madmax

I know of the quote. I also understand that you are engaging in one dimensional propoganda.

No, and this would be wrong to put out there as there are what a billion Muslims? I don't see them all engaged in Wahabbism and militant Islam. However the close allies of the US supported by the US in policy. Pakistans ISI and Saudi Arabia, spread their brand of Islam. The Taliban later adopted as this brand of extremism as a means to bring stability to the country.

Are you suggesting Canadian Forces do this or the Pakistan Government which shelters/turns a blind eye towards militant Islam? As for incinerating Mecca during the Hajj. Canada has no means realistic means to achieve such action. Neither morally nor militarily. Are you suggesting that US policy goes beyond that of what Israel is prepared and capable of doing, should it ever find it necessary?

I'm suggesting that the West is at war. The sooner we realize this isn't a game of "Risk" the better off we are. I am suggesting that it is a good thing you are a lawyer and not a military strategist.

Here is the definition of "insurgency". The insurgent is trying to overthrow the government. Hamid Karzai is facing open insurgency from the Taliban and their allies. From Wiki Stephen Harper wanted us in Iraq. Luckily his limited knowledge and bad judgement didn't prevail. However, Paul Martin, decided he wanted to go with General Hilliers opinion to join with American Forces and engage in counter insurgency. I don't believe Martin understood what was going on, and was acting to appease George Bush. Clearly the Canadian Forces weren't ready for such an engagement beyond the limited participation of Canadian Forces Personel up to this point. Stephen Harper, once in power, chomped at the bit and also didn't have a very good grasp of the situation, because this would have been his time to have a 2nd look at what we were committing towards. Perhaps he figured, that this could all be done on the fly, and we could get this right before Afghan Public Opinion turned against us. I believe he most certainly didn't understand that the Taliban uses propoganda to play for the hearts and minds of the Afghan, and that many Taliban and friends and relatives, thus for each killed Taliban, or each innocent killed, we will have more anger directed at us, then at the Taliban. Stephen Harper has come out with a game plan. The mission is extended, he is doing his best to get proper equipment for the troops. I don't believe he understands the reconstruction side, or the need for this to progress as fast. I actually wonder, hearing him talk if he has any understanding of Afghanistan at all. He only seems to talk in bogus rhetoric and doesn't talk about Afghanistan as clearly and thoroughly as many of the people here whom have served abroad. The actual test in Afghanistan to determine if the current policy is a success, is to establish if the Taliban are growing or reducing in numbers. So far, since the 2001 route, it appears that the Taliban have regrouped, and grown in size, stature and boldness. I don't believe the proper effort was put forth by the United States after the toppling of the Taliban. This is because George Bush dropped the ball, directed all of his effort to create a war with Iraq. This too has had repurcussions in Afghanistan, as foreign jihadists have come to join either the Taliban or Al Qaida. So where is Stephen Harper on such a complex insurgency, in which many in the military suggest will continue for decades? Harper behaves like many CPC supporters here. RAH RAH RAH, and that's about it. The good thing for Canadian Forces is that they are receiving some long overdue equipment and after being shamed and embarrassed the government initiated programs to to take care of the Canadian Forces when they returned home. Something that wasn't on Harpers mind IIRC.

And what due process does the Taliban afford? It is that backwards logic that allowed for Abu Graib. The loss of support of the Iraqi people started to occur after seeing the disgusting treatment of prisoners, many of whom were in the wrong place at the wrong time. If the US had afforded the slightest amount of dignity towards these "prisoners" and not foolishly allow them to be drawn into actions that Iraqis saw as no different then Saddam Husseins rule, perhaps, just perhaps the US wouldn't have botched up Iraq as badly as they have. To think that our government has suggested such nonsensical logic towards the Taliban, and adopt acceptance of the Karzai governments practice of torture and release is a policy that is detrimental to the security of our forces and our country. During the invasion of Afghanistan, prisoners that held little value, were executed by the Northern Alliance. Hundreds were known to be shipped in containers and sent to their death. Just hearing this statement should make us think twice about what we are suggesting is acceptable. If we have to ensure the safety of the captured prisoners, then NATO should darn well have it sorted out by now. Stephen Harper has proven to be totally inept in this matter. JBG, your comments are no better, your country is losing a war, and you wish to suggest that we turn a blind eye, follow some American policies, and lose this one too. No thanks.

Fortier comes to mind.

Including the PEI Gang of Four for 120,000 people? Are you sure? Yup, I am certain. This is a little known element we have hidden from you. Not only do we have a separate language, we have a separate math. This is also why we don't have the same gallon as you. Not that we use it anymore, I mean that was just silly, and we decided to go Euro rather then become assimilated. I could tell you why 4 MPs for 120,000 people is actually comparable, but all my math textbooks were made in the USA.

How does this make it any better? There are too many politicians already, and you want us to spend more money on a baby sitter? Our elected government doesn't need a baby sitter, anymore then it needs another elected government, to govern the government we elected.

