Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 67
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852

    Amazing hypocrisy- Again

    Is Bush's timing just bad or is he really this oblivious of how much damage his lack of concern for international opinion is hurting the US?

    I'm sitting here watching Bush extol the virtues of nuclear power plans and how it is time for the US to start building them again. They are clean and they are safe according to Bush.

    He is saying this while at the same time threatening Iran with possible military action if they continue to build their own nuclear power plants.

    I'm sorry but this in hypocrisy at its most extreme and another black eye for US foreign policy.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,468
    I think there is some difference between Iran having nuclear technology and the US having nuclear technology.
    Haven't been on WHT for 6 years!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    What difference is that?
    Are you saying that the US is the only country that deserves to generate alternate sources of power?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    FT Worth, TX
    Posts
    5,098
    its not that blue27... its just that middle eastern isn't as secured as such nations like US, Canada, UK, etc therefore they pose a terrible risk of having uranium stolen and used to make a nuclear bomb. If they can prove they can have tight security like the US nuclear plants I wouldn't have a problem developing them. In these days and age we have to watch out because what if a terrorist were to join one of their plants and bribe a few others there to haul the uranium off?
    Kerry Jones

  5. #5
    OMG, this crap is getting old. The "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" have nothing else to do?

    I KNOW I could sit hear and find a ton of crap to spout about foreign Countries too... Come on! Is that what this is coming down to at WHT?
    Last edited by Fair Dinkum; 06-22-2005 at 05:55 PM.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,468
    Originally posted by blue27
    What difference is that?
    Are you saying that the US is the only country that deserves to generate alternate sources of power?
    Is there a difference between letting your daughter date:
    A) A member of the chess club, strait A's, and had never gotten in trouble, and is on his way to success.
    B) A registered sex offender who is 67 years old, has 7 wives, many children, and doesnt have a job.

    But no...we should not judge people, blue. People change.
    Haven't been on WHT for 6 years!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    979
    Originally posted by Kerry Jones
    In these days and age we have to watch out because what if a terrorist were to join one of their plants and bribe a few others there to haul the uranium off?
    Although I agree with your reasoning of why it's not a hypocracy, you should be a little less overzealous with the above. It's not just a simple matter of having the uranium and suddenly you have a bomb. If you have the money and brains to build the bomb, you also already have what's needed to get the uranium. Uranium is not as hard to obtain as some would like to make it out to be (even weapons grade enriched plutonium for that matter) if you have the money to spend.
    Jeremy Johnstone
    Personal Blog: http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    OMG, this crap is getting old. The "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" have nothing else to do?

    I KNOW I could sit hear and find a ton of crap to spout about foreign Countries too... Come on! Is that what this is coming down to at WHT?

    If this were a demo government in power you would be supporting my statement down the line.

  9. #9
    Originally posted by blue27
    If this were a demo government in power you would be supporting my statement down the line.
    No, quite the opposite.

    I think this belongs in a subforum.... would make a much better atmosphere to discuss these topics in, and "hopefully" less chance of opposing sides acruning points for being "mean" or "oposing".

    WHT is big enough, there is absolutely no reason to NOT have a subforum for politics.... it obviously will not stop being a topic since Kerry lost.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by Kerry Jones
    its not that blue27... its just that middle eastern isn't as secured as such nations like US, Canada, UK, etc therefore they pose a terrible risk of having uranium stolen and used to make a nuclear bomb. If they can prove they can have tight security like the US nuclear plants I wouldn't have a problem developing them. In these days and age we have to watch out because what if a terrorist were to join one of their plants and bribe a few others there to haul the uranium off?

    This is all a part of the hypocrisy.
    There are countries that the US fully supports out there who not only develop nuclear power, they develop nuclear weapons and sell the technology.
    Bush considers Pakistan among the US better friends. What happened there?

    Who is the US to judge who should and should not have the ability to generate their own nuclear power?
    Like it or not the US are not the world's police and they are not the world's moral leaders, and they are not in any position to judge who is dangerous and who is not.

    Until the US can clean up their own act and stop committing war atrocities and international crimes they should just stick to themselves.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    No, quite the opposite.

    I think this belongs in a subforum.... would make a much better atmosphere to discuss these topics in, and "hopefully" less chance of opposing sides acruning points for being "mean" or "oposing".

    WHT is big enough, there is absolutely no reason to NOT have a subforum for politics.... it obviously will not stop being a topic since Kerry lost.
    I'm pretty sure that politics was a topic long before Kerry ever decided to run.

    Regardless, this is the lounge and this is where topics not relating to hosting are to be discussed.

    If you don't like my point of view either ignore me, which I know you can't because you still owe me lunch, or present an opposing point.

  12. #12
    Originally posted by blue27
    If this were a demo government in power you would be supporting my statement down the line.
    Besides, If I was so butt hurt over your complaints about my country by you.. a foreigner, I would result to drastic measures. Once I figgured that plan out... But I do not obsess about all of that.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    979
    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    Besides, If I was so butt hurt over your complaints about my country by you.. a foreigner, I would result to drastic measures. Once I figgured that plan out... But I do not obsess about all of that.
    Do I hear Canadian invasion in the works?
    Jeremy Johnstone
    Personal Blog: http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by jasong
    Is there a difference between letting your daughter date:
    A) A member of the chess club, strait A's, and had never gotten in trouble, and is on his way to success.
    B) A registered sex offender who is 67 years old, has 7 wives, many children, and doesnt have a job.

    But no...we should not judge people, blue. People change.
    I don't know how your little analogy is relevant at all.

    What is the criteria for judging is my question. Are you relying on US intelligence for your information on Iran? Is it because the US makes some claims that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons that we should believe it?

    I have news for you. US intelligence has about as much credibility as an Iraqi prisoner in the middle of a torture session.

