On 3 Jun 2003 at 23:29, Han Tacoma wrote: > Andy (Wed, 04 Jun 2003 02:54:30 +0100) wrote: > \> On 3 Jun 2003 at 16:35, Han Tacoma wrote: > > > > > I'm appalled; should make the list's hawks less anti-canadian, I > > > guess. > > > > Snort. Two contradictory arguments. > > There's a semicolon in the statement.
Sorry, not you. The article. > 1) I don't like the idea of Canada promoting war, specially if it was > a covert action. 2) The hawks on the list (IIRC) have made allegations > that Canada did not take > part in the war -- they were mistaken, they may now be happy, I'm > not. They didn't. They forfilled existing treaty agreements. Use of bases and such comes under that. And the "observers" task is even more valid in war than peace, between allies which the US and Canada basically are. > > Either you accept military exports are helping the economy (as the > > UK does), or you stop them and come up with a way to plug the gap. > > Military exports are like a snake eating it's tail, it will keep > eating until, ...poof!, there'll be nothing left anywhere. Except > maybe cockroaches. > > > Whining about the existing gap on one hand and smacking the arms > > industy on the other...dosn't help. > > That's the problem, the Man speaketh with forked tongue. I can't say I'm overly keen on where all the UK's arms exports go either, and I've written to MP's about a couple of deals in the past. But sales to say India...I'm not gonna complain about. Andy Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
