada actually can enrich uranium for weapons grade materials.
If you have any info of such I'm quite curious to find out.
How about China?
Re: RE: Canada a quiet participator.
Getting defensive I see with name calling. You were implying 30 troops don't matter as opposed to 120,000. If such is the case I advise you increase your peacekeeping forces to a reputable level, say more than Benin?
Said1 said:
Getting defensive I see with name calling. You were implying 30 troops don't matter as opposed to 120,000. If such is the case I advise you increase your peacekeeping forces to a reputable level, say more than Benin?
Re: RE: Canada a quiet participator.
Sorry chum, I'm not getting defensive at all. What I am getting is a good chuckle, on your behalf, and that I thank you for! Heehee, 30 an invasion. You funny.
Also, I will forward your recommendations to Martin ASAP.
I think not said:
Sorry chum, I'm not getting defensive at all. What I am getting is a good chuckle, on your behalf, and that I thank you for! Heehee, 30 an invasion. You funny.
Also, I will forward your recommendations to Martin ASAP.
I'm glad I made you laugh said1. But if you read the title of this thread, I find you're laughing at yourself.
So how would you define Canadian military presence in Iraq? Giving out candy to kids?
So how would you define Canadian military presence in Iraq? Giving out candy to kids?
I don't think the childern of Iraq are really interested in candy think. I would like your comment tho on what walrus wrote.
I think not said:
Oh, Iike this. You go from invasion of the Canadain peacekeepers to urnaium sales, as though I know nothing of the business practices taking place within my own country. Straying so radically off topic within the space of one post will only ensure the fact that you are and will remain a consistant source of ridecule if you can't focus. If you want to start another thread about Canadian uranium sales, be my guest I would be glad to comment.
Canada doesn't really have a role in Iraq, nothing to debate there, eh?
Said1 said:
Pardon me said1, but didn't you mock the reference to the amount of troops in Iraq? Playing with numbers. And I believe the entire thread is about Canadas role in: Iraq, Arms and Depleted Uranium.
If you think Canada doesn't have a role in Iraq, you're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.
peapod said:
Here's my comment on that:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/03/27/cdnsoldiers030327.html
Canadian forces in combat
I think not said:
Pardon me I think not, but I was mocking you're reference to the invasion of Sudan by Canadian Peacekeepers. Then you went onto inform me of information I was already aware of, which I did not comment on, no? Canada sells uranium to just about everyone, no debate here, but not everyone is able to enrich uranium to the point where a bomb can be made, hence the danger in selling it to those who can, and might sell it to those who would use it for making WMD. I know this, and I get it.