The federal government has been under fire for opposing the U.S. intervention -- which does not have UN backing -- while at the same time allowing 31 Canadian exchange officers to serve with coalition units.
On Thursday, a British officer in Kuwait said some Canadians, mostly majors serving in logistics roles, are in harm's way.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
First I heard of it...
[Ricky Ricardo voice] Jean Chretien, you have some 'splainin to do...[/Ricky Ricardo voice]
Originally posted by NUKE
First you heard of it? Does that make it not true? The fact is that all of these countries contributed to the war in Iraq.
So they didn't have "UN" backing.... what does the UN have to do with it? The UN is a joke anyway.
Originally posted by NUKE
Seems to me, with the US, Britain, Canada, Poland, Japan, Italy and all the rest of the coalition are the majority in this case.
Originally posted by NUKE
although you left out Canada.
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Also 13% hardly makes majority, but I may be wrong.
Originally posted by LazerusPopulation total of those 31 countries is 13% of World population, yes.
Thats 13% of the population. What % of the population is in the armed forces.
Originally posted by LazerusThat would be 16% (193 countries)
That's 31 countries, what % of the worlds countries is that?
Originally posted by LazerusYOu wouldn't get majority that way either.
Hell, do a map by landmass if ya want
Originally posted by LazerusAgain, it wasn't the number of forces, but population of those countries compared to World population.
but comparing the number of personell in Iraq to the world population is specious at best.
Originally posted by HortlundWell, it would be great if you apply the same filter to both sides.
Some people seem unable to understand that we do not live in a world-democracy, where the opinions of people living in N'Gurunda in Africa has equal importance as people living in for example New Hampshire.
Originally posted by HortlundMajority of the World cares
So the **** what if a majority of the population on this planet lives in nations that are not sending forces to Iraq. Does anybody care?
Originally posted by HortlundYes, I feel pathetic, especially because I gave my vote to Bush.
Apart from the pathetic liberals trying to score some cheap-ass "point" in their struggle to bend over to various terrorist organizations.
Originally posted by Hortlund
Go take lessons from Spain you miserable ****s.
Originally posted by NUKE
Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom have all sent troops and support to Iraq.
And yet France, Russia and Germany constitute a "world" opposed to the Iraq war. Seems to me, with the US, Britain, Canada, Poland, Japan, Italy and all the rest of the coalition are the majority in this case.
Originally posted by 2bighorn[/b]
Well, it would be great if you apply the same filter to both sides.
Majority of the World cares
Throwing stones in a glass house?
It's easy to argue and point others out whilst hiding behind neutrality. What Sweden has done in regard to that?
Does the facts, which you aren't agree with, really make you so mad you would give up democracy?
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yeah, I bet the average Chinese peasant really cares. Or some hunter in Upper Volta...or why not ye average city dweller in Mexico City...I bet they all care really much.
Originally posted by HortlundWhat that has to do with Iraq? And how many troops you have in Afghanistan? 45 dispatch specialists? Or you finally sent some more?
There is no neutrality in the war on terror. We sent troops to Afghanistan.
Originally posted by GscholzCorrect, sorry for the mistake in my first post.
Norway is not part of the "coalition", our troops are there on a humanitarian mission. Norway did not support the invasion of Iraq, and did not participate in the coalition.
Originally posted by 2bighorn
What that has to do with Iraq? And how many troops you have in Afghanistan? 45 dispatch specialists? Or you finally sent some more?
Originally posted by NUKEChina opposed the war in Iraq - it's population alone outnumbers the combined coalition countries' population.
Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom have all sent troops and support to Iraq.
And yet France, Russia and Germany constitute a "world" opposed to the Iraq war. Seems to me, with the US, Britain, Canada, Poland, Japan, Italy and all the rest of the coalition are the majority in this case.
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
New Zealand sends nine... LOL now that's a commitment to hang your hat on.
Originally posted by GScholz
According to your own State Department and FBI a state or government agent cannot be considered a terrorist. Otherwise your own operatives might fall under that category.
Originally posted by NUKEIf so you should have left out the rather confusing last line: "Seems to me, with the US, Britain, Canada, Poland, Japan, Italy and all the rest of the coalition are the majority in this case."
My only point was to say that a lot of nations lent support and were not opposed to the war. It doesnt reall matter how many people they sent or the size of their populations........if population was what we base everything one, then China and India might as well decide everything for the rest of the world.