Keepitsimple

You can bet the Americans are steaming at this reckless process. There are reasons why it was taking a year or more to effectively process, transport and re-settle refugees. There are reasons why the US is only committing to 10,000 Syrians over the next year - and even that is under duress from both Republicans and Democrats. It may fulfill an ill-conceived election promise but you can bet your boots that their will be a price to pay in Canada/US relations.

Guess you missed my earlier post:

And that is the truly scary part about bringing 25,000 Syrians to Canada in less than two months. Home grown or not, terrorists are almost exclusively from the Middle East. Western society has its fair share of poverty and exclusion - just look at our First Nations people. Yet they do not resort to wanton mayhem and murder, suicide bombs and decapitations. How about the centuries of poverty and exclusion suffered by African-Americans? Yet they do not resort to wanton mayhem and murder, suicide bombs and decapitations. So why do we make excuses for those from the Middle East? They become radicalized because of their pre-disposition to accepting the beliefs of a perverted interpretation of Islam. That is the trigger - and therein will lie the solution.

Do you have a cite that says many of these terrorists were "home-grown" - born in France or Belgium?

That's where your argument goes off the rails - and why I said "think about it". Hollande's call for stripping citizenship from dual nationals is quite simple. The terrorist "citizens" of France and Belgium clearly came from the Middle East at some point prior to obtaining their citizenship. These people were pre-disposed to hate and extremism - and yes, they are Muslims steeped in the vile radicalism of a perverted form of Islam. Did they obtain their citizenship to ultimately sow havoc in their welcoming country? There's a good chance they did. Why is that different than regular citizens who commit murder? Because they fraudulently obtained their citizenship is as good a reason as any.

That's not Trudeau's rationale......although he may eventually seek cover with that lame excuse. That said, I expect that one way or another, the mission will continue. Given the situation, it's a stain on Canada - sends the wrong message to our allies - and to Daesh. This is a Three Musketeers moment - all for one and one for all.

It's not an either/or decision. We can and should continue to do all three - training, air combat and support - and humanitarian. What will those jets be doing if we bring them back?

It is....especially when you combine it with: planes from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE France The UK Czech Republic Australia - 8 fighters Belgium - 6 fighters Denmark - 7 fighters Netherlands - 6 fighters If you have the capacity to help - then help, don't leave the heavy work to others. We clearly have the capacity - and now we're saying "no more"....or should that be "no mas"?

Pulling out the CF18's..... Sure paints a different picture of that arrogant statement that "Canada's Back!".

They might have been "citizens" of France or Belgium....but why do you think Hollande immediately said that France will introduce legislation to strip French citizenship from terrorists who have a second citizenship? Think about it.

Until it's otherwise verified - it's still stuck at 10,000 Syrians for all of next year.

Do you have a cite? - last commitment I saw was in September - increase global refugees to 100,000 and take in 10,000 Syrians next year.

Apparently, that seems to cause you no concern - with your belief that Syrian refugees are "no bigger threat than any other incoming demographic".

Don't fall for the 1 out of 9 or 1 out of 100 arguments. It's not only potential "terrorists" who have to be screened out - it's about those who are sympathizers - those who would readily aid and abet terrorist activity. It's nasty business - better to be very safe than very, very sorry.

Yes- that is my position - if we are not very, very, very careful about who we let in from that cauldron of religious/political/ant-West/anti democratic strife....then yes, we run a very serious risk of enabling a terrorist network on Canadian soil. Fact - ISIS publicly stated they would embed ISIS zeolots among refugees. Almost Fact - at least one of the Paris terrorists entered Europe as a refugee.

And did you ever think that in order to develop and maintain a terrorist network in any country, a support group of "sympathizers" is needed - fund-raisers, recruiters, safe-houses, weapons, documents, etc? How do you screen out sympathizers? The answer is you can't completely - but you'd better be bloody thorough in your efforts to do so.

Let's just give her a chance and see how she performs......IF she has a bozo eruption, then it's fair to link it to past actions.....but let's give everyone a clean slate to start with.

As has been pointed out in the media - the vast, vast majority of refugees are sponsored by the private sector.....is it too much to ask that they also pick up the cost for a pair of glasses or get a tooth filled? As the "progressives" constantly point out, there are millions of Canadians who are living in poverty (below the LICO) who are not on any form of income assistance - and they do not get Vision and Dental coverage. So I don't buy your equivalency argument. It would be a lovely world if everybody had free health, vision and dental care.......but we can't afford it so the dollars have to be rationed out. That's not cruel - it's just a fact.

"I" didn't lose. Canada voted for the Liberals and now we have to examine their policies. I do not agree with refugees getting access to vision care and dental care benefits that full-fledged citizens do not. Makes no sense to me. Do you think that's fair? I also do not agree with failed and bogus refugees (especially those from safe countries) continuing to get full and complete benefits. Perhaps the Conservative approach of providing no coverage unless it affected public heath was too harsh - maybe not.....but the idea of restricting Healthcare benefits in some fashion makes sense - both to save money AND to prevent bogus refugees from coming to Canada specifically to get medical care for free. Do you not see some room for policy here? In summation - I fully support standard Healthcare benefits for genuine refugees - to the same level as regular Canadians.

Still haven't seen an intelligent story in the media explaining why it is that Obama has only recently committed to taking in 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. A country 10 times the size of Canada. Where's the reporting? Where's the rationale? Why is Obama not being referred to as "cold-hearted"? What will the security conscious US think of Canada's attempt to bring in 25,000 fast-tracked Syrian refugees? Is this whole side of the equation not worth reporting? For the record: Link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/politics/u-s-take-10000-syrian-refugees/index.html

You are wise beyond my years

Notice how the media is full of apologists saying it doesn't matter if Trudeau doesn't meet the commitment - only that he's sincere in trying - it's OK if it takes a year? This after Trudeau and doubled down saying he would meet his commitment. It's an important point - because unless he can come reasonably close to meeting his commitment - say by March.......then it's just another example of Trudeau blindly shooting off his mouth and simply not understanding one iota about what he's committing to. Take that approach on Climate Change or Deficits and you'll readily see the danger in having a shallow but impetuous leader. That said, he could clearly make the nay-sayers look foolish by meeting his commitment - but heck, those apologists are breathlessly trying to give him a soft landing, aren't they?

The Trudeau government has re-instated full benefits for failed and bogus refugees as well as a gold-plated set of benefits for all others. The Conservative government had removed most benefits for failed refugees - except for those conditions that would endanger public health. This was part of a package of initiatives to encourage bogus/failed refugees to leave the country ASAP and not continue to drain the public purse. The Conservatives also reduced coverage for Vision and Dental care - benefits that most Canadians are obliged to pay for out of pocket - to better align benefits with those of ordinary Canadians. How does this make sense?

We all have to get it through our thick heads that when certain people do things wrong, when they embody incompetence, when they harbour corruption - it's OK....because they mean well....they care about people - they really do care. For heaven's sake, everyone makes a mistake now and then - but be "progressive" about it.

That's the even scarier part - it was Wynne who loaned people to JT.....Gerald Butts being the Mastermind.