    Do you really think that anyone in the International community could take you seriously after going to war over false pretenses based on faulty US intelligence?

  15. #15
    Originally posted by Jeremy Johnstone
    Do I hear Canadian invasion in the works?
    Still working on that............. Gotta find a name for Hortons... and rename Canadian Tire to American Tire..... these things take time.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by Jeremy Johnstone
    Do I hear Canadian invasion in the works?
    That's a different thread.
    We are prepared for that. We already stocked up on tinfoil.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA
    Posts
    979
    Originally posted by blue27
    US intelligence has about as much credibility as an Iraqi prisoner in the middle of a torture session.
    And the Canadian Intelligence agencies are so much better?
    Jeremy Johnstone
    Personal Blog: http://www.jeremyjohnstone.com/blog

  18. #18
    Originally posted by blue27
    That's a different thread.
    We are prepared for that. We already stocked up on tinfoil.
    Darn it, you are correct. I am getting confused.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  19. #19
    Originally posted by Jeremy Johnstone
    And the Canadian Intelligence agencies are so much better?
    ...But the Mounties have horses, and cute clothes.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by Jeremy Johnstone
    And the Canadian Intelligence agencies are so much better?

    Can you point out a time when the Canadian intelligence agencies led our country into war under false pretenses costing thousands of Canadian lives?

    Why do you refuse to accept and admit a wrong and try to fix it?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    329
    Originally posted by blue27
    Until the US can clean up their own act and stop committing war atrocities and international crimes they should just stick to themselves.
    What war crimes and atrocities? You sound like Durbin the senator from Illinois that should be behind bars after comparing our little Cuban terrorist retreat to genocidal regimes. The only atrocities I know of are the billions in foreign aide we give to indifferent, ungrateful and irrelevant nations- or whatever’s left after the UN siphons it off to enrich their pockets. The difference between the US and a mere geographic location such as Canada is that we're relevant on the world stage; yes it’s tough to swallow, but we are the police and mediators, we can decide to whom we shall sanction nuclear power and the potential to enrich uranium or not- It’s just that's simple, we make the rules in the deep end of the pool if you don't like it, move to the US, become relevant and vote.

  22. #22
    Canada provided the first coalition Task Group to arrive in CENTCOM AOR.

    Backgrounder

    The Canadian Forces' Contribution to the International Campaign Against Terrorism BG–02.001m - August 6, 2003

    On the morning of September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four American commercial passenger aircraft. Two were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York City; the third struck the Pentagon in Washington D.C.; and the fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. No one aboard the aircraft survived.

    The United States launched an international campaign against terrorism, to which the Canadian Forces (CF) is making a significant contribution.

    Operation SUPPORT

    Operation SUPPORT was Canada’s first response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

    Its first priority was to provide for the passengers and crew of aircraft diverted to Canadian airfields when civil aviation was grounded all over North America. Re-routed travellers and flight crews were hosted at Canadian Forces (CF) facilities in Goose Bay, Gander and Stephenville, Newfoundland; Halifax, Shearwater and Aldershot, Nova Scotia; Winnipeg, Manitoba; and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.

    Its second priority was to increase the level of emergency preparedness so the CF could respond quickly to requests for humanitarian assistance. The replenishment ship HMCS Preserver, the destroyer HMCS Iroquois and the frigate HMCS Ville de Québec were placed at a heightened state of readiness and prepared to sail to any U.S. port if required to help victims of further attacks. The Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), which is trained and organized to provide emergency humanitarian support in the event of a disaster, was made ready to deploy from 8 Wing Trenton, Ontario. Canada’s NORAD commitment was increased by the addition of CF-18 fighter aircraft placed at strategic locations throughout the country. Finally, CF intelligence capabilities were made available to the United States.

    Operation APOLLO

    How It Began

    Operation APOLLO, Canada’s military contribution to the campaign against terrorism, was a significant manifestation of our commitment to our allies, and to international security.

    * September 12: The UN Security Council issued Resolution 1368, condemning the attacks of September 11, offering deepest sympathy to the American people, and reaffirming the right of member nations (expressed in Article 51 of the UN Charter) to individual and collective self-defence. It also urged the world community to suppress terrorism and hold accountable all who aid, support or harbour the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist acts, and stated that the UN was prepared to combat all forms of terrorism.
    * September 20: Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton authorized more than 100 CF members serving on military exchange programs in the U.S. and other allied nations to participate in operations conducted by their host units in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks.
    * September 28: The UN Security Council issued Resolution 1373, setting out the methods by which member states were to root out terrorists and terrorist organizations, and deprive terrorists of the funds and materials necessary to conduct their operations.
    * October 4: NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson announced that, in response to the terrorist attacks in the U.S., the North Atlantic Council (NATO’s senior advisory body) was invoking Article 5 of the Treaty of Washington, which states that any attack on a NATO nation launched from outside that nation shall be interpreted as an attack on all the NATO nations.
    * October 7:
    o Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced that Canada would contribute air, land and sea forces to the international force being formed to conduct a campaign against terrorism.
    o General Ray Henault, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS), issued warning orders to several CF units.
    o Op APOLLO was established in support of the U.S. initiative code-named Operation ENDURING FREEDOM.
    * October 8: Minister Eggleton announced the first CF commitments under Op APOLLO, which involved about 2,000 CF members. Navy ships were the first CF units to participate in the campaign against terrorism, and they began deploying immediately.

    Command and Control in Operation APOLLO: Canadian Joint Task Force South West Asia (CA JTFSWA)

    The CF units and formations committed to Op APOLLO are organized under the Commander, Canadian Joint Task Force South West Asia (CA JTFSWA). The headquarters of the CA JTFSWA is the Canadian National Command Element (NCE), employing approximately 60 CF members, co-located with U.S. Central Command (CENCOM) at MacDill Air Force Base near Tampa, Florida. The NCE links the Chief of the Defence Staff with U.S. CENCOM and the various CF units assigned to Op APOLLO.

