madmax

Like what?

Don't let any of these guys get you down Army Guy. Afghanistan is a just cause. Keep up the good work. Following the logic of this short thread, from Cynic43. You ready to sign up, "Who's doing What?" Or did you just prove his point.

"Supporting Our Troops" is often used by governments involved in bad policy choices. A government job is to support their policy and rally the citizens and the troops to support that policy. When government goals are unclear or unachievable, the message that governments send is to "support our troops" which is a message all citizens can understand.

You support cutting and running. So you don't support the Liberals or the Conservatives or the Mission?

Off the topic of locked in pensions a bit, "You knew the rules going in", if only the companies that signed up to DB and DC pension plans would acknowledge such facts :angry: That would certainly be the attitudes of Hamiltonions. Hamiltonians have supported and worked harder to keep their pensions, vs the other former manufacturing cities like Brantford. People in Hamilton is are aware of Massey Ferguson (Varity Corp) leaving everyone high and dry. So you might have had money outside the locked in investment, only to have some or all of it lost, stolen or bargained away. Even little things like having the indexing of pension removed after you have retired. You are absolutely correct. It does seem silly to change the rules. I have locked in Pensions as well. But Rules are often changed or attempted to be changed with regards to pensions. So do I. The reason and logic behind it is for the "pensioners" protection. Yet one can take RRSP and invest them in a house. Many of these other plans came out before the RRSP trend. Also, there are many people whom retire early, only to find the company later goes insolvent, and the pension fund gone/underfunded. A monthly income Heavily reduced, and no access to that other locked in money. That doesn't mean, I agree with unlocking a pension plan, with the information I currently have. Absolutely. While the CPP is on very strong footing, it is not always the case with DB plans if they are underfunded or with DC plans if you are not on top of what the company is doing. You can get wiped out completely. I would recommend you invest elsewhere, if you don't believe you can make it to retirement without needing access to that locked in money.

Some Liberals Yes, Jean Chretian No. There is no war he supported that I am aware of. That was US foreign policy. It was their Iraq policy. Scott Ritter covers this period very well, because it occurred during his term as head of UNSCOM. No they haven't have they. Harper is not a traitor. He was just dead wrong, and we can thank our lucky stars he wasn't in power during this period.

If you denote an anti-American tinge, then perhaps you don’t have skin thick enough to talk about combat, war and global foreign policy which is heavily influenced by US actions. I point out the facts from decades of articles and books on military strategy and foreign policy particularly with regards to Afghanistan, Iraq and Radical Islam. If you disagree with such facts, go ahead, make my day. I am game. I learn like anyone else. I have 2 books signed by Scott. Tsk tsk, and you question my support for Jack Layton with regards to our current Military Missions. You bring in Kucinich as the good American. Don’t forget that Dean Scream either. Stephen Harper, was for the Iraq War too. I disagreed with his opinion then, luckily he didn’t have power at that time or we’d be asking what are we doing dying there for a pack of lies. George Bush made the call to attack Iraq, and ultimately undermined the war against terror and security in Afghanistan. I am neither that naïve or heartless. I too hope that there can be stability in Iraq. So now you are saying the same thing, that the war in Iraq was poor foreign policy by the Neo Cons, you just want it said nicer. That people have change their minds. Yes, the rats are leaving the ship And Canada has a force there fighting a brand of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism that the US Encouraged in the 80s. That wasn’t us that created the training camps. When you are the one to help nuture a brand of Islam that is destructive, radical, and violent with the goal of undermining the USSR. Then you should have more troops there than any other country, when the blowback of your efforts come back to bite you in the nuts. You should also make certain that the other culprits that aided in the creation of this monster, are not only held accountable, but “actually” do something to help strangle off the terrorists, support, money, and intelligence gathering. Oh BS! I have no problem with properly funding our army. Just remember who’s army it is. If that is the only problem we have, it isn’t bad because it is fixable. It has always been fixable, it has only required political will. And quite frankly, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld doctrine were the ones whom held a go it alone mentality, and then thought themselves smarter then their own Generals. Sorry, these incompetent boobs aren’t going to receive any kind words from me, with regards to military prowess and foreign policy. I agree fully with you in that regards. It was like that when I signed up. Here is a good article on our forces. Any Politicians echoing that quote? By the way, there is going to be a recruiting drive. They have asked my sons to join up. How About You.?

I absolutely agree. It is not an easy task to sort out this information. And sometimes it is just wrong by bias, or by mistake. Don't just rely on a few sources.

I believe that is the point I was making. I just get a kick out of Brits commenting on Canadians giving Americans Bullets. Ok. 11/07/2006 Here is the information on the VETERANS FIRST motion with regards to injuries… Back to you I have a shirt with a red beret that I traded for back in the day. “Kill them all Let God Sort em out” That is an interesting strategy. 60 years may not be enough time to kill all these Taliban Supporters..

I think that was as much posturing towards the US versus showing respect for the troops. That was the intent of the photo op. But Harper and the Conservatives voted against a motion to support soldiers injured in Afghanistan. That isn't a sign of respect to me. The motion passed. The RCRs, were reduced to "combat ineffective". The first time in my lifetime, that I have heard that term used to describe Canadian Military Unit. That was the combination of Stiff Resistance, and two US Warthogs, targeting our troops once again. Your statement above, is factual, although, I would refrase that to Security for the Karzai government. And the intent to provide security to the Western World requires the use of JTF2, SAS and US Special forces, as well as political pressure on Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The US's longtime partners in the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism. The question is, how many "Taliban" do you expect to kill with 2,200 troops, and when do you expect the killing to stop?

