Oh and did any body know this. That woman that is at Mc. Cain’s side isn’t his first wife. No he left his first wife for this woman. So he’s a cheater. But who cares right every ones doing it. I had always wounderd why she looked so fucken young. But this is how those nasty old men do it, they get rid of thee old stail stanken twiter poo and get something that is younger that they truely can’t handle.

If you’ll look back, you’ll find that I only posted all that stuff as a discrediting rebuttal to your earlier posts casting full blame for all of humanity’s woes solely on the U.S. There is plenty of blame and fault to go around, and the shoulder chips are abundant on all sides of every issue.

You just don’t know when to shut up, do you? Here I was basically agreeing with you and then you drag out that blatantly incindiary diatribe.

100 years of oil supplies left in Iraq? Given current known and expected oil reserves and production rates, and oil prices at $100 a barrel now, that might be a good guess. In the sixties there were still major oil fields and pools being discovered on land and prices were in the $6 /bbl range if I recall. If oil prices quadruple or quintuple (again) like they did this past decade then obviously it will make sense to spend more to get more oil out of the ground so we may get another 100 years worth of supplies from Iraq. It’s really quite simple, please don’t play so stupid with your “Every decade since the 60’s we’ve been told…” straw man bullshit. Where is the oil now? Arabia, Iraq off shore W Africa, Antarctica (environmentally off limit), Arctic possibly, some deep Offshore waters, oilsands and oil shale. At $20 /bbl theeese were not considered economic reserves, at $100 a barrel they if you ignore the environmetal damage.

As for the Cdn involvement, I’m going to forget everything you’ve said as you obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder and, ahem, your sources have proved to be pretty patheric in the past. J.R. Ryter for Christ’s sake. Instead, I’ll look elsewhere, the dispute seems to be coming to a close on the subjec t over at Wiki (not that they are always right, but I am sure they are right more than you are.)

In a few short lines the wiki article compiled a more coherently realistic explanation than you have been able to paste together in two days of Preacher Screacher Vetting. From wiki:

Although the Canadian government did not join the invasion force, Canada has always stood by their closest ally even if it has been kept quiet and not widely publicized. Canada’s official statement during that time was that they are involved in the War On Terror, not the invasion of Iraq.

One little talked about fact was the Canadian Forces had been patrolling the Persian Gulf since the end of the first Gulf War, and worked side by side with other allied forces in enforcing the Oil for food program. Once the literal invasion of Iraq was over, the situation became part of the overall War On Terror.

I’m not saying I buy this wiki stuff 100%, but I am saying I will not buy the crap that you have to sell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War

You said, “Seems to me that [about a hundred years] is about the useful life of there oil supplies.” Every decade since the ’60s we’ve been told that the earth’s supply of oil will run out by the end of that decade, but now there’s a 100-year supply in Iraq alone? Hmmm.

In fact, NL, most of the referenced statements attributed to me were direct quotes (cut/paste) from the two sites. It’s obviously true that the Canadian military was there beginning on day one of the invasion, so your statement that “we stayed out of the invasion” is patently false.

Also, Gen. Natynczyk’s 12-month stint as deputy commander of 10 brigades of our troops began only a few months after the invasion. During the time frame of his leadership we lost 956 troops, including the two months of greatest casualty numbers. So, the situation started to improve because of Canadian Forces involvement?

The first 3 paragraphs of my post from 5:34 pm yesterday pretty much says it all, but not in my words (it was cut/paste from the linked site).

NL - I talked to Paul this morning and he said that our efforts in the middle east were for a noble cause. If that’s what our ultra right wing minority government leader thinks, we’ll that’s good enough for me. After all, he is quite brilliant despite the appearances of those beady little eyes, weasely lips and bad haircut.

TV - Also, Paul said that Canadian frigates in the middle east waters are there to intercept arms smugglers, terrorists and pirates. I also recall reading that over a coffee & newspaper years ago and getting a lot of strange looks by people in the coffee shop wondering why I was rolling on the floor laughing. There was no mention of operating alongside US aircraft carriers, the implied logic is that the US Navy can look after themselves but a few more frigates in the region to intercept contraband, other outlaws, and (GASP!) terrorists would be a good thing. So that’s what we were told. It does not surprise me that TV is now trying to tell me that Canadians are being lied to just like Americans are being lied to about military operations.

TV - the one item that shows a potential gross misunderstanding (mischaracterization) is your comment about oil as a motive for military intervention. I know you were joking, but of course everyone is there for the oil - not to put in buckets and carry back with troop rotations on Hurcules aircraft as your joke would suggest, but rather to secure production rights to the oil fields, secure sales contracts at reasonable prices for a secure source of oil imports - to the detriment of competitors (Russia, China), to protect oil field and transmission facilities from sabatage, and etc.

If the middle east wasn’t THE primary strategic region in the world, primariliy due to oil, your country and mine would show about as much interest in Iraq as we have in Kenya, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, Panama, Indonesia or Columbia - that is move in, fix the problem (”nope, no WMD’s there!”) and more or less just leave.

I hear McCrazy (Insane) McCain figures you will stay in Iraq for about a hundred years, is that true? Seems to me that is about the useful life of there oil supplies. Coincidence? Of course it is, silly. LOL.

As for helping the US in their folley, think of it this way:

Just because your friend is retarded and was told not to do something but did it anyway, doesn’t mean you won’t help them when they are in dire need.

