d4dev

I disagree. What's hurting Canada's war effort is the lack of a consistent and coherent policy from the federal government. Let it be clear that I'm not just blaming Canada, but each and every one of the countries that's part of the ISAF in Afghanistan. Most countries participating in the war have done so very reluctantly, and with numerous conditions and prohibitions about what their soldiers can and cannot do. That's not the way a war is fought. A war is fought to win, not to merely convey an impression of fighting. The extreme lack of enthusiasm has contributed to a lack of allocated finances, manpower, equipment, and consequently, a limitation of the operational objectives. Today, many western countries are also talking about some kind of a "deal" with the "less hard-core" Taliban. Problem is, we've tied the hands of our soldiers from day one by giving them a list of too many do's and dont's, and not enough support to accomplish the objectives that we ask of them. And when they make even minor mistakes to do their job, the armchair generals among us pounce on them seeking to deliver lectures on morality and how to fight a war. If you don't want torture to occur, give our troops more ways of obtaining information, be it via satellites, drones, HUMINT or others, and give them the means to act on the information they collect. You cannot fight with one hand tied behind your back, and a war is no different. All the ISAF countries need to untie the hands of their soldiers, and pour in more manpower, money, and equipment to win this war. The objective should not be a perpetual status quo, and I hope that's not what our and other leaders are working towards. If need be, ask other countries in the region to help-countries like Iran, India, Russia and China could provide invaluable support if utilized in the right way. India is already one of the largest donors in Afghanistan with over $1.2 billion spent on highways, schools, hospitals and the Afghan Parliament building. Iran shares a large land border with Afghanistan and is very well connected to it through the Zaranj-Delaram highway, which could be used as an alternate support route instead of Karachi through Pakistan. China should be persuaded to invest some of its gargantuan dollar reserves in Afghanistan in its own interest-they have problems with Muslim extremists in Xinjiang, and if Afghanistan becomes a hotbed of terrorism again, it won't be beneficial for them either. Lastly, Russia can use its massive clout among the CAR states to develop alternate markets for trade, development, and economic uplift of the Afghans. Until the Afghans depend on poppy for their livelihood, Afghanistan cannot function as a viable country. The problem of torture cannot be seen in a localized sense isolated from the general state of affairs in Afghanistan. Torture takes places to collect information on the enemy, and until the enemy exists, there will be a pandemic of chaos in the region. I don't seek to condone the use of torture, and in any civilized society, torture should be abhorred and condemned by all. But Afghanistan is in a state of war, and if torturing a mass-murdering Taliban extremist will save hundreds of people from dying the next day in an attack on a marketplace, it should be quite clear where our priorities lie.

Being morally better than your enemy doesn't win wars.

Not that I support any of those barbaric cultural practices listed as unwelcome in Canada including female genital mutilation, but I wonder why male genital mutilation is acceptable? Isn't it ironic that the sentence says that any forms of "gender violence" is unacceptable, but lists only the violence against women? Time to outlaw circumcision too?