And Mr. "Respect" Martin, put them in this danger. Harper's only decision was to extend the mission. If Martin really cared about our forces, he would have thought long and hard, about whom participated in the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in Afghanistan. It wasn't us. He should have asked, why should we be covering this turf, while the US diverated troops and money to Iraq? Regardless, we are there, I disagree with being there. We have two more years on this extension. Don't go blaming Harper for these 38 deaths. There is plenty to go around. The important thing is to get the mission right, and be able to get out of Afghanistan with a stable government and our heads held high. Something the US will not be able to achieve in Iraq. Maybe they will refocus, drop the Rumfeld Doctrine in Afghanistan, and perhaps, those deaths won't be in Vain. It's too late for blaming. We need to be successful.

Canadian forces are in Kandahar, implementing the NATO mission, and engaging the enemy. They are not acting as peacekeepers.

This thread is on fire. CBC may have struck paydirt.

No, Canadian troops are not in Afghanistan to rebuild the drug trade. The Northern Alliance, and the Taliban Remnants are doing a good job on their own. To the dismay of Hamid Karzai the and the DEA. No, Canadian Troops are not putting in the pipeline. Ever since Unocal lost that pipeline deal to Brazil, the Taliban were falling out of favour. The pipeline is back in US hands, but this is also secondary. The US was considering using the Northern Alliance to put the pipeline back in US hands when the Taliban was in power, but didn't want to loose face and deal with Russian, Iranian, and Indian backed tribes and ethnic groups. This was just a side benefit of the overthrow of the Taliban. The IMF and their Neocon policies have collapsed more economies then helped. I don't think it's helped any yet. But Afghanistan is a basket case, and I don't think there is any merit to your statement. You dance with the ones that brought you. As a longtime reader of the Afghan Mujahideen, Hamid Karzai is not one I would call corrupt. His problem is that his Northern Alliance co officials, are corrupt and want him dead. It will take a strongman to keep this country together, and they refer to Karzai as the "school teacher" in order to exemplify his weakness. Karzai was part of the "Gucci" Mujahideen, a Pashtun, whom formerly put his support behind the Taliban. His critism of the United States in the period of 1990 to 94 is well documented. He used to be an active participant in Pakistan during the fight the USSR. He knows how the game is played there and is outspoken in his critism of Pakistani support for the Taliban. There is no government you could install in Afghanistan that would not be corrupt. 28 years of War will do that. Canadian JTF 2 went looking for OBL. The US decided he really wasn't a priority. The concept of restoring democracy to a country that never had lot before the USSR invasion leaves alot to be imagined. But to install a stable government is a possibility. I do have a problem with Canadian involvement in Afghanistan for many reasons but I am not going into that today.

hmmm.

You have stated it is a bad idea, but you do not state why. Enlighten us on why it is a bad idea for users to pay for the roads they use. Your answer is provided in this thread.

No, the article says the 905 users require a highway to handle the increased needs of the area. What wikpedia states is that the 407 does not satified this need. That is because it is the most expensive highway in North America and possibly the world. Actually the boycott idea was derived from your post, I just went along with the suggestion. I have posted that I don't care whether people pay it or not. I still don't care. But what would happen? Hopefully bad ideas like this one will never come to fruition. The 407 is already the most expensive highway and we don't need more of these.

No Problem The highways is on the land. The government aquired this land. You don't have to include it. Just ignore the $100billion of tax payers money spent and it makes sense. Where have I heard that before? Ah yes, me Take Care.

Have a Happy New Year and thank you for doing the difficult, serious work, many Canadians would never choose to do as an occupation.

The information in the wikpedia quote supplied in this thread shows the needs of the 905 users.

That information is provide above in this thread from wikpedia.

He was released in 89 going back 30 years would be 59. It was also part of a quote that I failed to box in quotes and weren't my words, but that of the police force whom want his DNA.

That depends if you gave him the weapon or plotted in the Murder. See Moore above and the answer is yes? It was only the reverse onus, that was struck down. This isn't about failing to prevent a crime. It is the level of participation. It was also his decision to Gas the Kurds, he had been doing it for years before Halabja, the most notorious one, but the US said nothing, and when Halabja was exposed in the Iranian Media, the USA muddied the waters and blamed Iran for the gassing of their allies,then the US said, it was inconclusive who did it. Inconclusive until they choose to bring it up in both 91 and 2003 when it suited their purposes better. Conventional weapons came from the USSR. Bio Chemical Weapons came from.... As you can see, these were All countries allied with the USA. That is a correct statement, and shows the difficulties of being a superpower and leader of the world. You will be subject to criticism and you will make mistakes.

Thanks for providing the links. However, I am having difficulty finding the figures on Health Care Spending in the US and Health Care Spending in Canada, in these two threads? The one thread, appears to be a blog of sorts, and I don't see any government data on the spending. The other one is a Fraser Institute Page, but again, I see commentary but the numbers aren't easy to find. My Computer is taking a very long time to load the PDF file for some reason. If anyone can get the data found in these web pages and post it here, I would be very appreciative. Thanks in advance.

I thought that the title of this thread was provocative and useless, with regards to the comment right wing nuts. I noticed that some people took the bait. Fact is, I been reading through the thread again, trying to make sense of just what people are talking about. Clearly if we have been posting here, we have been had. This was a dead thread in 2004, why someone decided to bring this thread back to life in December 2006 is beyond reason. Lionus the Fleabag, was involved in this thread and commenting in Sept of 2004. The thread died out, quickly. In December Lionus the Fleabag gives this thread life again, by picking up the dead thread, 2 years later. QUOTE(playfullfellow @ Sep 6 2004, 08:09 AM) I was the first to repond to this thread thinking it was a new thread without looking at the ancient dates, and why the discussion was quoting 2 year old article like it just was new news, with an offensive tagline. It wasn't, it isn't , I have been had, and apologizing for contributing to this discussion before catching the time frame.