gerryhatrick

Exactly. The concept may be a little too deep for them, but there are reasons for the Geneva conventions.

Uh huh. Iran is seeing American success in Iraq. You and them both I guess. Iran is happy for the reasons I stated. You have not responded to that. Why the avoidance, Drew?

Oh sure, it's brilliant politically to use the Canadian troops as a backdrop as you attack your political enemies from the bully pulpit. Real smooth. I think he needs to now explain who determines what terrorist seek and destroy missions our troops engage in. As well, he needs to now explain what happens to detainees captured on those missions and if they will ever be turned over to Americans and under what assurances. The time for false arguments and accusations of Canadians not supporting the troops is over. Considering the United States is leading this "War on Terrorism," I imagine the answers are obvious. I don't see where there's a problem here though. If the answers you imply are the real answers then it is indeed time to debate the Canadian deployment. No amoung of mission commitment commits us to illegal acts.

You cannot assume that someone is a terrorist just because they are detained by the Canadian (or American) military. That is a foolish notion. You seemingly don't care that our Country might be shamed as the USA has been shamed by it's torture scandal. You are in the minority, of that I'm sure.

It's a reference to Harpers latest terminology and accusations. For example, he's been accusing people (Canadians in general) of not "supporting the troops". This is based upon a late February poll that had a slim majority of Canadians not in favor of the Afghan deployment. So, the lie is easily seen. Questioning - or even opposing - the mission has nothing to do with support for the troops. Yet, there he is repeatedly making the accusation. It's a Rove tactic.

Oh sure, it's brilliant politically to use the Canadian troops as a backdrop as you attack your political enemies from the bully pulpit. Real smooth. I think he needs to now explain who determines what terrorist seek and destroy missions our troops engage in. As well, he needs to now explain what happens to detainees captured on those missions and if they will ever be turned over to Americans and under what assurances. The time for false arguments and accusations of Canadians not supporting the troops is over.

Will detainees our soldiers have captured ever be turned over to the Americans? And if so, will there be any assurances about thier treatment? Supporting the troops means watching out for thier honor, something perhaps Harper is overlooking in his zeal to use them as a political backdrop.

Spoken like a true Conservative. Not surprising, since the media bias is largely to the right.

I concur. It is promotion of an idea that is geared not towards the adjustment or betterment of our society, but rather the destruction of it. I think Osama is a great guy. Should I be arrested? Don't be ridiculous. (And I'm kidding about Osama, btw) These protesters who will be arrested are no different than any other protester who should and WOULD be arrested for illegal acts in the street.

Oh yes, soldiers are too stupid to make any strategic assessments. And they don't talk to each other about the mission. Any other points you want to make? Iran is very happy to see the US draining it's resources and political capital in Iraq. That is really common sense. The US has removed an enemy of Iran and set up an Iran-friendly government. On top of that, the US has weakened itself in the process. Read this:

That settles it then...there's no need to waste time debating the issue since we're all in agreement. Better to spend the time discussing things that matter. Unless of course you want to have a debate because some people don't agree with the mission... Who decides what seek and destroy missions Canadians deploy on? What happens to detainees? Will they be turned over to the Americans in some cases? If so, with what assurances? See, there are things that need to be discussed. None of the old "trust me", no thanks. Not after what we've witnessed from the Bush administration. Harper thinks Canadians are idiots. He thinks he can throw out the old "support the troops" to imply that any discussion about Afghanistan is then by definition NOT supporting the troops. He should tell Karl Rove thanks but no thanks for the advice and start playing straight with Canada on this.

Typical neo-con Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush fare. Tell us again how much of a success Iraq has been. Gather 'round children, daddy's going to tell his Iraq story again.

Dishonest poll, since the "Liberal" day care plan was not "institutionalized". That's just a word with negative connotations that the Conservatives attached (with the help of a complicit media) to the Liberal day care plans. The day cares would still be privately owned for the most part under what the Liberals were putting in place.

Again I think you're overstating it. The troops can decipher what's going on there in terms of the on the ground reality, even if it's local. They're not as isolated as you think, and they're not stupid. One obvious interpretation of this poll is that they know thier presence is not helpful in a situation where they are the common enemy for an assortment of enemies. Time to let the nationalist insurgents turn focus on civilian-killing terrorists and allow self-preservation a chance of triumph over sectarian differences. The only possible way that can succeed is with the absence of US troops.

Rumble in the jungle, woo hoo.

Well, it's either stunning ignorance or racism. You fill in the blanks. There's nothing "wierd" about the CLOTHES I see Sikhs wearing. They are clothes, not costumes. The disdain you have for Sikhs is obvious, and you seem proud of it. Like another poster said, we'll have to revisit this issue in a generation or two once certain attitudes have died off with the holders.

National Post

Actually, no. Your "common sense" has been proven false actually. Once people have enough money for the basic neccessities, there's no correllation between hapiness and money. Perhaps the "common sense" you're trying to exercise here is in reference to people who live in abject poverty and want for food or shelter. Otherwise, your common sense falls flat. Yes. And you missed the religion point. I don't know if you're playing dumb or just.....ignorant?

Yeah, just like those damned Christians! Gerry, do you have anything to actually say on issues besides stating "you guys are worse." Can you even name a time in the last, say, year, that Christians have forced an issue upon you or changed the law in a way to further their 'agenda'? Doubt it. Oh I"m sorry, was I supposed to engage in an intelligent debate with someone accusing Muslims of "pushing their agenda on us"?? Maybe next time.

No, he doesn't think Canadians should be in an offensive role "in the context of Afghanistan". Primarily he's saying in that article that there should be an explanation about the mission: I think your accusation that this opinion held by Layton somehow means he's not "behind our troops" is ridiculous. Debating the nature of the mission is not going to somehow crush the spirit of the troops. It's sickening to watch people use "the troops" as a political tool everytime a military mission is talked about, and that's what we're seeing from Harper and Mackay these days. If anything it's a bloody insult to them to suggest they can't handle seeing thier political leaders discuss the nature of thier mission.

So your point is that the troops are required to do thier job. True point, but it's not really relavent to the thread. My point is that the troops realize the truth. They're on the ground and know the realities firsthand, and this poll is indicitive of that and supports what John Murtha has been saying. Your point that the troops are bound to do a job is moot.

Blatant fear mongering. Don't be ridiculous. Harkening to 1984 is making a simple point that truths are created through repetition of falsehoods, as is the case here.

No sh@t.

Yeah, just like those damned Christians!

He hates them. That is all.