    By end-August 2003, following the re-alignment of Canadian activities in southwest Asia, the NCE will be reduced to a liaison staff.

    Changes of Command

    October 2001–April 2002: Commodore Jean-Pierre Thiffault
    April–November 2002: Brigadier-General Michel Gauthier
    November 2002–May 2003: Brigadier-General Angus Watt
    May 2003–present: Brigadier-General Dennis Tabbernor

    Navy

    Canada was the first coalition nation after the U.S. to deploy a naval task group into the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility, which stretches from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia. At its peak in January 2002, the Canadian Naval Task Group comprised six warships and about 1,500 Navy personnel.

    Chronology of Ship Deployments

    October 8, 2001–February 11, 2002: HMCS Halifax
    December 5, 2001–May 27, 2002: HMCS Toronto
    September 4, 2001–March 4, 2002: HMCS Charlottetown
    October 17, 2001–April 27, 2002: HMCS Iroquois, HMCS Preserver
    November 12, 2001–May 28, 2002: HMCS Vancouver
    February 17–August 17, 2002: HMCS Ottawa
    March 23–October 14, 2002: HMCS Algonquin
    May 1–November 14, 2002: HMCS St. John’s
    May 22–October 21, 2002: HMCS Protecteur
    September 9, 2002–April 2, 2003: HMCS Montreal
    September 16, 2002–April 7, 2003: HMCS Winnipeg
    February 2–May 19, 2003: HMCS Regina
    February 24–July 5, 2003: HMCS Iroquois
    March 5–Aug 4, 2003: HMCS Fredericton
    August 1, 2003-present: HMCS Calgary

    Changes of Command

    February 7, 2003–June 15, 2003: Commodore Roger Girouard commanded Coalition Task Force 151.

    Key Operational Focuses

    The Canadian ships deployed on Op APOLLO participate in force-protection operations, fleet-support operations, leadership interdiction operations, and maritime interdiction operations. On arrival in the north Arabian Sea, they are integrated into a coalition formation.

    * Force-protection operations: Heavily armed, manoeuvrable warships such as Canada’s destroyers and frigates provide defensive capabilities to the more vulnerable specialized vessels in the multinational coalition fleet.
    * Fleet-support operations: The replenishment ships HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur have both cruised the Arabian Gulf and the Arabian Sea at different times to replenish ships of the coalition fleet at sea. Replenishment ships are crucial to sustaining coalition naval operations; as well as food and essential materiel such as fuel, ammunition and replacement parts, they provide the other ships of the fleet with specialized services such as health care and engineering expertise. During their time in theatre, HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur conducted more than 200 replenishment at sea (RAS) operations.
    * Leadership interdiction operations: To prevent Al-Qaeda and Taliban members from escaping the area of operations in merchant ships and fishing boats operating from Pakistan and Iran, Canadian ships hail vessels, identify them, pursue and board them when necessary, and search them for material and activity indicating the presence of Al-Qaeda or Taliban members.
    * Maritime interdiction operations: Since the beginning of Op APOLLO, Canadian ships have hailed more than 21,800 vessels. To date, Canadian ships have performed more than 50 percent of the 1,100 boardings conducted by the multinational coalition fleet.

    Significant Events

    * Patrolling Canadian ships are sometimes called on for humanitarian interventions. HMCS Vancouver came to the aid of a disabled dhow carrying 45 dehydrated people who had been adrift at sea for about a week with nothing to eat or drink. After receiving first aid, food, water and engineering assistance from the frigate, passengers and crew were able to resume their journey in the dhow. In March 2002, the crew of HMCS Preserver also saved lives when they rescued two severely dehydrated Arab sailors found adrift in a disabled vessel.
    * In July 2002, HMCS Algonquin co-operated with CF marine patrol aircraft and a French warship to apprehend four suspected Al-Qaeda members. On July 13, 2002 and July 17, 2002, boarding parties from HMCS Algonquin detained suspects and handed them over to U.S. forces.
    * On October 31, 2002, HMCS Montréal intercepted and boarded a cargo vessel bound for Iraq. On searching the cargo, the boarding party discovered suspicious materiel, including five 24-metre patrol boats that appeared to be in violation of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions against Iraq. The vessel was turned over to another coalition ship in the region for a thorough investigation.
    * On May 23, 2003, HMCS Fredericton rescued two crewmen from the fishing vessel Al Safa who had been severely burned in a galley fire. The burned men were stabilized aboard the frigate by the physician’s assistant, and taken ashore to hospital in the frigate’s Sea King helicopter.

    Army

    Deployment of the 3 PPCLI Battle Group

    In mid-November 2001, the U.S. asked its coalition partners (including Canada) to provide ground troops for a stabilization force to be deployed in areas secured by the Northern Alliance to facilitate distribution of humanitarian relief and supplies to the people of Afghanistan. Canada immediately placed 1,000 members of the Immediate Reaction Force (Land) (IRF(L)) on 48 hours’ notice to deploy. The IRF(L) is highly suitable for evolving operations; it is a light, fully mobile force designed to respond quickly to overseas missions. At that time, it was drawn mostly from the highly trained Edmonton and Winnipeg-based battalions of Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry.

    The situation on the ground in Afghanistan changed significantly during November and December 2001; consequently, Canada’s troop commitment was revised to a contingent of about 750 soldiers to deploy to Kandahar as part of a U.S. Army task force built around the 187th Brigade Combat Team. In January 2002, Canada agreed to deploy the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3 PPCLI) Battle Group, which included a reconnaissance squadron from Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians) (LdSH(RC)), and combat service support elements from 1 Service Battalion. During their six months in Afghanistan, the soldiers of the 3 PPCLI Battle Group performed tasks ranging from airfield security to combat.

