Signals.Cpl

But you know what exists? More options, choices, freedom whatever you want to call it, for young women in Afghanistan, more than what they ever had under the Taliban... Its funny how the fools are praying for a defeat in Afghanistan just so they say "I told you so" ignoring the fact that if their prayers come true millions of people will suffer, millions of women will go back to being raped, beaten and murdered at the whim of their "husbands", millions of young women will be denied an education or a meaningful career aside from be a slave to their husband or being sold to actual sexual slavery not that there is any real difference as they suffer equally either way...

And I never said that they were, what I am saying is that if the government of Afghanistan deems it to be in their interest to negotiate with the Taliban then they should do so, just like they saw it as being in their interest to give amnesty to the Taliban a coupe of years back. For every Taliban who is persuaded to drop his weapon that is one less Taliban to fight the ANA and ANP. If they can remove some of the less devoted of the Taliban power to them, I doubt it will amount to much but I hope that they sap the strength of the Taliban at the negotiating table rather than the battlefield.

Once you give us your source...

So convenient, the good old a friend of a friend had a sister who had a boyfriend who had a brother who said that they had a pipeline so it must be true...

And the Taliban do not enjoy support of loyalty either, they receive their "support" through violence and intimidation and we have seen over the last year or so the people oppressed by the Taliban revolting against them, people have had enough and they make themselves heard. Also to be fair the US had the exact same problem with Loyalty within the Iraqi Forces as they do within Afghanistan's military.

The results? From where I am standing the results are good... why? Please be more specific.

From what I have seen it is the Afghan government negotiating with the Taliban.

Really? Any Source on that? Or are you talking about imaginary soldiers?

Or they are doing what they said they would do from the get go. I love your logic, if they build a pipeline and are leaving that means they succeeded and Afghanistan will survive because if they build a pipeline only to hand over the who country to the Taliban would make no sense... glad you see Afghanistan as a success.

What are they waiting for?

Wasn't this the same predictions made about Iraq? Yet 3 years later it still stands as an independent nation. Some people will berate the US for pulling out or inversely berate the US for staying in Afghanistan.

Because it is the right of the Afghan Government to do as they see fit. This means that the government of Afghanistan is independent AKA the Americans did their job, they helped a nation build a government and a security apparatus and they are letting that nation make independent decisions.

Its the Afghan government Negotiating with the Taliban with American support, I am pretty sure its a success when the national government takes over and does what it feels is right for its people. Since the Government of Afghanistan has decided to negotiate with the Taliban I think the US should help them with whatever they need since the last decade was meant to allow Afghanistan to stand on their own feet. And as for the pulling out of Afghanistan, the US has trained and equipped several hundred thousand ANA and ANP members in order to allow the Government to protect its people, if the US stays for another 10 years that would not be a success nor a victory but rather a defeat as it would be an admission that Afghanistan is unable to look after itself... when the US and by extension ISAF pull out we will see if it is a success or not, judging it a failure because the US and NATO as a whole are doing what they said they will do from the get go is stupid beyond comparison...

There may be a video of a white guy smoking crack, its just not our mayor doing it. The video may very well exist but it has not come out for a very good reason because it depicts a person that looks like Rob Ford but is not him thus kind of vindicates the mayor.

I dont know if he smokes crack or not, I will not hang the man on the existence of a video just because some journalist said that Rob Ford MIGHT have been the guy in the video and he MIGHT have been smoking crack. This goes beyond innocent until proven guilty, this is making a man out to be guilty because someone said that he MIGHT have been somewhere and he might have been doing something... I love how its beating a dead horse to point out that we have no proof the video ever existed yet using the video to fuel other conspiracy theories is perfectly legitimate.

Photo's can be manipulated very easily by anyone with my skills with photoshop and I am not good so I can imagine what those who are handy with Photoshop can do. But more then than what does one photo prove? They can be taken out of context and used as "evidence" to prove anything... What exactly does the picture show? Does it show him smoking crack? Does it show him doing anything illegal?

How so? Did I miss the major revelation that was made in this thread by you? There is no evidence whatsoever that this video existed in the first place, the only evidence the video "existed" is the word of 3 journalists who may have lied to fabricate a story or been lied to in order to get them to fabricate a story. I, like every other person who has any common sense knew this video would never surface since the video never existed in the first place and because this was a smear campaign with no basis in fact and the three journalists are either willing members of the smear campaign or just three fools who were tricked in to furthering someone else's agenda...