Yes, We don't need a Senate. Regarding the United States. They have other ways to bring up the numbers. Once you start looking at their government it isn't small or nimble.

Awe shucks. Now I just remembered GHWB vomitting on TV. This footage was also detrimental to his image.

I couldn't disagree more. Joe Clark wasn't made for politics, GHWB was a brilliant politican and developed into a highly respected statesman. Joe Clark never acheived statesman status because of his endless whinning and zero responsibility attitude. I stand corrected. I was only thinking of GHWB failed campaign. Perhaps I was more familiar with the Saturday Night Live Version, which, if you think about it, might make you think of Joe Clark. GHWB was brought down by tax increases, IIRC and this was the downfall of Clark. Which is where any real similitaries might end.

Joe Who? Trivia Question. What does Joe Clark have tied to his wrists? Anyone remember?

What a load of rubbish. Harper is no Reagan Style Conservative. Harper has more in common with the George W. Bush. And George W Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Bush is stubborn. So is Harper. Bush is not the sharpest tool in the shed. One up for Steve. But both are cunning whereas Steve appears more intellectual then Bush. Ronald Reagan spoke his mind. "Tear down that wall", "there you go again" and these are Reagans words. You know it comes from him. Harper and Bush speak in rhetoric. Bush pretends to be likeable but that has worn thin. Harper just isn't likeable and probably never will be. He can't go for much more then a month before saying something childish and stupid. He has little wisdom, Reagan governed on Wisdom, often to the dismay of his advisors. Reagan never pretended to know to much. In fact, he probably knew just enough, and acted on what he did know, to the best of his abilities. Reagan was a different era from today. Bush is more like Nixon, only worse on all counts. Nixon actually knew how to extract a country from an unwinnable conflict. Harper may also be closer to Nixon, but I don't believe Nixon exploited religious and Social Conservatives for his victories. Joe Clark is more Like George H. Bush. Fuddy Duddy if you like.

I really like this quote.

Well you have mine. It's not that warm here. So.... I have to ask, please tell me you are not using Farenheit. Is this a way to mask the cold and have people move from Ontario to Manitoba. Is this how CB was induced to move? Look, if it's really that nice there, how come there weather far south of you is so much colder? I have to wonder how it is possible to dethrone a government, in Manitoba if there is so little coverage. Is there a good paper online for me to check out the temperature of the election?

CB. I was looking at your sig. and now I have to ask the question. Is there anything on Proportional Representation being mentioned during the campaign?

Maybe you are mistaken, and this is really about Aircraft contracts. Bringing back a hockey team, shouldn't be front and center in a campaign effort until after elected.

What is the opinion of the Conservatives in these forums on the Tory campaign in Manitoba? What you appear to be suggesting is that this group of Tories if elected could be as problematic as were the Grant Devine Conservatives in Sask. ? Why would they not campaign from the right? Are they trying to use the tactics used by Provincial and Federal Liberal parties across Canada?

I am not for any separatist.

Argus is quick to judge and doesn't suffer fools. I often do not agree with Argus, but I rarely have any doubt to where he stands on any issue. You will have to get used to some rough edges in the forum. This forum is pretty well monitored, and I prefer it to forums that monitor your posts before they are public. You are new here, and I see that you have been good enough to acknowledge the wise advice of Norman Chateau. Some others have not been so quick to learn and wind up banned. Good luck in your future posts. Back to Afghanistan. I hope you did read alot of what is in this thread. While there is alot of noise, you will recogise that there is some of the best information here, from the boots that are on the ground there. Welcome to the forum running dog.

Does this have the possibility of turning into adscam. Is it correct that a group received $250,000 and this group is essentially 3 Liberals, no building, or any else of substance. Will the Liberals get caught in another corruption scheme?

Things sound absolutely terrible there. I would be surprised if things are as bad as you say they are that the public would allow the government to stick around for a 3rd term. I don't believe it is wise to call people stupid, morons, misguided morons, and then wishing the worst upon them. So I take it you are voting conservative? Sorry about the name-calling. I've changed the ndp voter name calling in my posts. I'm to the point of moving out of Manitoba if the ndp get elected for a third term, it is that bad. I don't expect allot from politicians, just to follow threw with some of their promises. There is none of that with the ndp. Maybe I'm just expecting too much? Welcome to the forum. I do expect alot from politicians. The Liberals in Ontario made more promises then I can count. It became the topic of discussion, to such a degree that the Provincial Leader said he would like to give everyone a pony if he could. My opinion in Ontario, suggests that it has become common place that the populist vision of politics disappeared about 15 years ago here. That included the Bob Rae Government, the Harris Government (which was ideologically driven, not populist) and the McGuinty Government (Which is about staying in power) I will cut you slack because you are new. I know what it is like to find an outlet for your frustrations. So vote against them, or if you lose, make your MPP responsible. You should never have to move.

Is there no Provincial Green Party in Manitoba? Are there no advance polls?