    The deployment of the 3 PPCLI Battle Group significantly increased the number of CF personnel directly involved in Op APOLLO. It also represented another important contribution of direct support to Op ENDURING FREEDOM, and demonstrated yet again the importance of interoperability with our allies.

    The LdSH(RC) reconnaissance squadron was equipped with Canadian-made Coyote armoured reconnaissance vehicles, which our U.S. allies specifically requested for this mission. With a top speed of 100 kilometres per hour and the ability to climb a 60-degree slope, the Coyote is well suited to terrain such as that of Afghanistan. It also has high-technology surveillance and long-range detection systems comprising state-of-the-art optics, thermal imagery, image intensifiers, surveillance radar, and laser range-finders.

    The 3 PPCLI Battle Group returned home after six months of service in Afghanistan. The redeployment was announced on June 21, 2002, and the troops arrived back in Canada in two contingents on July 28 and July 30. This troop movement was co-ordinated with the scheduled rotation of American troops to permit the 3 PPCLI Battle Group to travel by American airlift.

    Security Platoon

    On March 14, 2003, a platoon of about 35 soldiers from the 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, based in Edmonton, Alberta, deployed to the Arabian Gulf region to provide local security to CF units deployed on Op APOLLO. The deployment of the security platoon is part of a Force Protection Plan. In July 2003, soldiers from the 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery based at Canadian Forces Base Shilo, Manitoba, replaced the Patricias.

    Significant Events

    * Operation ANACONDA: During March 2002, members of the 3 PPCLI Battle Group were in the mountains of Paktia Province east of Gardez on Op ANACONDA, a U.S.-led coalition effort to search the mountains for Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters, capture them, and destroy their shelters. The Canadian contingent comprised 16 soldiers, including six snipers and an emergency extraction force of medical, security and transport personnel with vehicles specialized for winter operations. These soldiers came under fire and engaged the enemy; as a result, some Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters were killed. The coalition force met with determined resistance, and the enemy demonstrated that they were well organized and well supplied. Throughout Op ANACONDA, the Canadian sniper teams were noted for the deadly accuracy with which they suppressed enemy mortar and heavy machine-gun positions. They are credited with preventing or stopping attacks that could have taken the lives of many coalition soldiers.
    * Operation HARPOON: In the early hours of March 13, 2002, the coalition launched a separate offensive operation in roughly the same region as Op ANACONDA. This new mission, called Op HARPOON, was a joint Canadian-American assault using land and air forces to eliminate a specific pocket of Taliban and Al-Qaeda resistance. The land component was a battalion-sized mixed Canadian and American force under the tactical command of Lieutenant-Colonel Pat Stogran, the commanding officer of the 3 PPCLI Battle Group. On March 14, 2002, LCol Stogran’s Canadian reconnaissance troops led one of his American platoons to a cave-and-bunker complex where the Americans proceeded to destroy several bunkers. Op HARPOON was completed on March 19, 2002.
    * The Tarnak Farm Incident: After Op HARPOON, the 3 PPCLI Battle Group returned to camp at Kandahar International Airport to resume their security duties and train for other taskings. On April 17, 2002, an aerial bomb was accidentally dropped during a live-fire exercise at Tarnak Farm, a designated training area about 5 km south of the Kandahar airfield. Four 3 PPCLI soldiers were killed and eight others were injured. The Minister of National Defence convened a Board of Inquiry to investigate the “Tarnak Farm incident”, as it is now known, and portions of the Board’s final report are now public.
    * Operation TORII: On May 4, 2002, the coalition forces in Afghanistan launched Op TORII, a three-day operation in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan conducted by LCol Pat Stogran in command of an international task force that included about 400 Canadian soldiers Their mission was to find Taliban and Al-Qaeda cave complexes, gather information about terrorist operations in the area, and destroy the cave complexes to prevent terrorists from using them in the future. Burial sites discovered during Op TORII yielded DNA evidence with potential intelligence value.
    * Zobol Province: Between June 30, 2002, and July 4, 2002, most of the 3 PPCLI Battle Group was deployed in Zobol Province, about 100 km northeast of Kandahar, to establish a coalition presence there for the first time. During this deployment, the Canadians and the Afghan National Army conducted a sweep operation in the Shin Key Valley that produced information about recent Al Qaeda and Taliban activities. They also recovered several rockets, fostered relations with the governor of the province, and distributed humanitarian aid (e.g., blankets, food, school supplies) to local people.
    * Repatriation: On July 13, 2002, the 3 PPCLI Battle Group ceased operations and began preparing to return to Canada. Following a brief stay in Guam, part of the planned reintegration process, the soldiers arrived in Edmonton, Alberta, on July 28, 2002, and July 30, 2002. The soldiers not based in Edmonton then continued on to their homes in Winnipeg, Manitoba; Kingston, Ontario; and Trenton, Ontario.

    Air Force

    Strategic Airlift Detachment

    On November 16, 2001 the Strategic Airlift Detachment deployed from 8 Wing Trenton with one CC 150 Polaris (Airbus A310) long-range transport aircraft and about 40 CF members, including three flight crews and one air-cargo handling team. Initially based in Germany, the Strategic Airlift Detachment later moved to the Arabian Gulf region.

    The main purpose of the CC-150 Polaris is long-range transport of personnel and equipment, and the Strategic Airlift Detachment logged about 600 flying hours moving approximately 3.5 million kg of cargo and more than 2,300 passengers. Its tasks included medical evacuation, sustainment and re-supply, rapid delivery of operationally required items, and movement of personnel into the theatre of operations.

    On May 20, 2002, the Strategic Airlift Detachment ceased operations and returned to 8 Wing Trenton, arriving home on May 21, 2002. The CC-150 Polaris continues to support Op APOLLO by carrying out regular sustainment flights from Canada to the Arabian Gulf region.