I can't believe the sheer ignorance and bias among some posters here about Gandhi, and frankly, some comments about him are disturbing and disgusting. Some posters have gone to the extent of personally abusing Gandhi and indulging in character assassination. Among the more ridiculous and prevalent themes of opposition to Gandhi's methods is that he "knowingly" and "willingly" sent his "followers" to be beaten, maimed and killed. Another poster claims that thousands of his followers died this way. I'd like to see sources on that if you don't mind. It's one thing to accuse the man regarding actual events, but quite another to indulge in character assassination based on fabricated lies. The latter doesn't diminish the greatness of Gandhi in any way, it just shows how you have been blinded by your bias against the man and how you seek to discredit him in any way you can. Gandhi's "followers" were not dumb sheep that they could not think for themselves. They suffered the injustice and discrimination of the British administration every day and were quite aware of the atrocities the British were capable of. The Jallianwala Bag Massacre of 1919, in which thousands of innocent civilians were murdered in cold blood by a British firing squad, was proof of the inhumanity and monstrousness that the British would descend to, to maintain control of their Indian empire. The ban on any industrial activity, the encouragement of inter-religious tensions that eventually tore India apart, and the forced growth of cash crops by farmers that caused millions to die of famines and starvation was something that not only Gandhi, but everyone else experienced every day. The movement for Indian self-rule started way before Gandhi became its leader, in the late 1800s. When Gandhi came on the scene in 1920, he was accepted as a national leader by a population that was angry at British persecution, and were willing to lay down their lives for the cause of India's freedom. In fact, there were several movements against British rule in India, ranging from communist revolutionaries to staunch nationalists and Gandhi's was the only large scale peaceful alternative available to common Indians who could participate without the fear of being executed for treason. Gandhi's philosophy was simple-he would use peaceful protests to awaken the conscience of the British into seeing that what they were doing was wrong. He would endure great physical and personal hardships to make the oppressor realize that he must stop his oppression. In fact, he was such an extreme pacifist that he decided to suspend a highly successful national agitation in which tens of millions of satyagrahis took part because of one incident in which a protest turned violent and 20 policemen were killed. Gandhi literally embraced and implemented the Hindu philosophies of non-violence and Jesus' teachings of turning the other cheek. Those who blame him for putting his followers' well-being at risk must also ask themselves if they have the same problems with Jesus' teachings and would gladly demean Him by referring to Him as a "fakir". Any movement against an oppressor will inevitably involve suffering on the part of the resister-the question is not whether an oppressive regime can be ousted painlessly, but whether the resister can maintain his humanity and moral superiority in the face of great evil.

Just wondering where you got that info from.

Are you talking about "Muslim culture" in general or "Arab culture" in particular? In case of the former, I'm sorry to say that you're terribly wrong.

And do you think that most Ontarians will not be offended if they have the same weight in the senate as PEI? I for one, will be. C'mon, I don't agree with your solution. All principal applicants are required to speak English. However, in case they decide to sponsor their parents after coming to Canada, their parents are probably exempt from these requirements. I'm not 100% sure, though. You should be able to get that info from Immigration Canada's site. I don't know if that has indeed been implemented in Finland. However, it would be interesting to find out more about it.

I was talking about a secular state. How the heck are you going to enforce a 'secular society?' Muslims don't mind if other women go around naked. It's Muslim women that they say should be covered. And I don't see how any of that is your concern since that is an issue of religious freedom. My point is that throughout history, a land is dominated by people of different cultures and customs. No one can forcibly stop change, and no one should try to. I'm not saying that we should give up our culture and values, there's no reason for us to. Nor should we try not to preserve our society in the current state. But history shows us that such efforts will all go in vain.

You tell me, how is being Canadian significantly different from being British? I have lived in the UK, and except for the difference in the accent, there isn't much difference between us. And that's obvious, since all Canadians (or most of them) are essentially of British and French origin. Your generalisation, besides being terribly wrong, also displays your ignorance of world history. No country every built a shithole for itself. Throughout history, the countries with better weapons and more power colonised other countries, and the reason that most of the developed world is 'developed' today is because generations back, they looted the wealth of weaker Asian countries, which were culturally much more advanced than Europeans, but militarily lagged behind. For example, you don't like Chinese people. But the Chinese had their own empires when Europeans were only nomads.

Argus, I agree with some of your views, but I disagree with most of them. For example, I think that the current system based on the population of each province is correct and shouldn't be changed. Why should it? Do you have a good reason? I would say that the position of the AG should be eliminated altogether. Instead of that, a department of Auditing and Comptrolling should be set up, which should have more power than just making recommendations. Immigrants are required to speak English before arriving. (Although that obviously is not the only criteria on which immigration is based, it is one of the required criteria.) Agreed 100%. Good suggestion, but not possible in practice.

