madmax

What is wrong with the Fraser Institutes Methodology.

That's quite an assumption. Let me clarify. I am speaking during the period of the USSR/Afghan war. There is little "record" of using IED by the Muj during this period. Lots of other crazy ideas. During the Taliban/Northern Alliance, the biggest IED of note was the Camera bomb used by AlQaeda Suicide bombers to kill the Tajik Leader whom was a skillfull guerilla tactician. This was done on Sept.10th. Now the IEDs of recent have become more prominent and more deadly. Thus, when I suggest never engaged in these IED methods, I am speaking of these current methods, which appear technically derived and more lethal in composition. Yeah, maybe a bit of an assumption there, sorry for the confusion.

Some more questions for you. Are mines left over from the USSR days and the Northern Alliance/Taliban era, being located and removed? Are they marked if not removed? Are the holes, that are being filled up with everything under the sun, include mines from an older era, or are these new mines? Where are they getting these mines? Also the triggering devices, how is it that a country which never engaged in these IED methods in the past, now able to manipulate the latest technology as a triggering device? There was a time when the Afghans would just launch rockets and hope they scored a hit.

Fortunately the allies have more explosive devices and better ways of aiming them. Afghanistan is the most heavily mined country in the world. Mines don't have to aimed.

I can never figure out Quebec Politics. Just when I think I know what is going on in the Province, there is another new twist. The NDP have never been a force in Quebec, and Provincially the rise of the ADQ would seem to be the opposite trend. Here is the article http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...03-6add1ade8f24 I am interested in comments from the Quebec posters here, as well as anyone whom speaks French and knows what the pundits are saying?

I understand that Manning and Harper had image consultants and probably lots of others have people following them around to make certain that not a hair is out of place, and the ties are straight. Reminds me of my mom sending me off to school. It appears that it is all image over substance, which must be the result of television, which brings us back to the Nixon Kennedy era. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a PM with his hair out of place, his sleeves rolled up, tie crooked, and shirt untucked. There are just as many MPs whom I think fit that bill in the past, and they were constantly on the move, or more concerned in what they were working on, then their own appearance. Ever notice this in some boardrooms? The immaculant ones, and the ones dressed to the 9s but, dirt on their shoes, suits, and sweat dripping down while the A/C is working OT. I believe this is much ado about nothing. Which is why it isn't surprising that Harper was hammering Manning over it. Harper gets the reality check, and realizes it is necessary. It only shows the pettiness Stephen Harper had for Preston Manning.

Is your former handle Rickibobbi (SP) or something like that? I noticed that this poster disappeared, and had a good sense of humour? Anyone know where he went? I am curious because I see you being referred to as Ricki?

The Senate is a waste of resources. I don't want "more" elections I want less. Electoral burnout, constant campaigning, and in the end, it is just a sham. Phasing out the Senate is the best way to proceed forward.

Poor argument. He can be held as much to account in the Senate. Just because you don't watch Senate proceedings (I don't either, but I also don't care) isn't anyone's fault but your own. That may be true. What is interesting is that the vast majority are suggesting that they would rather have the Senate phased out, then carry on with perceived waste of time and money. The problem is that people don't want the Senate but their is little we can do about it without opening the constitution. The same is true with "real" senate reform vs this dog and pony show that Stephen Harper is conducting for his electoral base. No Party is ready to touch the constitution to change the Senate one way or another. Most definitely.

Well coming from the "Center", I have to wonder where you are coming from? This thread was started in the middle of the night and had all of 3 posts attached by the time of your comments. Alot of people have better things to do then stay up all night during the middle of the week. People whom use violence to support their religious beliefs through intimidation, betray their religion. As for the cricket comment. I Learned to play cricket in the 70s as a kid. I was taught by some kids that had arrived in Ontario, from Alberta. It was a fun game, I can't remember how to play it now. Apparently some think that the cricket bat is a religious device.

The NDP have their mind made up. The Liberals have played this tune before. Now they want the mission to have an end date. This isn't unusual as O'conner wanted as much when he was in opposition. The Conservatives appear to want to be able to extend the mission and not be tied to the motion. If the NDP don't vote for the motion, then the result leaves the positions of the NDP and the CPC open. The NDP can continue to ask for the withdrawl of the mission and move on to something better. The CPC can continue with the mission and expect something better in the future.

It is hypocritical for Ignatieff to play both sides of the issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ My opinion is shared...... I thought I was the broken record on abolishing the Senate. Regardless these poll numbers surprise the heck out of me. I could understand if it was a region in Quebec, to have results like this. In General, many people in Quebec don't want the Senate. From what I see above, Harper has managed to attract all 12% of the voters opinion. He appointed Fortier and appointed the "elected" Brown. This is a surprising poll.

Good to hear from you. I know we disagree often enough, regardless, I would like to get your opinion on a few things currently going on. Is the entire operation scheduled to end in 2009 or just the current mission? Is it to early to tell if the mission should be extended past 2009? Should the mission morph into some other activity past 2009 or even before this date? What is the endgame for the current mission, should Pakistan continue to allow Jihadists to resupply and cross back into Afghanistan every spring? Is the aid getting through today? Are our forces well equiped for all the possibilities they encounter under the 3 block strategy? Thanks in advance. Don't want to make you too busy. Btw, does anyone know if Weaponer has internet access still?

Yep, just like he did to Martin in 2005...which brings me back to the question you STILL haven't answered... Harper is must be shaking in his boots. Having his clean air act sent to committee. Which Party do you think benefited the most from the Pact. The Liberals or the Greens? Since you didn't like the results of the poll?

Link Happy? Happy? I am LOL. This is your evidence. Jack Layton threatening Stephen Harper with a non-cofidence vote if the Clean air acti isn't sent to committee. The clean air act was then blocked for months by the Liberals and the Conservatives. The BQ was involved with the other parties, and Elizabeth May claims to have been present for these meetings. Harper sure seems like a willing participant.

This is just a blurr, to change the discussion away from Afghanistan. I would wait for Army Guy, Weaponeer, or and the handful of others that have been in Afghanistan to reply. Where's Jean Poutine? I could follow his arguments and sources.

Dan has a lot of other things to say. Even reading this shows a weakness in strategy. Perhaps they were right to fire him.

I am waiting for you to back up your Harper-Layton statement. You have made numerous references without providing any proof.

Had you said so earlier? If so I missed it.

Here are a variety of letters from the east coast. http://www.herald.ns.ca/Letters/638129.html

That would be unfortunate if the wheat board gave them significant earnings, over the open market. Most people envy a monopoly of anykind. Normally these people are on the outside looking in not the beneficiaries of such a monopoly. We will have to wait to see how this develops.

You have yet to prove your position. You are trying to form an opinion of an event and I am not buying it. This thread is about the Elizabeth May, Stephen Dion deal. Is it a good deal or not?

Why do you say "If not with Harper, (which he has)" Which is it? Right now, I do not agree with anything you have said. I have noted whose statement I agreed with and why. The resignation of the Green Party Strategist suggests that this has not been a wise move.

Obviously this was a backroom deal. The question is, how is this deal being received, by Liberals, Greens and the General Public. Chretien was on CBC tonight and was asked what he thought of it and said he out of politics and didn't want to say but he did say it was done all the time in the past, no big deal. Kinda like all those contracts that his party handed out. Not alot of detail, but something that would give an advantage to the Liberal Party, if no one found out.