And a lot more than three people said that Iraq had WMDs so where are they since three people's opinion is infallible... Source? Its one and the same, nice deflect though... you are using the fact that three people "saw" the video as proof that it exists and I am saying that three people being fooled is nothing new especially if 2 of the three are predisposed to believe anything negative about Mayor Ford whereas the third might be a sucker used only to lend some "credibility"... They might have seen a video of a fat white guy smoking crack but it could be just some random guy of the street thus the video is not available because if it were to come out it will be seen as proof that the whole controversy is engineered by his opponents... Yeah and I can say the same thing about dozens of professional doctors, police officers, military officers, politicians, businessmen, teachers, professors etc... who have had the trust of people yet they destroyed it... What I am saying is that two people who are predisposed to believe that Mayor Ford would do this saw what they wanted and expected to see and ignored what they didn't want to see while the third was just a poor sucker for credibility. You are right, Newspapers, magazines and Television Networks will NEVER buy evidence because of their policy... So if it was two journalists from Fox news claiming that Obama smoked Crack in the oval Office would you buy it simply because two professional journalists said so? Luckily I am not the justice system nor am I associated in any way with the justice system... if this "evidence" were to go to court it would be laughed out very quickly. I'm sorry but this would apply for a wide range of things then, from murdering a hooker to killing a puppy simply because he has done stupid things in the past. I remember sometime ago after the Eaton Centre shooting the suspect was caught on camera and by witnesses yet members on this board were adamant on him being presumed innocent until proven guilty without consideration for his past behaviour yet when it comes to Mayor Ford no such consideration is given. The pressure is on Mayor Ford to prove that he didn't do it rather than his accusers proving that he did do it.

Key words being looks like and appears... solid evidence so far. Yeah once again solid evidence, I hears about the video too, so did all of North America... thats like telling some kid that the easter bunny exists and then once the kid tells his friends the easter bunny is real using that as "evidence". Hardly, three separate people seeing a video is hardly solid evidence seeing as they used words like might, possibly etc... and its not that hard to fool three people that don't know of the guy or are already predisposed to believe anything negative about him. All of the "evidence" is not really evidence because you are placing too much emphasis on the word of three people based on what? Do you think that in all of history not one reporter has ever gambled with his/her career to hit a big story? Or no reporter has ever been fooled? Why? I knew from the get go that the video did not exist because if it did the newspaper would have been the first to buy it, well before they even printed the story. This was an attempt to overthrow the democratic will of the people with the added goal of ammunition to fight Mayor Ford during the next election... His past actions have little to no bearing on the legitimacy of the video or its existence... if our justice system worked that way anyone who is accused of a crime they previously committed as well with be thrown in jail... So the evidence is that he has done stupid things in the past so he must be guilty of this and therefore the video exists... riiiight...

What are the scenarios? Anything with concrete facts? Ive seen a man being harassed based on a video that allegedly exists yet only a small handful of people claim to maybe have seen someone who MIGHT have been him in a video where he might have been holding something that looks like possibly a crack pipe... What I find hilarious is the group of people who see him as guilty because there "is a video" and when the video does not surface they find him guilty because the video "disappeared" yet few bother to think that the video might have never existed...

Or maybe it never existed...

Ok there login, not gona waste my time with this again...

I dont know what you are talking about, the reality is the resources mean nothing unless they are being utilized which means a lot of time and money spend to build up the infrastructure to be able to utilize the resources. As for the rest I think you need to review what a refugee actually is and try to stay on topic, this is a topic that does not necessarily deal with sex offenders and their sexual organs. You sound suspiciously like shortived/login...

It is once again relative, "not as many" could still mean tens of millions of people. "Not as many Canadians want to move to the US as they wanted 10 years ago" might not be quite the same as "Not as many Americans want to move to Canada as they wanted 10 years ago". Only .5% of the Chinese population wanting to move will drastically change our demographics and political landscape. And people are not worrying about one specific nationality but the possibility of everybody using this as a means to jump the line for the legitimate immigrants, as Argus pointed out it could be used for anyone and everyone with or without a legitimate claim to refugee status so we end up getting people who have no real basis for being Refugees and forgo the ability to choose who comes to Canada.

No you are right, its apparent from the last couple of years that Assad just haaaaaatttteeeesss confrontation of any sort and avoids it at all costs.