    Long Range Patrol Detachment

    On December 27, 2001, the Minister of National Defence announced the deployment to the Arabian Gulf region of two CP 140 Aurora long-range surveillance and maritime patrol aircraft with about 200 Air Force personnel, including flight crews and support personnel, from 14 Wing Greenwood, Nova Scotia, and 19 Wing Comox, British Columbia.

    The mission of the Long-Range Patrol Detachment (LRP Det) was to deliver reconnaissance and surveillance support to the maritime coalition forces. The CP 140 Aurora extended the surveillance range of maritime coalition forces to areas not accessible to ship-borne radar, and Aurora crews typically gathered information well before ships’ radar operators could. Aurora crews also contributed to the security of coalition forces by watching for vessels of interest.

    The LRP Det had a secondary mission in the area of operations: search and rescue. If a ship had sunk, or an aircraft crashed at sea, the crew of a patrolling Aurora could have located the emergency site and airdropped survival kits (including an inflatable dinghy and water-purification equipment) to help sustain the survivors until a surface ship could reach them.

    The CP-140 Aurora has been Canada's multi-mission reconnaissance and antisubmarine aircraft for more than 20 years. The Auroras are equipped with a sensor array that includes forward-looking infrared cameras, digital cameras and conventional radar. With speed, endurance and range of coverage, the Auroras and their crews kept a watchful eye on the myriad of surface vessels operating in the Arabian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

    On June 19, 2003, the LRP Det conducted its last mission in support of the coalition fleet, having completed 500 missions and logged more than 4,300 flying hours on Op APOLLO.

    Tactical Airlift Detachment

    On January 21, 2002, the 35-strong advance party of the Tactical Airlift Detachment (TAL Det) departed Canada for the Arabian Gulf region to prepare the infrastructure required to operate three CC 130 Hercules transport aircraft. On January 25, 2002, the main body of the TAL Det deployed with the aircraft and about 180 Air Force personnel, most of them from 8 Wing Trenton, Ontario.

    The mission of the TAL Det is to support coalition forces by transporting military personnel, equipment and cargo between destinations in the theatre of operations, including Afghanistan. The versatile CC 130 Hercules is ideal for this mission: it can lift a 16,000-kg payload, and land safely with a full load on a basic airstrip only about as long as three football fields. It can also be loaded and unloaded quickly with simple equipment. The flight crews and ground personnel of the TAL Det are equally well suited to the mission: in recent years, they have delivered military supplies and humanitarian aid to Somalia, Kosovo, Eritrea and other troubled areas.

    Two CC-130 Hercules aircraft from Op APOLLO were assigned to Op CARAVAN, from 7 June to 6 July, to assist in the airlifting of a UN peacekeeping mission into the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

    Since their arrival in the Arabian Gulf region, TAL Det crews have conducted more than 800 sorties and flown about 5,800 hours to deliver about 7 million kilograms of cargo and 6,100 passengers. They will remain in the Arabian Gulf region to support Op ATHENA, performing the same mission as in Op APOLLO.

    Helicopter Detachments

    The CH-124 Sea King helicopter detachments that serve aboard HMC ships belong to 12 Wing, an Air Force formation divided between Shearwater, Nova Scotia (to support Maritime Command Atlantic, based at Halifax) and Patricia Bay, British Columbia (to support Maritime Command Pacific, based at Esquimalt). Ship-borne helicopters perform a wide range of tasks- including reconnaissance, replenishment, transport and escort- that are essential to the operations of a naval task group.

    Each Canadian frigate normally carries one helicopter, with maintenance personnel and flight crews. Each Canadian replenishment ship carries two helicopters, with flight crews and sufficient maintenance personnel to support other helicopter detachments in the task group while keeping their own aircraft flying. The ships currently serving with the Canadian Naval Task Group in the Arabian Gulf region each have an embarked CH-124 Sea King helicopter, with flight crews and maintenance crews comprising about 20 Air Force personnel.

    Logistics

    “Logistics” is the essential business of providing deployed forces with everything they need to live, move, work and fight in the theatre of operations, including food, water, clothing, equipment, ammunition, shelter, transportation, and essential services such as health care. The key aim of logistics is sustainability, which is especially critical for deployed ships and aircraft.

    During its deployment in Afghanistan, the 3 PPCLI Battle Group was supported by the Strategic Line of Communication (SLOC) Unit, made up of 50 soldiers from 1 Service Battalion in Edmonton and support personnel drawn from other bases. It comprised a headquarters, two movements sections, a supply platoon and a transportation section. The movements sections provided traffic control and services such as aircraft loading and unloading. Supply Platoon provided shipping, receiving and warehousing services. Transportation Section provided integral support to “carry equipment” — that is, all forms of transport vehicles and load-handling equipment—and offered first-line maintenance of vehicles belonging to units of the Battle Group. The SLOC Unit returned to Canada by the end of August 2002.

    Because of the complexity of Op APOLLO, the logistic units originally deployed to support the Air Force detachments, the 3 PPCLI Battle Group and the Canadian Naval Task Group were consolidated on April 17, 2002, to form a National Support Unit (NSU).

    With the realignment of forces in southwest Asia, the NSU has received a new name and a new mission. Canadian Forces Southwest Asia Theatre Support Base will become an integral part of Op ATHENA on August 16, 2003. This change indicates the key role this unit will play in supporting the 1,900-strong Canadian contingent that will serve with Op ATHENA, the CF contribution to the International Stabilization Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Although Op ATHENA will be its primary focus, the Canadian Forces Southwest Asia Theatre Support Base will continue to provide some support to units deployed on Op APOLLO, specifically the frigate HMCS Calgary.

