Signals.Cpl

I know its illegal, but seems that you are arguing that if we prevent exploitable women from coming to Canada that we will force the issue in to the shadows. Basically since we cannot completely eradicate the problem we might as well not try. We will probably never completely eradicate bribery and pedophiles, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying or make it legal. If we make it harder to smuggle someone in to the country, it means that some might be turned away from doing so not because of morals but because of the effort involved.

So you are saying that its bad to make the actions of pedophiles illegal because it just puts them in to the shadows?

If there is pressure for someone to intervene, lets be honest and say who that nation will be, it will be the US. Whatever reasons they might have to go to Syria are irrelevant. Why you ask? Because people are dying, and then there are westerners who cry for action at which point the only nation that is capable of mounting any action might be forced to act, but as soon as they act they become aggressive. Regardless of how noble the cause is they will be the bad guy. If you are about to die, and I save your life, does it matter why I did that? If my actions save your life, and I am doing so for a monetary reward so be it, wouldn't you agree?

Yeah, by that logic we shouldn't make sex with children illegal because the pedophiles will just go hide in the shadows and commit those acts anyway. Or we shouldn't make bribery illegal because once again bribes will be done in the shadows thus harder for LEO's to prevent?

No I am not, but don't see anyone willing to act. There are few nations capable of acting, and the most likely and capable is the US, but no matter how sad it is or how horrible the situation is as soon as the US sets foot on Syrian soil there would be people crying about the oil and imperialism and all that... Besides as it is an election year I don't see the Us starting a war there.

We have so far, and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

NATO ensures several things: 1) Anyone who decides to attack one country in the alliance has to worry about all countries in the alliance, and I know you mentioned the 9/11 response but there was assistance even if it didn't last throughout the whole war. 2)Ensures that we can skate by with just enough because if we weren't part of NATO, the US just might actually ask us to pull our weight, now I like you don't have a problem with this, but most people will and thats the issue. 3)Gives us military assets anywhere in the world and in an emergency any one of those nations can assist us if they are in the region might sound naive but it feels more reassuring knowing that in an emergency even if we didn't have the capability someone will help out. I think we should restructure NATO more in line with a world wide alliance as Ive mentioned before, but if the EU survives its current problems they should be given a seat in the alliance instead of every EU member getting a seat. But thats the thing a loan is a loans. Plus I don't think the Americans much care about that equipment since it ensured that there were 8600 soldiers that they didn't have to deploy. For the longest time we had no helicopter assets in Afghanistan and I don't think we had any CAS assets either so we fall in the can't operate completely independent of the US. I would say it depends more on Training and leadership then equipment. Leopard II's are more valuable, but they lose their value if those tanks are operated in an incompetent manner. Badly gained and Badly led troops will lose out even with the best equipment against an equal force of well trained well led troops even with obsolete equipment or no equipment at all. Look at the winter war, the Finns held out for far longer then anyone would have expected because the much larger and much better equipped force was badly led, and badly trained, true that the Finns were eventually overwhelmed by sheer numbers but they killed, destroyed and/or captured far more equipment and soldiers then the Soviets did. USSR started with over 3,000 tanks while Finland started with 30 some tanks and soviet union lost 3,000 tanks while finland lost the 30 tanks but captured a number of Russian tanks. This is my personal opinion, but a well led Canadian soldier with crap equipment is better off then a well equipped enemy soldiers with crap training. I don't know, I would assume that since most East European armies are moving or have already moved away from conscription salaries for the soldiers have improved along with the economic outlook of the country. So I would assume that although not even close to as expensive to deploy as a Canadian or American soldier they would still be pretty expensive and to add to that, I don't think that NATO is really following the practices of the UN. You have to ask them, I am just telling you that proportionally to means some countries are offering more then their fair share while others are offering much less and you are dissatisfied with both sides, those offering all they can, and those offering as little as they can. Not when you look at the CAR, it didn't fit in to the image of peacekeepers, it was essentially a war machine when most thought that CF personnel deploy and hand out candy and flowers. Look at Rwanda though, Gen. Dallaire, in his report to the UN said that 5,000-10,000 well armed soldiers with the proper ROE's could guarantee the peace process, now tell me with such a relatively small contribution for such a high payout, meaning deploy even 5,000 well armed soldiers with proper ROE's and 800,000 people get to be alive doesn't that sound manageable? Canada has the means to help, not take on the whole burden but look at what we have, 3 Infantry regiments some of the best infantry in the world, the rest of the combat arms as well as the CSS are also world class. To protect Poland, that was the reason, as opposed to stop a maniac on a world domination quest. To be fair many Canadians of the time at least the Anglophones could trace their roots back to England so there was more of a link but it still was at the beginning a European conflict that we entered, which eventually morphed in to stoping a madman who was bent on reorganizing the world in his own views. Rework NATO, so that it becomes a strong international alliance, instead of having dozens of European Nations, have the alliance be Canada, the US, EU, Australia, NZ, and anyone else like minded. When someone decides to attack a country in the alliance, they will face the countries military, but also the military of every other member, right now NATO has somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4.3 million military personnel(Regular and reserve) from the EU, almost 100,000 CF members(Regular and reserve and ranger) and the US brings in 2.9million members from all branches both full time and part time. Looking at those numbers there are 7.3million soldiers,sailor and aircrew in NATO, thousands of aircraft,tanks,hundreds of combat ships including almost 20 Carriers, I don't think any Nation will miss the implication of a war with one member state. You mean ally with China and India?

