killjoy

Didn't Montreal have a team once? .

Not to go on and on, but without looking I wonder if it could even be mostly a regional thing. It might well be that there are certain areas of Canada that are much more under-policed than others. IOW, the problem might not just 'seem' worse to some Canadians, it might actually be worse where they are. .

Of course they would/could. Just like they can in the US where you say they have considerably more. The real question is how many in the US are doing that and how many are doing it here. You can wave a wand right now and make ever CF member a cop and you still wont have one on every corner. Maybe. If we got an inch of help with this from the US we could for sure, but they are too busy countering concerns of their own with pot and 'terrorist coming from here'. Really I don't. Gang violence is a ubiquitous problem anywhere there is concentrated poverty. Brazil has never fought gangs with anything other than violence, soldiers even. Where are they now? Still poor. Still gang ridden. All that says to me is that we need to reinstate them. Fortunately that is statistically where they are least needed. It's one thing to think you can cover the city with a cop on every corner. What on earth makes you think we can cover the rural areas? I can get behind this, sure. What I'm trying to point out is that when you simply increase the size of force vs force without implementing some better out-of-the-box thinking you get less force not more. There is diminishing return to increasing man power. They all need to be trained, recruited and recruited again, equipped and inevitably the larger the force the lower the level of skill becomes. One thing we could do, from out-of-the-box so to speak is implement more aerial units both manned and unmanned. They've done wonders for us in Afghanistan. There is another consideration to having a large capable armed force. If we are to participate in any way with the rest of the world, be it through the UN, NATO or some other organization, if we wish to have any say at all in whether or not force is used we need to have a force worth considering if we decide to with hold it as part of negotiation. .

With all the doom-and-gloom forcasts here its small wonder to me that Edmonton is the first Canadian team in contention in how many years? You guys love to give up. On the other hand Edmontonians, like myself, remember time aftrer time coming back from 2 and 3 game losses to win the series. .

We have enough reservists and free forces right now to handle another Manitoba flood or Easter Ice storm. local police. provincial police. rcmp. csis. You really think more police are going to, what? Fix our 'massive' crime problem? C'mon man. .

Mmmmn no. Not 'just like the Japanese'. The Japanese have been there forever. We took this land from others hardly more than 200 years ago. If you're going to fight them you have two choices: 1: Fight some of them. 2: Fight all of them. .

There are 1 billion Muslims in the world (accounts vary). If simply 1 percent become terrorists we will lose, or it will go nuclear, best-case scenario it will never end. Terrorism is NOT about terror. The people who are on the receiving end of terrorism, with almost no exceptions, simply become more hardened towards the perpetrators. Terrorism is about attention and media. We all read about IRA terrorism for years, few of us were dumb enough to feel 'terrorised' by it, but it achieved it goal by getting our attention, (even though I feel it failed for the perpetrators). HAMAS terrorism achieves it's goal by keeping our attention on the region: As long as we're watching them, we're also watching Israel. Islamic terrorism has added a facet to this strategy. The more terrorist acts there are, the more we harden ourselves towards muslims. The effect is such that 'disenchanted youth' (the Muslim population is bottom heavy - most are young, while the West is top heavy - most are old) feel they have nowhere else to go. It becomes 'easy' to feel that joining this 'movement' will provide the identity and feeling of belonging that pretty much ALL young men share. They need to rebel, but at the same time they need to do so by conforming. We need to reach out to Muslims not segregate them. They are some of the ONLY effective ammunition in this war for either side. BTW - I didnt vote for the poll because it was way too limited. .

Exactly. That's exactly how it is. And they kept it quiet and pretended it never existed, why? Because they know: A: it's the right decision. B: Most of their supporters wouldn't approve. .

Why? Is Canada disaster prone? Also, why is it that some people love to deny that a mission in Afghanistan could makes things safer for us but are all too willing to admit that it could make things worse for us? Which is it? Either forces on foreign soil can do either, or neither, but not one without the other. .

This is complete misinterpretation, misrepresentation and plain false. You cannot make statements like this without a relative comparison. By relative comparison of the Liberals who kept the early 'sharp edge' stages of Canadian involvement in Afghanistan (Tora Bora et.al.) silent/secret one might conclude falsely that things have changed thanks to Harper. Even the press gets in on this. Unsuspecting readers never clue into this but so often Canadian forces are reported as 'coalition forces' when there was bloodshed. 'Canadian troops' on the other hand, hand out candy. I need not prove this phenomenon I simply need to point out the vast number of Canadians who thought we were on a 'peacekeeping' mission until Harper showed up. The mission(s) has never changed. The mission has changed names - 3-4 times now - but the mission itself has never changed. I also point out again that Martin increased the military budget and gave it a one-time influx of 10 billion $, most of which was spent upgrading/repairing and then the left-overs dumped on the JTF2 specifically, as he highlighted, because of the 'war on terror'. No one called him a Bush-bot. Now all of a sudden, and thanks to some straight-up disinformation and fear mongering by the press, everyone is under the impression that there's a 'PR Blitz' going on. There isn't. Just because suddenly things that were always going on are being mentioned in the press doesn't mean there's a PR Blitz. Add to the fact that one of the CF missions in Afghanistan (which was known, planned and committed to long before last Christmas) is a dangerous one and well, what can I say, if you haven't been paying attention, as liberals are likely to do while there is a Liberal government, one might be tempted the feel 'the change in the air'. The only change in the air is people are hearing about it, and against all of the facts (all of this was going on before the PC's came in) people are apt to believe it's all about Harper and it ain't. You can scream Harper over and over again and it doesnt change the FACT that the Liberals set in motion the current missions in Afghanistan long ago. Just because the press decided it was in your best interest to report about one thing when the Liberals are in office and another thing when Harper gets in doesn't change that. .

I'd rather have them caught now and people admit that it is a threat. It seems no one is willing to admit that it's real or that it could've happened. Also by saying that they should've 'just let them' obviously I am not advocating violence, I am simply suggesting they moved on them later rather than before. That's advocating inaction, not violence. Advocating violence would be saying that I wish they weren't caught and actually did it. I find it humorous that you suspect me of violent tendencies and your imagination runs wild, but you are seemingly unwilling to admit that the violence that could've resulted was real. I also find it humorous that you ignore my rather obvious point entirely: People still seem to think that since they were caught it never would've happened. You're wrong. If they weren't caught it probably would've happened, headlines would've been much worse and no one could sit here and say that heightened security is just a Bush-bot move. .

Well, yeah. Mostly because these guys were caught....because of tighter security...which is argued we don't need because there's no threat. (???) You're more likely to die in a car accident than by cancer from smoking. We should all keep on smoking and stop driving? .

This highlights a train of thinking that I see everywhere in Canada now: "It didn't happen, so it couldn't have. It never will." Slamming planes into the WTC probably looked like a ridiculious plot too. I said it before and I'll say it again, the best thing for Canada probably would've been to just let them do it and then 'swoop' down on them. .

Martin gave a boost to the military budget by 10 Billion. It was a campaign promise that apparently Liberals liked. About half went to long overdue repairs (so it was mandatory, not a boost), about 1/4 went entirely to JFT2 (now increased 5x to about 500 personnel) and a puny 1/4 was left for the entire rest of the forces. Martin also promised to continue with budget boosts and permanent increases. People have been harping about the ailing military for years. As someone who feels no solidarity with any particular party I can't help but see how a military budget increase is fine if the Liberals are doing it, even if their spending structure is screwed (1/4 of it just for the JTF2?), but as soon as a Conservative party does it -- oh well all of a sudden it's time for the Bush analogies. Or is it just that liberal supporters only read the news when it suits them? .

For the present I more or less inclined agree with all that. In regards to fanatical Islam currently there is likely more reason to be suspicious. It's unfortunate but I agree. But I believe my point still stands. If you are letting people in from, particularly a country in civil war you have to take measures to be sure that you are not enabling that war more by allowing them to raise money here specifically for what would be a war threat back there. The case of Sri Lankians (sp?) is special as well in that we shouldn't stop people from sending their money home if they are sincerely only trying to help their families, but what happens is people catch wind of this and extort family here through family members there. Add to the mix that Canada has long been fertile and safe ground to launder money and, IMO you have a serious and unchecked problem. I agree that for the present Islamic fanatasism are a particular threat, but the system is still too susceptible to corruption. I think we're debating opposite sides of the same coin. It hasn't been just the West. It's the entire world. "The People's Century" as they call it. This battle for individual freedoms is precisely what Islam is in conflict within itself. I just don't do the entire WWII analogy thing anymore bud. No offence. Even though I read what you said and am somewhat inclined to agree, (although I'm likely to argue that fanatical Islam is more of a threat to Muslims than the rest of us), I just can't take it anymore. WWII was WWII and his prediction of a 'Dark Age' is an age-old prediction. Just my opinion. .

You're describing yourself. You seem to think Canada is 'anglosaxon'. Hasn't been that way for a very long time. In fact people from all over the world come here, willingly to live here and you call them 'slaves'. Since when do slaves gladly put themselves into slavehood? Since when do they clammer to get on a waiting list to become 'slaves'. They come here to work and enjoy a better life than from where they came. Most are from the very nations you claim don't need 'slaves'. If things were so great there why is it that wild horses won't stop them from coming here? Everyone has tried very hard to take you seriously and discuss with you on a basis of respect. You spit back at them. You are the disillusioned one, the ignorant one, the insolent one and you are the only one looking like an idiot. I'm sorry, but no one cares if the truley stupid like yourself hate them :-) .

Rage Against The Machine? j/k .

I'm from Alberta. It's unfortunate but true that in Alberta (and I'd say Saskatchewan) there is probably a disproportionate level of bigoted crap. 'Course the East, never wanting us to get one up on them will go ahead and even it up by calling all of us racist (ahhhh, Toronto. I miss that warm feeling of superiority) and Quebec can go ahead and goose-step it's youngsters through the streets looking for 'language crimes' and everyone just puts a constipated smile on their face like, "What? So?", because Quebec was born to be appeased. Posing aloof while being appeased from afar is just so...French. I love immigrants. I really do. It’s the nations boon. In a big way I don’t even think we have the moral right to deny people who could benefit. After all, it’s not really ‘ours’ either. It’s the biggest land-grab in history. I don't think there's really anything wrong with our immigration except the wholesale corruption the permeates practically every level of anything federal that the Liberal party lauded. But that's a whole hundred more posts. One thing all of Canada is 'guilty' for, is wanting to open our doors to anyone in the world who is in danger because of local strife or war. I love this and I'm all for it. Unfortunately if the world was that simple the world would be easy. The side effect of letting people in from war-torn or insecure nations, and in fact being known for doing that, is that naturally there are going to be many people who are not changing nationalities so much as retreating to continue the fight from here. The way I see it we have 3 ubiquitous choices: 1. Scrap everything. 2. Change nothing. 3. Reshape the policies so we can still allow others to share and help build our fantastic nation while being able to block people who just want a safe haven to fight their wars from. I'm guessing that the last one on the list will likely be the last thing we'll actually do. .

There is a difference between being "the most outspoken" in tha country on an issue and being practically the only one speaking about it. It's a relative measure. Just as Harper really is a Bush ass-kisser if not ass-kissing means you have to call Bush a moron, etc. .

August ahhhh. meh. <grumble> ok. I'd say you have a point. ([1] one :-)) .

Can I just ask one question about that link? Why T.F. is he wearing cowboy blue jeans and a cowboy hat to a Montreal courtroom? I know criticizing the mans wardrobe at a time like this is low, but seriously. .

Actually I didn't "add" that. It was going to be the only sentance to the post when I started writing it. .

Right after you name "lots' of them. The only window is between 1991-93 with Mulroney....and you were already calling him a Bush-bot as well. I agree with that....I'd also say it's a little premature to judge the mission in Afghanistan but it seems you guys are always clammering to do it. .

This is the spin: In the last 5 months? Liberals have been in power for 12 years whereas the Conservatives in their current incarnation have NEVER been in power. Gold medal-wishful thinking there. No I think since the Liberals were in power for the last 12 years we're safe to look their direction on this issue. As far as these 'alleged bomb plotters' they all came to the country while the Liberals were in power too. I'm not saying Harper will necessarily be any better, but you really can’t equate the two parties when only one has had monolithic control of the country for nearly a decade and a half. .

lol. Against all logic and factual basis to the contrary. Is fear how he got in there the first time? Or was it Liberal shenanigans (which is just a kind word for fraud/robbery). I suppose if he never mentioned any of this himself he would've been lambasted for not mentioning it. I guess the "Liberal" way to react to a massive bomb plot is to ignore it entirely and throw money at something else. .