    Communications

    In May 2002, the National Command, Control and Information System Squadron (NCCIS Sqn) was created to organize communications for the CF personnel and units deployed on Op APOLLO. The NCCIS Sqn provides the Canadian Joint Task Force Commander and the commanders of deployed CF units with national communications and information system capabilities. The personnel of the NCCIS Sqn build and maintain the computer and telephone networks that link the units deployed in the Arabian Gulf region to their headquarters in North America.

    At its peak, NCCIS Sqn strength stood at about 90 all ranks; it now comprises about 30 CF personnel. The core membership of the NCCIS Sqn comes from the Canadian Forces Joint Signal Regiment in Kingston, Ontario, and from communications units at 8 Wing Trenton, Ontario. The mission of this unit, too, is changing to focus on Op ATHENA.

    Blu27, you can play Mr Innocent all you want... but YOUR elected Govt has been with the US Elected GOVT from the start. If we were fooled, so were you. From the start... OK! Get over it. I know some Canadians would have prefered a Traitor to the US be elected, but it did not happen. get over it.
    Last edited by Fair Dinkum; 06-22-2005 at 06:35 PM.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by cowabunga
    What war crimes and atrocities? You sound like Durbin the senator from Illinois that should be behind bars after comparing our little Cuban terrorist retreat to genocidal regimes. The only atrocities I know of are the billions in foreign aide we give to indifferent, ungrateful and irrelevant nations- or whatever’s left after the UN siphons it off to enrich their pockets. The difference between the US and a mere geographic location such as Canada is that we're relevant on the world stage; yes it’s tough to swallow, but we are the police and mediators, we can decide to whom we shall sanction nuclear power and the potential to enrich uranium or not- It’s just that's simple, we make the rules in the deep end of the pool if you don't like it, move to the US, become relevant and vote.

    And it is idiotic statements like this that perpetuate the negative attitude toward Americans.
    Yes you are certainly relevant. Relevant enough to have terrorists fly planes into city buildings.
    Sleep well sweetheart.

    As long as you keep this kind of attitude you can expect more of the same.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    Blu27, you can play Mr Innocent all you want... but YOUR elected Govt has been with the US Elected GOVT from the start. If we were fooled, so were you. From the start... OK! Get over it. I know some Canadians would have prefered a Traitor to the US be elected, but it did not happen. get over it.

    A wonderful copy and paste job but it doesn't really make your point.

    Canadian intelligence hasn't gotten our country into an un-winnable war and cost our citizens thousands of lives.

    We agree, at least most Canadians do, that Bin Laden and Al Quaeda et al. need to be taken down.
    We supported the offensive in Afghanistan and still do.

    It's when the US took their eye off the ball and went after some mystery weapons and then snowballed the country into believing that it was some sort of search for WMD that we chose to cut you loose.


    Then again, all this is off topic.

    The thread is about Bush's hypocrisy in dealing with Iran.

    I don't even claim it to be American policy. It's just your little wanna be dictator who is causing all these problems.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Originally posted by blue27
    What is the criteria for judging is my question. Are you relying on US intelligence for your information on Iran? Is it because the US makes some claims that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons that we should believe it?
    Ah, I see. So we've become Peter in "Peter and the Wolf" to the international community, eh?

    Originally posted by blue27
    I have news for you. US intelligence has about as much credibility as an Iraqi prisoner in the middle of a torture session.
    Talk about invalid analogies. With the way our interrogators treated prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Iraqi prisoners in the middle of a torture session would have godly credibility.

    Originally posted by blue27
    Do you really think that anyone in the International community could take you seriously after going to war over false pretenses based on faulty US intelligence?
    I guess we really are "Peter" in the international community.

    I hope by "you" in the above example, you weren't talking directly to jasong or any other American, specifically, as by no means was it our choice to go to war in Iraq.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    I hope by "you" in the above example, you weren't talking directly to jasong or any other American, specifically, as by no means was it our choice to go to war in Iraq.

    The "you" I refer to are Jasong and the many others who supported this war this President, and continue to support them.

    I can understand backing a candidate to a point but not after he has shown countless examples of incompetence and ignorance and absolutely no willingness to listen to the international community.

    Like I said, if people want to believe the lines that this guy is peddling then they better prepare themselves for the reality of living in fear. The world is not a safer place. In fact the world, especially if you carry an American flag, is far, far, more dangerous than it was before Bush.

  27. #27
    Originally posted by blue27
    The "you" I refer to are Jasong and the many others who supported this war this President, and continue to support them.

    I can understand backing a candidate to a point but not after he has shown countless examples of incompetence and ignorance and absolutely no willingness to listen to the international community.

    Like I said, if people want to believe the lines that this guy is peddling then they better prepare themselves for the reality of living in fear. The world is not a safer place. In fact the world, especially if you carry an American flag, is far, far, more dangerous than it was before Bush.
    So, Now you have me curious. It is obvious you have all of the solutions to the worlds problems. Instead of complaining about another countries leaders, what are YOU doing to make it better? And how are you making your elected leaders follow YOUR way? Ya got me interested now.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    So, Now you have me curious. It is obvious you have all of the solutions to the worlds problems. Instead of complaining about another countries leaders, what are YOU doing to make it better? And how are you making your elected leaders follow YOUR way? Ya got me interested now.

    That's a nice try Sailor. It might work with some of the little kiddies here but not with me.
    Since I never made any claim to have any solutions to the world's problems it is a little silly for you to imply that it's obvious that I have the solutions for all of them.

    I make my elected leaders follow my way with my vote. It's really simple. If I don't like their policies, I don't vote for them. I don't blindly follow a party line or party rhetoric. I vote with my head not because of a party.