Even if they are being forced in to prostitution? So that makes it ok to exploit them in Canada as it will be more humane?? Doing the exact opposite? How so?

What about the women who come to Canada wanting to be strippers and get forced in to prostitution? Which groups needs do we put higher? The group that chooses to come and gets what they want or the group that chooses to come and gets forced in to slavery?

bs...nothing but bs.

Nope, not confusing anything, if you want to be a hooker or a stripper power to you, its none of my business, but to me, the problem arises when someone is brought in to this country, put into an impossible situation and forced in to effectively being a slave. They are regulated in strip clubs, but how do you intent to make this industry safer for the workers? Its a nice proposal but not so easy to implement. How would you make it safe? Stripeprs already work in strip clubs, the illegal stuff is already happening on the down low, good luck regulating that. Did they say anything about banning strippers?

Well, then that girl much like you lacks common sense. Plain and simple...

It was an assumption on your part that they will be worse of if they went somewhere else. Seems that you logic was since they will be exploited one way or another might as well do it in Canada.

So you logic is someone else will exploit them, why not let Canadians exploit them? To me its simple, someone looking to make money travels to a country like Albania, a young women working in a job in that country would make 300-700 dollars a month, but someone goes and tells her that she could make 10X times that if she comes to Canada as a striper, now as soon as she lands and gets through customs the "sponsor" collects her passport and identification, takes away all of her money and drives her to his place of business. This women is now for all intents and purposes a slave, as she does not know anyone in Canada, has no family nearby, has no money or documentation nor does she trust the police. What kind of position is that? Its fine by me if you don't care if women are forced in to prostitution, but to me it has to be a free choice, if you are drawn to the money and you wanna sell yourself fine by me, but if someone is forcing you to do so in any way, shape or form that is wrong to me. This is not a war on women, nor is it a moral crusade against stripers, what this represents is a move to prevent bringing highly vulnerable people in to the country where they have virtually no rights and are treated as slaves.

Sure you can, when it is concerning common sense sure you can. Maybe not you but the rest of us can.

Yes coming to Canada in order to be forced in to prostitution MUST be better then being close to family and friends and having your freedom. So just because they might be exploited somewhere might as well get them to Canada to exploit them here? What kind of logic is that?

You do realize since most of this is done illegally, and the victims are afraid of the police and/or the abuser they don't really come forward? In your little world we should ignore and obvious issue like putting vulnerable women in even more vulnerable positions. If you cannot see that paying for a women to come from a nation much different then Canada, in order to work as a stripper in a country where she does not have any family or friends, where she might have her documentation taken away by her abusers, and with a distrust of police officers depending on the home country would make any person vulnerable but 18-24 year old even more so.

And you are a little child who lacks common sense.

No one is saying they are FORCED to come TO Canada, many are FORCED to do things other then being an exotic dancer.

Yeah, once its in their coffers they use it to do whatever they want with it. People don't really think things through.

If prostitution is legal, and a women CHOSES to go and be a hooker I have no issue with that, my problem stems from the issue of women being FORCED in to prostitution. Morals do not factor in to this decision by the government, its a logical issue rather then a war on women or strippers... if Canadian Women are being exploited why on earth would we want to import much more vulnerable women in to the country in order to see them exploited as well? If the criminals have to smuggle women illegally then they do so and we fight that battle when it comes, but no reason for us to open the door for them to bring and exploit innocent women in Canada.

In what world did he say that? Are you serious? So you are saying that putting women in to a situation where they are isolated from family and friends, have no documentation since it could have been confiscated by the employer, mistrust the police due to mistrust of police from home country, have little legal recourse... I can't believe you are truly serious...

How are they doing that? If we are telling them that we don't want you coming here to be victimized we have enough problems as it is so adding more potential victims is not exactly the brightest Idea. If we can guarantee that a women will get a visa and work only as a stripper fine, but do we really need to import people from other countries who are much more vulnerable? I invite someone to be stripper in my club, they don't know the language or the laws, I pay for everything to bring that person here and as soon as they land I take their passport and tell them that they can't go home until they pay off the debt. As much as some people complain about police in Canada in other countries its much worse and if the girl comes from such a country she probably won't trust the police. In effect we get a women who is scared, far from home, doesn't know the language, laws or culture, has no freedom and had her passport confiscated. She cannot turn to the police because in many countries the police are the guys running the criminal enterprises so that makes a women the perfect victim.

They will get in one way or another, so we close one point of entry and try closing others as well. There is no point in fighting a problem when we are also essentially legally importing the problem as well.

Well, from what I'm reading the government is trying to attack the problem from one angle. If the girls are being exploited there is no need to bring girls from other countries to be exploited is there?