Canada a quiet participator.
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
PEAPOD: Look, you gotta pitcher on this team?
SAID1: Now wouldn't this be a fine team without a pitcher.
PEAPOD: The pitcher's name.
SAID1: Tomorrow.
PEAPOD: You don't wanna tell me today?"
Who's on First?
SAID1: Now wouldn't this be a fine team without a pitcher.
PEAPOD: The pitcher's name.
SAID1: Tomorrow.
PEAPOD: You don't wanna tell me today?"
Who's on First?
Our men are trained in Canada, how many americans can defend themselves against attacking fruit eh?? :twisted:
Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit...
I think they have a point
Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit...
I think they have a point
Continued from other thread......
Were you refering to the op-ed blog peice you linked at the beginning of this thread?
The first few paragraphs were explained to you, and I added some info.
ThIs this the cutting evidence we continue to deny?
Were you refering to the op-ed blog peice you linked at the beginning of this thread?
The first few paragraphs were explained to you, and I added some info.
ThIs this the cutting evidence we continue to deny?
Sure why not. The burden of proof falls upon you to discredit the author. If posters can reference conspiracy theory sites and take them as documentary evidence, I see no reason why I can't reference an author on any website. Why not?
I think not said:
Why wouldn't you want to set standards higher for yourself? Is it so hard to be the better person? We can argue semantics all day if you want, but Canadian soldiers were not part of any willling coalition, and I think you agree with that, you're just being silly.
Said1 said:
Whatever said1, I'm done with this topic, instead of analyzing the issue in a calm and intelligent manner, your first reaction was not to think, but to discredit the author and the CBC. Fine with me. I'm being silly.
I think not said:
Yes, you are being silly. First you said the op-ed piece more or less fell in line with other conspiracy theroys posted here and are using it as documented evidence, then said it's up to me to discredit the author. Then you go on to say that's all I've done. Wow. Just wow.
RE: Canada a quiet partic
We have no role in Iraq. No one gave the mandate to our goverment to play a role in Iraq. So stop asking.
We have no role in Iraq. No one gave the mandate to our goverment to play a role in Iraq. So stop asking.
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.
I say we should send Uranium to Iran, North Korea, China and Cuba for Nuclear power plants instead. It wouldnt be used for Weapons.
I'd be a little iffy about giving uranium to North Korea, Our Dear Leader seems a little too wonky.
Jo Canadian said:
Well, not me. Why would anyone attack us? If we make enemies, then someone would. But if we have none?
Numure said:
It's not so much about us getting attacked. What would Canadian government do if they decided to enriched or reprocess it without the prior consent of the Canadian government?
Don't be so sure Canada may not be attacked said1. It's true, Canada doesn't seem to have any apparent enemies, however, Canada may be seen as a way to disrupt oil, gas and other essentials to the US.
Think about it in economic terms also, not only political.
Think about it in economic terms also, not only political.
I think not said:
I'm not sure Canada won't be attacked, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was talking about uranium sales to N. Korea, the possible rammifications and how we are practically powerless to stop it once the uranium has changed hands. The N.Koreans can't really be trusted now can they?
Oh yes, someone mind invade canada :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ...wait :idea: we got 30 soldiers..who would dare take us on. 8O
peapod said:
No, no. Those 30 soldiers are occupiedo in Iraqo. They're rootin' tootin' gun slinging occupiers. Annie, get your gun!
Ah...lil said I am starting to like you, you got the mojo :wink: But wait don't you think those 30 camaflouged men will return with their snowballs and protect the big igloo??