Canada a quiet participator.

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Canada a quiet partic

Walrus' comment was into relation to our maritime forces though, I think not. The article you linked to is about those 31 soldiers in Iraq. It also shows your claims that CBC did not report on it to be false.

 

[Said1]

I don't think the childern of Iraq are really interested in candy think. I would like your comment tho on what walrus wrote.

Here's my comment on that:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/03/27/cdnsoldiers030327.html

Canadian forces in combat

This article is from '03! Comment on that.

 

[I think not]

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?

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?

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.

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.

Show me where I said Canada INVADED Sudan please, I said if you can call an equal amount of forces peacekeepers then why not an invaders. Or is this something you're not getting?

I'm not talking about Uranium, I'm talking about depleted Uranium.

 

[Said1]

Show me where I said Canada INVADED Sudan please, I said if you can call an equal amount of forces peacekeepers then why not an invaders. Or is this something you're not getting?

I'm not talking about Uranium, I'm talking about depleted Uranium.

Are you serious? I'll give you a chance to go back and look at my original reply to you.

I know the difference between uranium and depeleted uranium, do you?

 

[I think not]

I don't think the childern of Iraq are really interested in candy think. I would like your comment tho on what walrus wrote.

Here's my comment on that:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/03/27/cdnsoldiers030327.html

Canadian forces in combat

This article is from '03! Comment on that.

What's your point exactly? That you WERE or ARE participants in the Iraq war. :?

 

[I think not]

Show me where I said Canada INVADED Sudan please, I said if you can call an equal amount of forces peacekeepers then why not an invaders. Or is this something you're not getting?

I'm not talking about Uranium, I'm talking about depleted Uranium.

Are you serious? I'll give you a chance to go back and look at my original reply to you.

I know the difference between uranium and depeleted uranium, do you?

I don't have to go back, follow the yellow brick road.

 

[Said1]

I don't think the childern of Iraq are really interested in candy think. I would like your comment tho on what walrus wrote.

Here's my comment on that:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2003/03/27/cdnsoldiers030327.html

Canadian forces in combat

This article is from '03! Comment on that.

What's your point exactly? That you WERE or ARE participants in the Iraq war. :?

WHERE HAVE I DENIED THIS?? I even posted remarks about Canadian ships and suspected terrorists in caught in the gulf. Sheesh, you really need to go back and read.

 

[I think not]

You implied 30 troops are nothing or did I misuenderstand you? If I did, my apologies.

 

[I think not]

I don't think the childern of Iraq are really interested in candy think. I would like your comment tho on what walrus wrote.

Walrus said that the author distorted truth, I placed a link above from CBC that doesn't quite tell the same tale.

 

[Said1]

You implied 30 troops are nothing or did I misuenderstand you? If I did, my apologies.

30 troops isn't much, wouldn't you agree? I've never denied their presence in Iraq. On that one, you are mistaken.

 

[peapod]

I think not all you have accomplished with this thread you started, is to show your "purposeful misconstruation" of facts. Even now when you haven been proven wrong, you continue to try and twist everything.

 

[I think not]

You implied 30 troops are nothing or did I misuenderstand you? If I did, my apologies.

30 troops isn't much, wouldn't you agree? I've never denied their presence in Iraq. On that one, you are mistaken.

Of course I agree it isn't much. Perhpas you misunderstood what I was trying to convey so I'll repeat it.

If Canada sends an equal amount of force on peacekeeping missions wouldnt the same amount of force in Iraq constitute being part of an illegal war?

 

[I think not]

I think not all you have accomplished with this thread you started, is to show your "purposeful misconstruation" of facts. Even now when you haven been proven wrong, you continue to try and twist everything.

Pardon me pea, but where exactly have I been proven wrong?

 

[Said1]

You implied 30 troops are nothing or did I misuenderstand you? If I did, my apologies.

30 troops isn't much, wouldn't you agree? I've never denied their presence in Iraq. On that one, you are mistaken.

Of course I agree it isn't much. Perhpas you misunderstood what I was trying to convey so I'll repeat it.

If Canada sends an equal amount of force on peacekeeping missions wouldnt the same amount of force in Iraq constitute being part of an illegal war?

Would the peacekeeping mission in Sudan take place under the guise of regime change, or to enforce some sort of armitice, while leaving the present government intact?

 

[Said1]

RE: Canada a quiet partic

Oh, and I meant to mention that the link for your original article didn't work, but I forgot. Ooops.

 

[I think not]

OK, I'll be even more clear on this. No one is disputing your peacekeeping mission to Sudan as a peacekeeping mission.

Now, if Albania sends 70 military personnel to Iraq and Canada sends 30, isn't it the same participation in an illegal war?

 

[Said1]

OK, I'll be even more clear on this. No one is disputing your peacekeeping mission to Sudan as a peacekeeping mission.

Now, if Albania sends 70 military personnel to Iraq and Canada sends 30, isn't it the same participation in an illegal war?

Is their purpose regime change?

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Canada a quiet partic

Oh, and I meant to mention that the link for your original article didn't work, but I forgot. Ooops.

You have to copy and paste it, it didn't work when I tried adding a URL tag to it.

 

[I think not]

OK, I'll be even more clear on this. No one is disputing your peacekeeping mission to Sudan as a peacekeeping mission.

Now, if Albania sends 70 military personnel to Iraq and Canada sends 30, isn't it the same participation in an illegal war?

Is their purpose regime change?

For which one said1? Sudan or Iraq? I'm a bit confused.

 

[Said1]

OK, I'll be even more clear on this. No one is disputing your peacekeeping mission to Sudan as a peacekeeping mission.

Now, if Albania sends 70 military personnel to Iraq and Canada sends 30, isn't it the same participation in an illegal war?

Is their purpose regime change?

For which one said1? Sudan or Iraq? I'm a bit confused.

Iraq.