gerryhatrick

Kick. Everyone should read this report from the Senlis Council. The message might not be happy and preferable, but we owe it to our soldiers to stay aware of the realities and this is one possible reality. Given that they have four field offices in Afghanistan they should be considered capable of informed comment on the state of the nation.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/sho...ontent=n091872A I think this guy will be it. From what I saw of the debates he's the stand-out.

If the report from this think tank is accurate the fight has expanded beyond just a small group of religious fanatics. I find the report believable, but will say that we don't know the truth yet. The situation is in flux and will become more apparent in time.

The article is from yesterday. Do you see it someplace else with a 2 month old date on it?

So you're asking two questions...one reflected in the topic title and a completely different one in the actual poll. You say the question for posters is "do you think the forums are one-sided, and in whose favor?". I would say there are more rightwing posters here than center-left.

Can you clarify the question? The question in your topic title is different than the one appearing above the poll.

What? That doesn't even make sense. You started your swearing out of frustration at my scrutinizing of your source and nothing more, now you're covering up. After I post this proof of what I indicated above, I'm done with you. This denial of what you so obviously did is the last straw. I don't need to waste my time with dishonest persons. You said: You backpeddle all you want, it's clear to everyone that you're saying.

You got what you got because you accused me of wishing for our defeat in Afghanistan. Pretty clearly an appropriate and well-deserved response.

The disturbing portion of this report has nothing to do with eradicating poppies. The disturbing portion is the claim that the enemy has extended far beyond just the Taliban to include clans of Pashtuns tribal warriors and nationalist resistance forces.

Thanks for the warning, but I'll gladly take the ban in this case. How does it "fit my view"? You're skating on the same thin ice that last poster was. This is a think tank with 4 offices inside Afghanistan that is making Afghanistan the focus of it's efforts. I presented it as that. Don't be making up false implications about me, thx. It should be obvious to an objective person.....General Hillier will always paint as rosey a picture as he can regardless of the negatives. If he did otherwise he would be accused of emboldening the enemy, no? If what this think tank is reporting is accurate and Hillier acknowledged it that would create shock waves throughout the media and the enemy would have a confirmed indication of how successful they are being and re-double their efforts. You just broke through the ice. You are saying I want NATO (and by extension, Canada) to be defeated in Afghanistan, so you get a F#CK YOU to. Is this the rightwing tactic now, accuse messengers of hoping for a defeat in Afghanistan?

I think reading your post would be a waste of my time, so I won't bother. Thanks for tipping me off right away. I'm not jumping to any conclusions. The reality is all there for anyone to see. The letter authorized American bishops to keep information to themselves. That's obstruction of justice in cases of sexual abuse. Them's just the facts, deal with it.

Doesn't matter. Not a single thing in the article demonstrates anything beyond The medium is the message" Why do you not scrutinize the article even a fraction of the degree you would scrutinize my reply? Because it says something you like, that's why. I like the fact that Afghanistan is rising up against Canadian soldiers? Fu#k you, you're a piece of sh#t. And not once but TWICE you've been told that the story has been based on a report from the Senlis Council, which has 4 field offices in Afghanistan. Yet you still continue to ask what the basis of the story is. It's even in the bloody story.

This Afghan legislator has been vindicated by the Senlis Council. http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publi...ication/preface

After looking at the credentials of this think tank I would say it's pretty good journalism. This particular think tank has 4 field offices operating in Afghanistan at the moment. They are well situated to give us a non-partisan view of the situation. Here's the about page on the Senlis Council: http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/about_us

Well as I said, "if he's correct". I tend to believe him, because his main points are very believable. There's not a single place in your post that demonstrates that. In either case, the portion about Russian influence in the North is the least interesting of the story. The idea that clans of Pashtuns tribal warriors and nationalist resistance forces under Jalalladin Hakkani and former prime minister Gulbadin Hekmatyar are part of the battle now is disturbing. And btw, the guy is referencing the Senlis Council as being a source for his information, although exactly which portions isn't clear.

http://torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Mar...17/1852269.html Powerful stuff. He provides a lot of detail about the current struggle, and if what he says is true it does not bode well for anyone. If he's correct it appears the Afghan war has become political in the same way Iraq has, leading military and civilian leaders to BS the Western public about the unpleasent realities (i.e. like how the Bushies constantly claim the enemy in Iraq is only terrorists, when in reality that's a small minority of the enemy there)

You're telling us what you "think" Clarkson's inner beliefs are, and then you make a judgement based upon that. That shows us how out of touch you really are.

Good grief. Please, if you're going to attack wikipedia now, explain exactly what (if anything) in this wiki description of GG Jean is wrong: Otherwise, why are you bringing up this wiki accuracy tangent?

That is empty rhetoric. Wikipedia is a useful source and is relatively well policed, especially when it comes to details. Do you deny the usefulness of wikipedia or the accuracy of the details I provided on GG Jean? If not then you're wasting our time.

This is a stupid thread. Our current GG has many qualifications and qualities beyond being a journalist. The original poster was ignorant of that and a subsequent appears ignorant of that even though it was quoted quote clearly, so perhaps there's a partisan dislike of the current GG. Beyond that though, what "qualifications" should a GG have if not the varied and worthy ones Jean has? Either previous military experience or perhaps GG school? Should she have taken GG courses in university? One word describes this thread: duh.

The current pope is a criminal for obstructing justice in cases of pedophilia. Is that what you consider an "acedemic"? I'll take an illiterate goat herder over that.

I read the speech. It is just as bad when taken in full context. This Pope is no stranger to being an idiot. Recall what he said about Turkey entering the EU. Look at what he did to protect pedophiles in the church (see my topic post "Let's not forget what Pope Benidict is...")

What is so impressibe about those qualifications? How is experience in journalism a qualification for being the titular head of state? Her qualifications, as per my quote, go far beyond just journalism. Did you even read the quote from wiki within my post that you are responding to??

Or both. Gee, taking action on Global Warming is just too hard...according to a few highly partisan and mostly rightwing folks. I guess we should just do nothing.

If that is the only benifit that came out of Iraq, I'd say it's a bigger mistake than it already appears. They lost all credibility, but they gained a little on being willing to use force. On a misguided exercise. If neo-con idiots are ruling the day. Actually that's a bit of a myth. Qaddafi had been looking for credibility for years, and there's much agreement that the pathetic little arsonal that he laid on the table was designed solely to gain in stature. The history of him trying to be taken seriously and engage the USA was long and well-documented. The paltry little collection of nuke material (which wasn't a threat) is widely believed to have been puposely gathered for the purpose of declaring it to get his foothold in international affairs. It appears to have worked to some extent. Now he's a good guy in the eyes of the naive.