    Why am I concerned with other county's leaders? Because I am intelligent enough to know that the actions of the leaders of other countries can greatly affect my security and well being when I travel.
    If more people would realize this and start asking questions then the world might truly be a safer place.
    The US spends an exorbitant amount of energy interfering with other countrys' business. I find it amusing that you and others would wonder why people from other countries would question the motives.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    Originally posted by blue27
    . . . The world is not a safer place. In fact the world, especially if you carry an American flag, is far, far, more dangerous than it was before Bush.
    With all due respect blue, unless you can see 2 separate timelines - one with the war, and one without the war, you can only guess and make statements like that. And how would one measure something as vast as that, on a planetary scale?

    The truth is noone knows if we're better off with the overthrow of Saddam, or worse off without the overthrow of Saddam. The timeline has moved in a different direction, and there's no going back. This was a huge issue in the recent aussie election, with the opposition party claiming the world was worse off after overthrowing Saddam.

    Sure, it would seem America has more enemies, but that's only because they have stood up and actually fought against terrorism, rather than digging their heads in the sand and hoping it doesn't happen to them. It's a little known fact that American citizens went in hiding, during the Gulf War. I know several folks who spent mths in hiding, in Pakistan, during the Gulf War.

    Don't get me wrong, I support the overthrow of Saddam, I support a democratic and free Iraq, and I support America's war against terrorists (who seem to mainly be in Iraq now), but I do think Pres Bush is dangerously incompetant to be the President of earth's most powerful nation. But luckily it's a team effort and not Bush running the show like some crazed halfwit dictator.
    AussieHost.com Aussie Bob, host since 2001
    Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Originally posted by blue27
    The "you" I refer to are Jasong and the many others who supported this war this President, and continue to support them.
    How do you know that jasong supports President Bush and/or his agenda?

    Originally posted by blue27
    I can understand backing a candidate to a point but not after he has shown countless examples of incompetence and ignorance and absolutely no willingness to listen to the international community.
    Nor did I say that he's competent, knowledgeable, and open-minded. I just said that it wasn't our (the American people) decision to go to war in Iraq. Granted, we didn't have to reelect him, but for whatever reason, we did.

    Originally posted by blue27
    Like I said, if people want to believe the lines that this guy is peddling then they better prepare themselves for the reality of living in fear. The world is not a safer place. In fact the world, especially if you carry an American flag, is far, far, more dangerous than it was before Bush.
    Many Americans already do live and have been living in fear for the past three and a half years.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by Aussie Bob
    With all due respect blue, unless you can see 2 separate timelines - one with the war, and one without the war, you can only guess and make statements like that. And how would one measure something as vast as that, on a planetary scale?

    Actually Bob, I think it is pretty easy to measure.
    Terrorist incidents and deaths as a result of terrorism have hit a new record high every year that Bush has been in power.
    At the same time Bush is claiming that the world is a safer place.

    Originally posted by Aussie Bob
    The truth is noone knows if we're better off with the overthrow of Saddam, or worse off without the overthrow of Saddam. The timeline has moved in a different direction, and there's no going back. This was a huge issue in the recent aussie election, with the opposition party claiming the world was worse off after overthrowing Saddam.
    Again, I think that is fairly easy to judge.
    Saddam was certainly a threat to his own people. Very unfortunate but a reality in the world. There are many just like him operating as we speak. Korea, many former Soviet republics, many African countries etc etc. Why isn't the US invading all of these countries? Why is there no discussion by Bush about these countries?

    Originally posted by Aussie Bob
    But luckily it's a team effort and not Bush running the show like some crazed halfwit dictator.

    That "team" is getting smaller and smaller and smaller.
    And the reality of it is the Coach of that "team" is viewed as a crazed halfwit dictator by many countries and people world wide.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    329
    Originally posted by blue27
    Like I said, if people want to believe the lines that this guy is peddling then they better prepare themselves for the reality of living in fear.
    The only folks that live in fear are those that align themselves against us through acts of violent cowardice and terrorism along with their sycophantic supporters who seek similar ends, although through the even the more cowardly acts of sedition and worded support. Both are assured certain death, eradication and erasure- it’s only a matter of time. Only those that cower in their own fear and inadequacy seek to ascribe it to others. On that note, think I’ll have a good’ol USDA prime rib eye, some frites, a bottle of latour and watch some Fox news before I get a good nights rest.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by SniperDevil
    Nor did I say that he's competent, knowledgeable, and open-minded. I just said that it wasn't our (the American people) decision to go to war in Iraq. Granted, we didn't have to reelect him, but for whatever reason, we did.
    In a democracy you get the government you deserve.

    Do you think that countries that are not friendly to the US will look at things and say it wasn't the decision of the American people to go to war?

    Of course they will. The reasons for going to war were already known to be completely false during the 2004 election.
    The American people had all of the facts presented to them and they still handed Bush a second term.

    Yes, the American people are responsible for this. Maybe not all of them, but unfortunately, the majority of them.

  34. #34
    Wait a gall derned second here... Sailor? Sorry, I was never in the Navy.

    OOOH, you "make them do" with your vote? Amazing concept.... oh wait, so de we. BUT.... aside from a few fanatics, we lick our wounds and try harder bnext time if our candidate does not win. Yeah, there is a lesson in that Blue...

    America voted for a President. We also vote for MANY other eleceted officials. Checks and balances... will/vs funding and all of that. Come on, I know you are not that stupid to not know how it all works. ****, I know how your lil thing works up north.... and find it funny at times, but I do not make a hobby of posting insults against your Country at WHT.

    Either way, it seems you are enjoying the legality of Canadian Govy Supplied Pot and Heroin. Wait? Your Govt is making that stuff avail. ? (pot I can see.... some need it. Heroin... is hard narcotics such an issue up there that the Govt needs to supply it to its citizens?)