Also, TV, our imports of oil have risen a whopping 400 million dollars in 4 years!?! The hell you say! It’s almost like our economy was growing over that period or something? If Iraq’s infrastrucutre wasn’t destroyed, we’d probably be buying even more from them, helping them out even further.

“Can we finally dispense with the nonsense that Canada is not complicit in word and deed in the occupation of Iraq and the murder of hundreds of thousands of people? I don’t have to tell you why this isn’t front page news, eh?”
Good questions, and I’d like to hear an answer to the second one.

“There are also [Canadian] economic interests in Iraq itself. The April 2007 Iraq Reconstruction Report lists Canada as the fourth largest importer of Iraqi oil. Industry Canada records that total Canadian imports from Iraq have rise from 1.06 billion dollars in 2002 to 1.61 billion dollars in 2006, making Iraq second only to Saudi Arabia as a Middle Eastern source for Canadian imports.”
Does this possibly mean that Canadians are there – gasp – for the… oil?

Also, “Unlike the Canadian deployment in Afghanistan, which is subject to relatively significant coverage domestically, Canada’s participation in Iraq is handled much more carefully by Canadian officials. Defence Minister Peter MacKay did not return a call seeking comment and no official statement has accompanied Matern’s recent deployment.”
Does this infer that the Canadian government is being less than forthright with it’s citizens?

It appears that you might not have read the “proles” link - there’s even more there that wasn’t mentioned in the earlier post, including stuff about the new Canadian general who was just sent over with our troops from Ft. Bragg, monetary contributions, training efforts of Iraqi police, continued operations of Canadian frigates operating alongside U.S. aircraft carriers that form a primary staging platform for bombing raids, etc.

btw, what benefits are gained by both Canada and the U.S. in the “exchange” deal?

So the Canadian military has been up to a lot more than they are telling us, eh. Why am I not surprised, it’s like Prime Minister Harper is taking pages out of Bush’s playbook on lying ooops, don’t want a sheared sheep Baaaaing down my back, I should say making “deceptive statements” to us Cdn citizens.

Well actually I was aware of the small number of Canadian troops operating in Iraq as part of an exchange program with US military, there was a bit of a public discussion about that when it was first discovered by the media, but the story died quickly. I didn’t want to mention it because it seemed trivial, but when you stack it alongside everything else, well it just sucks.

Once again, thanks for the information. I will be having a little chat with our Prime Minister first thing tomorrow morning and will be sure to bring this issue up in our discussion.

On 25 March 2003, during the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq, then US Ambassador Paul Cellucci admitted that “… ironically, Canadian naval vessels, aircraft and personnel… will supply more support to this war in Iraq indirectly… than most of those 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts there.”

Cellucci merely scratched the surface of Canada’s initial “support” for the Iraq War, but he had let the cat out of the bag. As then Secretary of State Colin Powell had explained a week earlier, “We now have a coalition of the willing… who have publicly said they could be included in such a listing…. And there are 15 other nations, who, for one reason or another, do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition.”

Canada was, and still is, the leading member of this secret group, which we could perhaps call CW-HUSH, the “Coalition of the Willing to Help but Unwilling to be Seen Helping.” The plan worked. Most Canadians still proudly believe that their goverenment refused to join the Iraq War. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here are some of the ways in which we joined the fray…

Escorting the US Navy:

1,300 Canadian troops aboard Canada’s multibillion dollar war ships escorted the US fleet through the Persian Gulf, putting them safely in place to bomb Iraq.

Leading the coalition Navy:

Canadian Rear Admiral Roger Girouard was in charge of the war coalition’s fleet.

Providing war planners:

At least two dozen Canadian war planners working at US Central Command in Florida were transferred to the Persian Gulf in early 2003 to help oversee the war’s complicated logistics.

Commanding the war:

In 2004, Canadian Brigadier General Walt Natynczyk commanded 10 brigades totalling 35,000 troops. He was Second-in-Command of the entire Iraq War for that year. When Governor General Clarkson gave Natynczyk the Meritorious Service Cross, her office extolled his “pivotal role in the development of numerous plans and operations [which] resulted in a tremendous contribution… to Operation Iraqi Freedom, and… brought great credit to the Canadian Forces and to Canada.”

Helping coordinate the war:

Canadian military personnel working aboard American E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System warplanes helped direct the electronic war by providing surveillance, command, control and communications services to US war fighters.

Providing airspace and refueling:

Countless US troop and equipment transport aircraft have flown over Canada, to and from the Iraq War, and many refuelled in Gander, Newfoundland.

Providing air transport:

At least three Canadian CC-130 military transport planes were listed by US military to supply coalition forces during the Iraq War.

Providing ground troops

At least 35 Canadian soldiers were directly under US command, in an “exchange” capacity on the ground, participating in the invasion of Iraq.

Funding Iraq’s interior ministry

Canada provides advisors and financial support to this ministry, which has been caught running torture centres. Thousands of its officers have been withdrawn for corruption, and it has been accused of working with death squads that executed a thousand people per month in Baghdad alone in the summer of 2006.

There’s more, but that gives you an idea. The site’s concluding statement:

So the next time a proud fellow citizen tells you that Canada didn’t join the Iraq War, remind them of Mark Twain’s famous quip: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

http://theproles.blogspot.com/2008/01/canadian-generals-in-iraq.html

Tell you what, you let me put a conservative professor in every liberal lecture hall in America to balance the bias there and I’ll lobby for an Arab in the AFA lectures.