FYKI, 'secular' means embracing all religions and cultures or something that does not relate to any religion/culture. You seem to be the opposite. Someone told me the other day that the French and the English should stop fighting because the official languages of Canada in fifty years are going to be Chinese and Arabic. Now I don't think that's so, at least not in that time line. But that IS my concern. Their numbers are rising too fast.

I agree with that 100%. In fact, all religions should be abolished. They are nothing but an impediment to man's progress.

What do you mean by 'Canadian culture and values', Argus? Canada does not have it's own culture and values. Canadian values are British and French values. Why should anyone subscribe to British and French values for getting citizenship? People come to Canada all over the world, with cultures and languages that are much older and much more diverse than those Canadian. Why should they give up their culture and adopt British/French customs?

Oh, no no no. As the USsays, fuck the standards of living. What about freedom of speech? Now that's important.

That's not what you proposed. Your proposal comes closer to saying "We'll give you the key to our house so that from now on, you can decide to whom we're going to open the door"

What do you want to do? Make Canada a US colony? We already have hardly any indigenious big companies, except for, maybe, a few like Nortel. We've already been colonised economically. Why not hand over the entire administration of Canada to the US? Then you'll probably be satisfied.

August, don't be too vocal about the Israel-Palestine question or you'll be labelled as a leftist.

I agree with your entire post, but: See the point you are not getting is that this is Canada, we should never base our standards or immigrants work experiences as a standard for Canada.

Why can't we compare North America to the middle east? Because you say so? It's very simple, Sully. Hamas wants their land back. They want to have their own independant country, and refuse to recognise the state of Israel. Compare the situation to the communist revolution in China/Russia, albeit with a different ideology. The only difference is that the Chinese and the Russians were fighting against their own countrymen, whereas Hamas considers Israeli Jews to be foreigners who have occupied their land. You now why it's anti-semitic? Because Israel is a Jewish state. If Israel was a Christian or a Buddhist state, Hamas would have been anti-Christian or anti-Buddhist. Here, religion is not important. The hate is country specific, not religion specific. What is important is that Arab land was forcibly confiscated and a new state carved out of it. Obviously, it was the design of the British to create a puppet state in the middle east so that they could intervene there whenever they wanted to. It was also to ensure a steady supply of oil. It was to ensure that Arab countries never become strong, to keep them occupied with regional strife that would sap their energies. The British have done this all over the world, in all their colonies. We have the Israeli question, Iraq which was divided to create Kuwait, India which was partioned into Pakistan....the list could go on. It was an imperialistic decision that formed Israel, one that should have no place in the modern world.

There's no need to be sarcastic, August. If you don't accept my figures, provide your own. You don't prove your point otherwise.

Check this out: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/int_use_cap&id=ca http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/int_use_cap&id=ch http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/int_use_cap&id=in Now believe me?

Hey, that's plagiarism!! You first have to ask for my consent and give me royalty money before quoting me! On a more serious note, how about making this a poll?

No they haven't. Check out the internet penetration in, for eg, China (which is probably the most 'developed' of the developing countries) and that in Canada. What's more, they don't high speed down there guys!

Sully, you misunderstand me. Making it easier for professionals doesn't mean lowering standards for their acceptance. Got it? It means improving co-ordination between various professional associations so that when an immigrant gets certified by CCPE, he does not again have to be certified by other similar professional bodies. It means quit asking immigrants for Canadian experience before according them a license to practise their profession. (In case you say that this is unfair to Canadian grads, I would like to remind you that Canadian grads pass out of Universities whose programs are already certified by these associations. So many grads don't have to get certified to practise their profession. Not the same case for immigrants. Therefore, I propose that professional certification for immigrants should be based on their experience in their own country, as well as their professional qualifications.)

That is no reason why Arabs should be forcibly made to give up their lands to create Israel. And your post does not make sense anyway. Because Hebrews were the first to settle there, you are advocating that Israel has a right to exist? That's laughable. As laughable as saying that Canadians/Americans should be evicted from North America and the land be handed over to the natives because they were the first to settle there.