M.Dancer

If infanticide was legal my daughter would still misbehave. But only once...................

Kinda except we never funded the Taliban and the Taliban never fought the Soviets. Oh..and the US never funded the Taliban either.

We could do it if the Russians were willing to put their aircraft at risk by hauling someone elses military equipment into a war zone (I'm not so sure the Russians are that happy we are there in the first place) or if the Pakistanis were agreeable to Canadian tanks being transported accross their territory. I don't know if that is so. It wouldn't be a russian gov't plane....there are private carriers, Kapitalists, Da? http://www.voldn.ru/eng/group/companies/profile/

struth

You might ask how we would get them there. Until we get C-17's we won't have the capacity to move them by air so they would have to be moved by the Americans or trucked across either Pakistan or Iran. Yeah that's the way it was done in 1944 and in 51....on a freighter and through Pakistan. Or we could lease a russian cargo plane....actually getting them there is the easy part....getting someone to order them there, now that will take work.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...k=31590&p=1 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home This is some prelude to what....if they are acting like terrorists, Jack is ready to talk to them....? My heart goes out to the next NDP canvasser who comes to my door.....

I disagree. Now while some on the extreme would want a full and complete divorce, by far most Quebecers want to stay as part of Canada, but like the 9 other premiers, want more control. Even within the PQ, the spectrum on what the goal is ranges from a new federalism to sovereignty association to the extreme....but for the average jean....a final divorce is not the goal.

accepted and collective legends and myths coupled with a few ripping good yarns......

That our equipment is aging used to be true, but no so any more. Gone are the 50s era FNs, the vintage howitzers and motars and the stylish yet crappy ferrets....the equipment that is with our troops in Afghanistan is as state of the art as possible, and while the CF-18s are not what we could call new, they are perfectly adequat and relaible for the mission. It's not like the Taleban have SAM installations.... You might ask, why don't we have our (not yet vintage) Leopards there, our airforce flying support..... And I will say it's because the gov't (pick a gov't, any CND gov't) doesn't want it to appear that we are at war..... ......I too, despite my writings, often agree, to a certain extent, with myself.....oh, and you as well.

If someone werre to ask me if the afghan mission should be debated I would loudly say yes. But not a debate like Jack wants, how to surrender in Pashtan, but how the mission will best help the Afghan people. Do we need more troops? One more or two more battalions?] Do we need to ship a leopard company? Can we provide our own air support? Should there be a combat engineer company? and so on.....

Unforunately you are only half right. As we've seen in the past, Layton and his NDP can play the deal maker and tip the balance. As you no doubt know, the BQ have not supported the afghan mission, couple the BQ with the NDP and a handful of leaderless liberals and what you get is Layton calling for a debate on the best way for Canada to capitulate.

Personaly I am gladdened that old reform hacks are about as ethical as the old PC or liberal hacks. Everyone knows that an MPs riding is his gravey train, and anyone who would't resort to dirty tricks to protect his livihood is someone who won't be in politics very long. They are all whores, everyone whether their name is Jack, Steve or Myron.

In much the same way a 16 year old son wants total freedom of action, on Mum's and Dad's money? No. More like a husband who wants to be treated as an adult but still wants to be married.

What makes me laugh is your inability to comprehend what I wrote and insert your own narrow view. Har! there I laughed. I suggest you bone up on ol' firewall Harper I'm not sure what "liberal history" is. I'm not sure if you know either, considering that the original provinces were Quebec, Ontario Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. You might also be unaware as to who the leading personages were. It was covered in High School. Population: 1861 Quebec 1,191,516 Ontaio 1,620,851 Nova Scotia 387,800 New Brunswick 285,594 So sue me for not being an accountant......and I'll sue you for putting words in my mouth. This is where I laugh again. Obviously you have one of them new fangled computers that puts words in where there are none. Please revert to the original and show in my post where I said anything about seperation. As to the rest about the plains of abraham yadda yadda yadda.....thge plain of abraham ws a battel fought between two forien powers and has nothing to do with either confederation or the evolution of provincial power in Canada.

It's a fact, today's urban legends are tomorrow's oral history....

LAVs are Hercules compatible and so are the M113s

The only reason there are no Canadian fighters in the sky is the lack of political will. Any excuses about "lack of support" is hogwash. If we wanted CF-18s there, we would put in place the necessary infrastructure to do so and we would ask pwermission use our allies resources until that time when we could be better disposed.

Not one person died from that broadcast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_th...lds_%28radio%29 Can't believe that....trust the oral history.....

So in effect you are deaf to quebec's desire. Give you a hint, what Quebec wants, is what Stevie Harper wanted for Alberta, except Quebec is a little more politically sophisticated and a little more articulate in their message. I haven't a clue what this means and I'm not sure what it has to do with my post. Well, no. Quebec is not just one out of 10. Quebec is a founding member. A province that at one time counted lmost half the population of the Dominion and with the adding of other provinces watched it;s political clout diminish. Just Like PEI is not just 1 out of 10, who has a speical arrangement within confederation) neither is Quebec. Quebec right now extends her own consular missions in foreign countries, etc etc....has a different codification of civil law..yadda yadda yadda...... There is nothing particularly strange about what Quebec wants for itself. More power to shape her future, a future shared with canada (and the other unique 9)

Well, at least in my back yard I can thow bricks at them.....but honestly, I think they should be arrested for possesion and whatever funding is used to give them a safe injection site be diverted to rehab....perferably in labrador or baffin island.

It is not the point but it is a very valid point. Also the more lethal your equipment the more deadly the the incidents. Could the situation be improved? Probably, it almost always can but fratricide in war will always be a reality. As far as the Brits go, I don't know. Do you? Remember, the US is trying to supply air support for our troops because we let our military reach a state where we are incapable of doing it ourselves. I guess we will just have to wait and see what contributed to this latest tragedy. No and neither am I trying to demonize the Americans. But in the past, their procedures has been suspect, particularly in the length of a sortie and the drugs they use to stay awake. That being said, we could provide our own air support with our CF-18s but the Harper gov't, for whatever reason has not authorized it.

Can you even begin to understand the consequences of doing that? You think we have problems rehabilitating people now -- just wait. There are reasons we disallow things. If the costs to society outweigh the benefits, then it should disallowed. The costs of allowing drug use far outweigh the benefits. My friends 14 year old daughter is now living with the consequence of ectasy use. Apparently the high came with group sex with an adult and herpes. Decriminalization may be appropriate for some drugs, and other not at all.

Maybe they (the addicts) should get a little more ambitious and steal some more to get a hotel....I for one don't want subsidize someone else's addiction.

Not really. Those who never do anything never make mistakes. FTA has the gist of it. On the otherhand, is there something about their training or SOP that contributes to the incidents? Given that it is not just allies who are the victims of fratrcide, but many more US casualties, it may be a valid criticism. If you have the largest military and are involved in more wars, it is only logical that you will be involved in more incidents. Those who never go to war will never have any incidents. We have no capability to provide air support for our army in Afghanistan, therefore we will never be guilty of bombing our own side. That's not the point nor is friendly fire limited to air strikes. The British are at war, are they experiance a similar number (weighted to troop strength) of fratricidal incidents?

Not really. Those who never do anything never make mistakes. FTA has the gist of it. On the otherhand, is there something about their training or SOP that contributes to the incidents? Given that it is not just allies who are the victims of fratrcide, but many more US casualties, it may be a valid criticism.