Signals.Cpl

All of them on rotating basis. only 2 will have accommodations though.

Highly doubt that.

And why is that?

The relevance is that some people make this grand argument about him being a victim but would not want to live near him. If you support bringing him back to Canada and letting him go free you should be willing to have him as a next door neighbour. The point is that some people hold certain beliefs but when those beliefs are challenged they would fold and by that I mean people who are adamant about him being a victim and he should be released but would not want to live in the same province as him let alone as a next-door neighbour. I am a citizen as well and I think of myself as much more valuable to Canada then someone who uses the passport as a get out of jail card, and I don't see why I should move or have my family uprooted and move due to some terrorist moving next-door to me. Its easy and cheap to say that he should be freed if he is to live somewhere over there meaning anywhere other then where you live.

When Khadr is brought back to Canada, would you be willing to let him live with you and your family?

The problem is that he was given weapons training and assisting Taliban/Al-Qaeda while he was 15 years old. The relevant part is that I remember when I was 15 I knew the difference between right and wrong. If he had become involved with the Taliban/Al-Qaeda when he was 8 or 10 then it would be a different story, but at age 15 two months shy of age 16 he knew or ought to have known right from wrong and good from bad. The Canadian Forces Recruit 16 year olds in to the Reserves and 17 year olds as Officer Cadets, saying that a 16 year old is responsible to make a decision like that(with parental consent) while Khadr being 15 years and 9 months old was unable to make a decision of similar magnitude because he was only 15 does not fly with me.

It seems to me she was disappointed that they couldn't nail the Conservatives as a whole.I am all for catching the guilty party but I personally think this is blown way out of proportions in order to pin it on the conservative Party. What it comes down to is would any of you be satisfied with the answer if it is proven the Conservatives did not have anything to do with the calls as a whole.

Why?

1877 was the last threat from the Fenian Invasion. And we didn't gain true independence until 1931 do we disregard all history before the period as well?

I have been in the arctic with 32 Brigade Arctic Response Company and I can tell you that even though there are some shortages, the abilities of the Army with regards to its Capabilities in the Arctic, they are a lot better then 10 years ago. Rebuilding the Military and its ability to project power in the Arctic while simultaneously fighting a war in Afghanistan takes time.

Kinda hard to preserve your sovereignty if you aren't willing to destroy the enemy. The main function of any military force barring ceremonial units is to close with and destroy the enemy. And to be honest, the troops appreciate the ability to destroy the enemy rather then being send to missions with a mission to destroy the enemy but lacking the ability.

So the teacher is cleared of all wrongdoing and you still assume the teacher is guilty. Reminds me of a saying I once heard, "when someone says your sister is a wh*re good luck proving you don't have a sister". She was accused of something, she is cleared of the false accusation yet you still view her as guilty.

Never?1775,1812, 1866-1877?

Sounds like some provinces as well doesn't it?

He was apparently shot twice in the back as he sat by wall. I don't know, to me even if he were proven 100% innocent of the US soldiers death, how many people did he kill by building IEDs? The fact is that if an American working for the Taliban and/or al-Qaeda made IED's, threw grenades or simply shot Canadian Soldiers I would assume we would want punishment for that. What if he had killed 2 or 3 or 4 Canadian Soldiers with an IED or a grenade?

Eat it or take it home, don't throw it out as in next time do one of the two things. If the teacher said pick it out of the garbage and eat it or take it home its one thing if the teacher offers advice for the future its quite another thing. The kid either knowingly lied, or is completely devoid of common sense.

Thats a means of getting the citizenship, not the criteria you need to meet to gain citizenship. What I am stating is that we should have criteria for people to meet to be able to become citizens. My parents immigrated to Canada almost 16 years ago along with two young children, and then they build their lives here by working and paying taxes and being responsible citizens. I personally know some immigrants that come to Canada and milk the system for decades while providing nothing back to Canada. There is no need to let people stay in Canada if they show no desire to be productive members of society. Another thing is getting a passport and living in another country for 40 years and renewing the Canadian passport just incase you need evacuation like people in Lebanon amongst other places did and still do. They become citizens get their passports and move back to Lebanon and live for decades without visiting Canada or even without being able to speak either of our official languages and keep the passport only as an escape route for an evacuation. If an immigrant turns out to be a career criminal then revoke their Canadian Citizenship and send them back to their home country. For people Born in Canada it is different as you cannot revoke their citizenship. To become a Canadian Citizen you need to be either born in Canada or meet the requirements to immigrate to Canada, meet the requirements to gain citizenship, and finally meet the requirements to maintain citizenship. No need to bring people in Canada so that they can live on welfare for the remainder of their lives and once they "retire" they continue to get government assistance even though they might have been unemployed for the previous 20 or 30 years.

Ok, I understand that, but we should by no means make him out to be a victim. He is a cold blooded killer and should be treated and viewed as such.

Thats not criteria.

You're kidding right? Child soldier? He moved from one side of the world to the other to fight Americans. You can't compare a Canadian coming from Canada to fight for the Taliban the same as a kid with a gun to his/her head and told to fight. He made the choice to kill an American Soldier and wound a number of others and I think he should be held responsible for that. If he had chosen to surrender and Identify himself as a Canadian the Americans would have most likely viewed him in a different light, as a child who didn't want to be there and thus surrendered because he knew his actions were wrong but he chose to kill and maim American on his own free will. Would it be different if he were captured on his 18th birthday?

The criteria needs to be defined before we can begin to tighten it up.

You can argue all you want about how badly Canada treated Khadr, but when his whole family is involved with terrorism and his brother was injured fighting our allies just to come to Canada and be treated by our tax dollars I find that disgusting. He might have been forced to go to Afghanistan, thats not the issue, the issue is him quite willingly killing a soldier from our closest ally. You may be ashamed to be Canadian, but I personally see their commitment to Canada as non existent and thus Canada should see no need to commit to them in any way shape or form. I think Canada should revoke his citizenship and that of his entire immediate family and ship them all to Afghanistan Pakistan or any other sh*twhole that is willing to take them . Leave Khadr at the mercy of the United States as it was their citizen killed by a little piece of garbage. A lot of people support the idea to bring Khadr "home" but no one is offering him their house as I don't want him living anywhere near my family or friends.

It kind of sounds like a needle in an extremely large haystack. I would think the US military thought this one out pretty thoroughly in order to prevent this exact scenario.

Then abolish parties and make the politicians directly responsible to the constituents. If politicians vote based on the wishes of the constituents or follow the belief system of their constituents then it is to be assumed that a vote for war, is backed by a clear majority of their constituents. Where would the referendum stop? Would you have one before you send the troops out and then leave it to the politicians to decide when they are withdrawn? Or would you have a referendum every week/month/year to decide if the mission is to be extended?

Its better then letting Taliban Jack and his successors have the decision.