myata

This is what I got from following the link: "The story you are searching for is available in its entirety via email, fax or mail for $12.00 (plus GST), payable with credit card (include expiry date). " P.S the subtitle to the report reads: "The slow, systemic abandonment of any effort to instil discipline brought us to this point". No indication of which "point" and how it compares to the earlier "points", to make such very long reaching conclusions. I'm sure it's self evident to some, but to the rest, providing some logical and factual argumentation would be the place to start.

I'll vote Liberals if they have any realistic chance of winning in my riding. I didn't last time, but I'll have to do it, to stop sneaky bunch from getting the power. My preference of the outcome: #1 Liberal minority (to start ahead with sensible policies on the environment, social developments, economy, working with NDP and Bloc on the social agenda, conservatives and the Bloc on economy, while keeping in check their oldtime arrogance); #2 Status quo (there aren't many sensible policies Harper is genuinly interested in pursuing - e.g. forget the environment, they're dragging their feet behind most provinces - but at least their socially conservative agenda, like death penalty pranks, can be kept in check. While Harper's bunch is at the wheel, they shouldn't ever get near a majority).

I understand your frustration, and it's not an easy situation, but these questions have to be asked. Because if going into Afghanistan was a wrong decision in the first place, no "committment" nor "responsibilies" will matter. We'll have to withdraw bleeding, as others before, leaving the country in a greater mess than it was under Taleban. Again, I agree with your frustration, but it's aimed in the wrong direction. The real cause of problem was the decision to change the focus of our involvement, from assistance and reconstrution, to "combat mission", without broad consideration and analysis, what it means. This was done, of course, to pacify the americans, but was still a wrong thing to do. As a result we ended up fighting on one side in an internal conflict. We shouldn't be doing this. Only Afghans will know (and decide) what's good for them. And they'll decide it the way they know and used to. Nobody gave us the right to "to uphold what most Canadians thought was near and dear to them" on other people's territory and by force of arms. This is as near to plain old colonialism (by another name) as it can get.

It wasn't their only problem when we (West, in the broad sense, specifically, Britain, US and their allies in the UN) interfered to create it, but now when it's gotten out of hand, it's their own business? Even while some of us still continue to support one side in the conflict, strongly and unquestionably? Even when our money are used to create these "facts on the ground" which come out almost daily: new Israeli construction in East Jerusalem? When the arms we supply are used to enforce it? I'm not sure if that ("we have nothing to do with i"t) is exactly the state of affairs. And I won't be surprised if our (again, in the broad sense) involvement will cause less than only brotherly love and gratitude from the receiving side.

From this yesterdays CBC story on trial for accused in the 9/11 attacks9/11 charges: Note that according to the prosecution, "American standards of justice are to be followed..." and the admission of evidence from aggressive interrogation methods such as e.g. "waterboarding" (in other words, torture) is left up to the tribunal's judge. From that, it appears that the "American standard of justice" may from now on. potentially and in general, include torture as one of the legitimate ways of collecting evidence (of course, subject to american standard of procedure being properly followed). The accused would have these legal options: 1) die under torture (really, they don't know that the torturer isn't really going to torture them to death; or 2) confess and be executed based on his confession. Wonderful strategy. But not original. Reminds me of something - maybe, something to do with the medieval Spain?? Finally - with strategies like this - how can we ever be sure that we are on the "right" side?

No, we should go ahead with the election, and should the Canadians elect a different party on this this issue they should go on with the plan, no matter handtwisting, i.e. 1) pull out the troups from the combat role (we did what we could and paid dearly for that; now it's time for somebody else to step up; if nobody's there to step up - it means that there's no trust on the success of the mission - and these missions usually end in disaster anyways - so the sooner they're terminated, the better for everybody). 2) refocus the resources and efforts on dimplomacy (i.e finding broader base for national peace) and development. I only hope Dion has guts for it and doesn't screw it up.

To the one who perpetrates the injustice, you mean? One can barge into a country with thousands of troops and that would be called "aggression". Or one could say "they have WMD, they'll attack me in 45 min, I'm only defending myself", and voila: now it's a totally different story! From that perspective, indeed, Stalin was a master and a hero, of "justification".

For that, you'll have to first define "objective". Where's the point of view, from which my beliefs shall be discussed? Is it in you, or in me? Don't mix the issues of violence with that of rational discussion. Violence can be met with equal force, until balance is established. It does not not mean that one point of view has been rationally defeated by another. Organized religon of certain denomination may go out of fashion, and die out. You'll have to wait very long time (much longer than your lifespan, any may very well be, forever) till all "irrational" from your point of view, beliefs, whether in aliens, Universal Goodness, or star power, move out of the world. Next question, of course, will be whether you'll want to live in that world.

OK, hold on, here. If they, as you say, "tossed" them out of power, why do they now need 50,000 (and apparently, that isn't enough) of foreign troops, just to hold on to it? Dead on, here. I.e., we know what government is good for them Afghanis, and we're sending our troops there to prop it at all cost.

True. The problem with the point of view presented in the OP is that it is every single bit as absolutist as the one it wants to criticise. And because there's no supreme authority to tell us unquestionably and once and for all, who's right and who's not, the blame and accusations can go on forever. I'm not sure how much else could come out of it.

I think it's simply a matter of terminology. I mean, the deed speaks for itself. It doesn't matter which word we apply to describe it. The bloody gory details of millions of tortures and executions are documented and won't change one bit because of that. The bottom line: if your party wants to brand Stalin a hero, it's OK - it speaks volumes about your party - but hardly changes anything about Stalins's record.

What Canadians (potentially) want to do in Darfour, is to stop mass crime against population. Not "rebuild" Sudan, nor establish a modern "democratic" society there. Those are two very different objectives. One is noble, and viable. The other, would be, idealistic (to say it very mildly) and destined to fail.

Oh, and I skipped over that common wisdom. So when is the right time to question wrong decisions?

It's really quite simple. No need to build phylosophical foundations around plain and simple lack of judgment. The US bangled into Afghanistan because its president (and the crowd around him) needed quick fix to the 9/11 tragedy. They also had this wonderful "domino effect" theory, in plain words, that the whole world can't wait to become one big America, and only a few evil baddies stand in the way of the eternal bliss. The other "partners" followed because they were either hand twisted into it, or chose it as a lesser of evils, compared to going into Iraq (which had next to zero lawful justification, compared to at least appearance thereof in the case of Al Quaeda in Afghanistan). Interestingly, Iraq too was quoted in the context of this thoughtful argument (i.e us against the throng of barbarians). Of course, nobody ever remembered to ask (or maybe, was really interested to know??) what was it that set them barbarians on the collision course in the thirst place? and what realistic chance they have to inflict any serious harm upon us? before calling into action such dramatic actions. Not Manley nor anybody else has even try to prove that the task it is realistically doable. We're talking about converting a feodal society into modern ways of democracy, in the matter of couple decades. It's pure and simple, an illusion, and a pipe dream. We'll waste money, lose lives, and retreat, as others before us, when the cost will become unbearable, leaving to Afghans to sort out the mess. By which time, the mess, thanks to our uncalled for (in our usual manner) interference, may become much worse, than it could have been. Could have been, that is, if we tried a more intelligent and also, civilized, approach (no, it's really too much to expect from us, boasting so much of moral, intellectual, technological and god knows what else superiourity), i.e. to try to work out open and honest rules of interaction with other and different societies, without trying to impose our values, ways of life, modes of governance, etc, upon them.

Whatever the details, it's very clear to any independent open minded observer that the conflict was caused by mass immigration of foreign people into already populated area, and subsequent unilateral creation of an ethnic state. These days we call this kind of affair "ethnic cleansing". But apparently, there's bad "ethnic cleansing" and (not so bad) "ethnic cleansing". Every case is different, as that US foreign guy likes to say. Regardless less than fortunate events of the past, all realistic strategies for the future (specifically, peaceful future) will have to include 1) acknowledgement and remediation of the wrongs of the past; and 2) a fair settlement which both sides can reasonably live with. At this point, it's simply not in the cards. Israel and its supporters in the West aren't yet prepared to say in the open that any wrongs were committed by unilateral establishment of Israel; ongoing settement activity casts serious doubts on Israels's sincerity in looking for a fair settlement; and on the other side, there's no consensus as to the reality of coexistence with Israel. So I don't have much hope for positive change in the region in the short term.

And I wonder how many will actually buy into this macho dumbwitted strategy. The real issue is, is there any serious chance of success with this chosen strategy, and does it worth spending our resources and lives? Maybe Harper, true to his usual self, underestimates intellectual abilities of Canadians (but then, everybody looks from their own bell tower, as Russians say...) Right, with nothing much to show for his own two years in power (environment? transparency? accountability? anyone?).

Just remember to keep it to yourself, pretend a genuine interest in some legitimate use, show good attitute and law abiding character, when you go to your police interview for the license. If you drop something like this on them, you'll see them (license and the guns i.e) only in your dreams, or movies. Even with the current, less than perfect system.

Yes I think it's ultimately up to the people to build the schools, build the country, and live in whatever ages they like to. Certainly I don't see it as a wise investment of our resources (and lives) to install, and support a government we think is good for Afghanistan, if its own people aren't so sure about that (and if they were sure, in their masses, would we need to install and prop it up in the first place?) At least an election over the issue will give all Canadians a say what they think. Just in case it's different from what real men do i.e. always stick to the plan, even a wrong and desperate one, to the last and no matter what - or do they command others to stick to it, until they're kicked out of power at which time they'll retire to write manly memoirs??

Here you go - and not even asked for - one more reason to have registration in place, if only to keep these "gun fans", who think it's amusing to frighten people with them, in check (and under control).

Elections over Afghanistan, forced by Harper - I can't think of a better opportunity for the Liberals in the long time. Just hope Dion won't blow it in the last moment. If there's any hope for this project, it's in the diplomatic and development fields. Troops won't accomplish the task as most Canadians now seem to agree. If Harper wan't to press his views on the country, let hime take the consequences.

Sure, that's the area of your expertise, have to give it to you.

No, certainly not, how could you say that ??! They aren't really "guns", just toys for the grown up boys. Nothing to do with gun control, really. Gun control is all about them, baddies. They should go to jail from about junior kindergaten. Everybody else should get at least five guns per household, and peace and love will rule forever.

OK, so next time when you'll share your valued opinion on another expert matter, like e.g. how much concrete can be saved on building a bridge, we should take it against that of qualified professionals (i.e, police in this case). Yet Harper has been very efficient in silencing them "mouthy back benchers", than they dared to talk agianst his line. Guess this one isnt, correct? Not a knee jerk reaction, simply recognition of reality: ie. that urban downtown isn't your prairie ranch, and there no place in it for loose guns. ... That's again your dream world, go to your nearest border crossing for a reality check and watch cars waved through one after another. Any one of them can be loaded with guns. People who tote them aren't afraid of showing or using them in public. There's no reason to expect that adding few years to sentence would scare them away from bringing them into the country. The realistic approaches to fight this kind of crime were mentioned already. They require consistent long term strategies, initiatives, ground work. I.e., not something this government, keen on catchy one line slogans, would be (and is) interested in. In any case, on the balance, it's quite obvious that this government does not consider gun control as a serious matter, and even makes moves to start dismantling it. Less gun control, less prevention, more enforcement, tougher penalties - the direction they want to take the country is quite clear. By all indications, it won't result in actually less crime, but who cares, right? What does the reality matter to a true believer?

Even though I haven't voted Liberals in the past election, and less than fond of Dion's performance I'll take him any time against Harper and his bunch of hackmen. Gosh, I'll even go door to door, for the first time in my memory.

It's all here, in this thread, just read. Dropping import gun markings, again, against police recommendations, insinuations about efficiency of handgun registration by some vocal backbenchers (and Harper knows how to handle vocal backbenchers when needed, so this one isn't a priority, or maybe even an asset?). Super calm response to calls to do something about escalating gun violence in Toronto (i.e ban handguns; prevent illegal imports). Enough, for now? And how many times need it to be repeated to finally sink in? To noahbody: Sure, it's all in the question (and being creative with it). How about this one, from your own source: Homicides per capita by country Excerpt Ukraine: 9.27 US: 9.1 ..... Australia: 1.88 Germany: 1.66 Spain: 1.49 9.1 / (average of 1.88, 1.66, 1.49) = 5.41. Even a bit higher than stated, but then these are supposed to be the latest stats, right? Looks like somebody here indeed needs some education...