    If you say we threaten your security, I can say YOU threaten ours by making widely available heroin etc.... Bad enough the best Pot comes from your "peaceful lil nation), not heroin will be next? What will Blue27's "peaceful country" export most of... 1. Terrorists. 2. Pot. 3 Heroin 4. Drug addicts? Hmmm

    See what I am saying?

    Originally posted by blue27
    That's a nice try Sailor. It might work with some of the little kiddies here but not with me.
    Since I never made any claim to have any solutions to the world's problems it is a little silly for you to imply that it's obvious that I have the solutions for all of them.

    I make my elected leaders follow my way with my vote. It's really simple. If I don't like their policies, I don't vote for them. I don't blindly follow a party line or party rhetoric. I vote with my head not because of a party.

    Why am I concerned with other county's leaders? Because I am intelligent enough to know that the actions of the leaders of other countries can greatly affect my security and well being when I travel.
    If more people would realize this and start asking questions then the world might truly be a safer place.
    The US spends an exorbitant amount of energy interfering with other countrys' business. I find it amusing that you and others would wonder why people from other countries would question the motives.
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by cowabunga
    The only folks that live in fear are those that align themselves against us through acts of violent cowardice and terrorism along with their sycophantic supporters who seek similar ends, although through the even the more cowardly acts of sedition and worded support. Both are assured certain death, eradication and erasure- it’s only a matter of time. Only those that cower in their own fear and inadequacy seek to ascribe it to others. On that note, think I’ll have a good’ol USDA prime rib eye, some frites, a bottle of latour and watch some Fox news before I get a good nights rest.

    I rest my case.

    Fortunately, even most right wing Americans find this kind of talk idiotic and ignorant.

    It's nice to see you supporting the French though. I didn't think you had it in you.

  36. #36
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    876
    In reality nuclear power is a viable alternative, perhaps the only viable alternative, to fossil fuels for the future. That's not to say it doesn't have downsides - it certainly does - but you need to think of the lesser evil and currently I'd rather have nuclear than something far more polluting. Solar and hydro just aren't going to meet the steadily increasing need for power.

    That doesn't mean it should become freely accessible. The US has proven as a reliable user of this technology and it is obvious that they should be able to expand their usage of it, particularly where it decreases or at least minimises the increase in the use of fossil fuels. Other countries are not as stable and do not have the same track record. Access to nuclear technology is not a right. It is a potentially dangerous weapon and access should be restricted to stable countries.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    Wait a gall derned second here... Sailor? Sorry, I was never in the Navy.

    LOL, that is hilarious.
    I've had so many discussions with Sailor in the past somehow my keyboard automatically inserted his name.

    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    OOOH, you "make them do" with your vote? Amazing concept.... oh wait, so de we. BUT.... aside from a few fanatics, we lick our wounds and try harder bnext time if our candidate does not win. Yeah, there is a lesson in that Blue...
    The problem with that argument is that it was very clear that Bush and his administration screwed up royally when they decided to go into Iraq under false pretenses.
    The US voters had the opportunity to right the wrong and they failed to do it.

    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    but I do not make a hobby of posting insults against your Country at WHT.
    How did I insult your country? By pointing out Bush's failures and encouraging change it is helping your country. Bush has put you in a very tenuous position.


    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    Either way, it seems you are enjoying the legality of Canadian Govy Supplied Pot and Heroin. Wait? Your Govt is making that stuff avail. ? (pot I can see.... some need it. Heroin... is hard narcotics such an issue up there that the Govt needs to supply it to its citizens?)
    I nice little statement and probably effective if people take it in your context. Of course smart people will know better and find out the Heroin reference you are trying to make sound so bad.

    As far as the marijuana thing goes, you have legalized alcohol in the US do you not? I believe that alcohol is responsible for far more deaths than marijuana. So I guess that is a mute point.

    Originally posted by TalkMilitary
    If you say we threaten your security, I can say YOU threaten ours by making widely available heroin etc.... Bad enough the best Pot comes from your "peaceful lil nation), not heroin will be next? What will Blue27's "peaceful country" export most of... 1. Terrorists. 2. Pot. 3 Heroin 4. Drug addicts? Hmmm

    See what I am saying?
    Again, you try to make an argument base on false pretext.
    Your suggestion that the Canadian government is making heroin "widely available" is foolish at best and purely ignorant on the other end.
    Where do you think that heroin is coming from though? Maybe via the US?

    Maybe we are getting all of this heroin because the US had no plan in place when they went into Afghanistan to control drug trafficking (why would they, they can't even control it in their own country) and allowed Afghanistan to become the worlds biggest heroin producer?
    Perhaps that is it, I don't know.

    I know you would like to believe that terrorist and drugs come to the US via Canada but the reality is it's the other way around.

    How many terrorists who attacked the world trade center and the pentagon came to the US via Canada? Riiiiight. None. They came from your buddies in Saudi Arabia.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by -T{H}R-
    Other countries are not as stable and do not have the same track record. Access to nuclear technology is not a right. It is a potentially dangerous weapon and access should be restricted to stable countries.

    You mean a potentially dangerous weapon like the hydrogen bomb. The kind of bomb that the US is the only country in history to use against another nation?

    What exactly determines what is a stable or unstable country?
    Your media and your government tells you what to think and you do it.
    Reality is a much different place.

  39. #39
    (poof, just like that)
    Don't you walk thru my words
    You got to show some respect
    Don't you walk thru my words
    'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

  40. #40
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    876
    I knew that you were going to reply about that, you're too predictable - it was 60 years ago, the world was a much different place and that is an entirely different argument, completely irrelevant to the current topic... you cannot keep reliving that for the next 1,000 years.

    And I do not necessarily follow what the media and the government think - there is a wide variety of sources to receive information. I am not following specifically the US but the UN also oppose Iran having nuclear capacity as they have doubts as to the true intentions of the program.

    Stability is not an easy thing to assess but it's just common sense to prevent the technology from becoming freely available.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •