killjoy

"The bottom line is he has all the courage of a crank caller." .

This all may or may not factor. I understand your point but I think you miss mine. The bottom line is a person is suspected of terrorism. Do we deal with those suspicions here, with our laws, or do we start simply shipping off anyone suspected of a crime to some nasty country we spend our time chastising over human rights? What he did or didn't do is quite irrelevant to me. He was a suspect and nothing more. What we do about it is a high priority to me. .

Ricki He has a bad habit of that doesn't he? Especially when he's trapped by his own dishonesty. He tries so desperately and pretentiously to act all intellectual and high and mighty out here and then has his temper tantrums over PM. Then he seems to think he's caught you at something when you mention it in public, a vain attempt at disguising his incredible juvenility from the rest. The bottom line is he has all the courage of a crank caller. Allow me to light a candle rather than curse yer darkness: if you look on the left there is an ignore feature for Private Messages, one where you can simply add his name and be rid of his particular brand cretinality. .

No you don't. You can simply be a member of a generation that idolizes and envies the myths of the '60s .

No Fair enough. Certainly, it does happen all the time, but this is the first time someone was sent to a Syrian jail for being wrongfully suspected. I ask you: As a Canadian citizen, if suspected of terrorism would you expect a trip to Syrian jail with no means or opportunity to have your case heard in Canada? IMO, it was shameful. .

Are you sure you're not mixing him up with the Khadrs? http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001068.php There's little doubt in my mind he was tortured in Syria. They do a little of that before even deciding whether or not to torture you. .

He should get an apology because it's the right thing to do. What is this country coming to that we need a better reason than that? This man had no links to terrorism. He committed no crime. No reason for suspicion. It was all a bad mistake and an intel screw up. Our government couldn't hand him over to the States fast enough. He was a Canadian, no different than "Joe". He was you or me or the guy next to you. Still we blame him, probably for little more reason than being brown. .

You know dobbin my respect for your nature dictates that I do read your links and I saw this one elsewhere. However the one you're presenting now is a bad link. I know there's no reconstruction going on now, as i said there's little point and since every new school is a target to Taliban with every potential of having children burned down with them --- oh, did the media not tell you that one? About how it's one of their favorite things to lock the doors and burn them down with the kids in them? Sorry you had to hear it from me. I guess the story sounds sweeter when it's just "we don't do it any more" rather than why. Or maybe the editors were worried they might give Canadians reason to believe it's worth it. Still going on? I think I know what you mean, but when was the last time a "long ditch" was dug in Yugoslavia? To that extent it's a looong way from "still going on". For all realistic purposes it's over. Or more to the point if Afghanistan made it to that level of 'success' then we'd already be defying the critic's predictions by miles wouldn't we? Naturally we can't do it without allies but we're getting more troops not less. Again the media screams about not enough troops then give one single paragraph blurb about Poland sending 2000 more. Mark my words, or propose a wager: Regardless of what Canadians want or think we're going to be there longer, we're going to get more troops and if it comes to war with Pakistan we will have more allies than we’ll need. .

Um, in what context? The only thing the military wants is more troops out there. This is because you need to view reconstruction as the fight it is and not la-la land day-dreaming and handing out candy (that's not directed at you). What I mean is you can't just go somewhere out in the middle of nowhere and build a school and expect that to be it. You need to also: A: be financially prepared to build another if it gets burned down. B: provide at least a modicum of security for it...i.e. more troops. Cypress was an endless cycle. Yugoslavia was an endless cycle. They both ended. Endless cycles only exist because no one commits to ending them. There is a difference with expecting things to be done in a time period that regular workin’ folk can relate to and a reasonable amount of time actually required for this kind of risk. The "endless cycle" is it's own perpetuated myth. Quite possibly war with Pakistan. Opps, I'm sorry, did my generation think they were going to escape the wars of previous ones? Did they think it was as easy as just "gettin' along"? Did they think those wars happened because people were simply stupider than they are now? (LOL!!) Please put your seats back in the upright position, extinguish all cigarettes and hang on. .

The story the media tells us about the mission changed 180 degrees immediately after our government changed. That's the double truth, Ruth. That's all there is to it. Bottom line. No argument. No "kinda-sorta" about it. The media story under the Liberal government: "Our gallant beloved Canadian soldiers ran the evil Taliban out and are providing peace and security for Afghans while handing out candy and making the world a better place." 24 hours after Harper won the election the media story changed to this: "We are risking our gallant young soldiers on a doomed mission put forth by the Evil Bush Empire to conquer the worlds oil supplies. We can never provide security for Afghanistan. Harper is a Bush puppet and has led us into another Vietnam. Historically Afghanistan has never been occupied (self-evident mistruth since they were being occupied insidiously by Pakistan elements). We are only bringing death and destruction onto a poor defenseless people for the cause of profit." There is no argument here. No debate. That's the way it went and frankly anyone who can't see that is either: lying, wasn’t ever paying attention to begin with, or incredibly stupid. As I pointed out: we all like to think of ourselves as free thinkers and intelligent people but the media tells you what your opinion is and because it takes too much time and effort to truly get all the information on the subject people just lap it up. Those were the two 180 degree different stories being told and they coincide with the 180-degree change in popular opinion about the mission. In other words there is no other conclusion to come to besides the one that accurately points out that the media controls your opinion. Oh – that and they lie for a living – MUCH more than any politician does. It doesn't really matter what Canadians "think" (although I'd like to see proof of this "thinking"), most of them apparently can't tell the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, or worse simply think there is none. The bottom line is regardless of what Canadians think, feel, wish or day-dream if we leave now we'll be going back within ten years to do it all over again and many many more will die then than now. .

Apologizing for a Liberal mistake is nothing more than a 'strategy'. But I feel it’s owed to him. .

No you didn't. Seems you "know" what Harper said and yet can't remember what you said: Whenever you figure out what your point is supposed to be or what it is you're talking about ---- the troops being threatened or parliament --- you just let us know, k? .

Um. No. You're saying that. You're calling it a threat when it isn't. Now you're going to play games because it's all laid out for you there and you can't escape it. And you're right it doesn't make sense. That's my point. Could it be that you're finally catching on? .

No gerry. The only thing he's threatening them with is a chance to vote or debate. He supports the mission obviously. He would like to get parliaments support as well instead of going maverick which would really get you riled, right? Catch -22 for Harper and anyone with a compulsion to attack him. He wants to put it to parliament and put it to a vote, or debate and he'd like their support. That's it. That's all. Quite bizarre you must extrapolate giving them a vote on it with threatening them. But then considering the knee-jerk paranoid compulsion of yours to extrapolate everything anyone says into something they didn't say I'm not surprised. .

Yet only one poster is disingenuous enough to pretend he wouldn’t be ragging on him no matter what he said, and continually tries to make a mountain out of nothing. He wants parliament to support the mission. So what? .

No it's a completely reasonable question: If he extended the mission without going to parliament you'd be ragging on him for that. Since he stated that he wants to get parliaments' support first you still rag on him. IOW you are playing partisan games. It's pretty obvious if one does a quick search of your thread starters. Try a little honesty for once gerry. It feels great. .

Answer the question: What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament? .

Oh yeah. No partisan bias from gerry. No he wants an 'open debate' so long as it's understood from the get go that he's 'right' He's obviously got an open mind and has no bias out look at all. He really doesn't. What he does have is a compulsion. Hope someone's paying you for all this 'grass-rooter' work, gerry. Gerry's world: Harper=Bush=Hitler. If you disagree you're just a stupid neocon. Frankly, emoticons are the only response he's worth. .

Ahhh the ramblings of an 'open mind'. "Those who dispute me must be partizan". lol! It's your partisanship that is obviously tainting everything you see in Harper as evidenced by the multiple threads you've started over him. .

No you're not. Not even close. Patently false. This has already come full circle about 3 times in this thread. First you contend your 'translation' of his comments amounts to 'leveraging support for him by using the troops'. You say you think it's disgusting. Others dispute that contention and your translation, and show where others, like say the NDP have specifically said something 'disgusting' word-for-word and you brush it off with an argument about semantics. Then you get into a bit of flame with someone and then act like you're taking the 'high road' by claiming no one can 'debunk' or 'disprove' your contention which is basically just an opinion formed from your bias translation and your distrust of Harper. You have no intention of changing your mind; you've already made it clear that there's nothing anyone can say to change your take on your 'translation', so what are you doing challenging people and claiming you're 'interested in hearing the rest' as though you had an open mind or that the conversation could go anywhere but down? .

Iraq is not Afghanistan, and for that matter the Taliban were not Saddam, nor are they like Iraqi insurgents. In fact seeing as they appeared to be willing to let 'their' people starve; that making sure all males either had the right length of beard or were arrested, instead of a means to put food on the table; turning Afghans into prisoners in their own country by not letting them leave; -- basically looking at the last 5 years they had in Afghanistan before 2001 and the way they were behaving - well we've seen these elements all come together many times in the past and it usually ends up with millions starving to death or these neat little pyramids of skulls 6' high littering the landscape to the end of any horizon you look at. We can leave now and go back in 10 years, after the Taliban have likely killed 100000 for revenge alone, and after another initial 'shock&awe' that will kill many (many) more civilians than is happening right now and against a Tougher Taliban, or Canadians can just change the channel and preoccupy themselves with something else while we finish the fight the Tali ran away from the first time. .

Hey I get to be 'right' today ArmyGuy: Don't forget to look both ways before you cross the street. Don't worry - something else shiny and doom-filled will come along and distract the people. Pretty bad when you start to wish they'd just ignore us, non? .

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, anyone who knows has been saying it till they're blue in the face. Oh but you can't fool them. They read the paper, they know what's going on. If the paper says the Taliban have retaken half of Afghanistan then it has no matter what anyone sitting there says. Don't even try to bring up the point about the mission not changing or that the media & people's opinion changed 180. Cripes, they can't even remember what the last commercial was selling let alone what was happening 6 months ago. Whatever. No matter how many times you tell them they don't listen. No they're gona get the straight goods from some guy in a condo in Toronto that can string some really good 'zingers' together in an article for his daily bread -- oh yeah they know what's really happening there...after all that's what the newspaper ad said: they know everything. .

The current KIA ratio between Canadians and Taliban is about 52-1. I remember arguing with someone who had similar ideas: Oh the Soviets couldn’t beat them (when they had the help of the Saudis and the US and Pakistan, no), oh the Gurkas couldn't beat them - so what? they used knives and their bare teeth fer crissake, -- and finally I remember him telling me that when the winter comes the Taliban will have all the advantages just like the Soviets had over the Germans. Some of those people have to stop dreaming myths and start visualizing reality. What would you rather be faced with a bad winter and mountains and long distances? In a 8 wheel-drive armoured high-tech heated vehicle that can see your heat signature from 3000 meters or "hear" you with audio detection from 2000 meters, with air support and UAV detection and, and, and….or, alternatively, on a horse with an AK-47? If you answered the later choice you don't have an understanding of todays conflicts. .

Your point is well taken Wilber but it would also be useful to point out that no matter how much Canada spends on their military they will never be a "military industrial complex" or an "arms economy" without billion dollar corporations that make and sell weapons to the world and their own government. That's the idea of a "industrial military complex" or an "Arms economy". The military is a part of your GNP industry not just something you spend taxes on; it's jobs by the thousand which is votes by the thousand; not just something you buy from other people. This is what McArthur was meant. Come to think of it I don’t think it was McArthur at all, I think it was Eisenhower, or at least he’s the one that coined the ‘military-industrial complex’ phrase. .