Peter F

Safety of the prisoners. They are unarmed and at the mercy of thier captors. It is the duty of the captor to do all in thier power to ensure thier safety. If the prisoners are in your hands. If our soldiers are the ones holding and detaining the prisoners. Yes, I would expect that. That's how we've believed and keep on hoping it will be. ... Why should we burden our own soldiers? Why should we put them at a greater disadvantage? UNNECESSARY RISK? Why should we stick out their necks any further? So we agree that the Captor should do all in thier power to ensure the safety of the captured. Yet, you also say the Captor should take no unnecessary risk. What then is unnecessary risk in regards to captured Taliban/suspected Taliban? Is it unnecessary risk to ensure the prisoners have access, say once a month or so, to representatives of the Red Cross/Red Crescent? or to have those organizations inspect the conditions that said prisoners are being held in ? Of course we want an inquiry. Canadians capture the enemy. Canadians, have signed onto the Geneva Conventions and the Treaty/convention banning torture. Canadians have an obligation to ensure that such captured enemy are not tortured and/or abused. Because we hand them over to Afghans for keeping doe's not relinquish our obligation to ensure the prisoners we have captured are not abused and/or tortured. If the prisoners claim they are being abused/tortured then do we have an obligation to investigate those claims? If we do, is it at greater risk to our soldiers? So, according to the Globe and Mail links provided earlier, some 30 detainees have claimed to be abused/tortured by thier Afghan keepers. Do we ignore them or do we investigate? Doe's our duty to ensure the safety of the captured end upon turning them over to another power? According to some on this thread we have no duty/right to make the Afghans treat those captured by Canadians in the same manner we would treat them ourselves. I absolutely agree with that. Therefore, considering our obligations we must then set up our own detainee camp with guards and wire and everything else required. And why not? Prisoners are part of War. Surrender is something we want the enemy to do and we must also do all in our power to make surrender a viable option for the Taliban, either individually or in groups or in its entirety. We don't do that by beating our prisoners, or tortureing them. We don't encourage surrender by turning them over to other powers that do abuse them/torture them. I know, the Taliban are very nasty people who in no way deserve fair treatment. Nevertheless, If our aim is to get them to give up the struggle, then we must be absolutly brutal to those who continue to fight us on the battlefield and absolutly humane and mercifull to those who no longer wish to fight us. If Duceppe and Layton and Dion are making political hay out of this then I say good for them. Secrecy is the cornerstone of abuse. As an aside, I think O'Connor is actually doing a pretty good job as MoD. The guy who has fucked this all up is the CDS. General Hillier. Now that guy is probably a very good field commander. But is otherwise a Dork. He's the one that should go - and I suspect he will. As CDS anyways.

Thank you very much, Leafless, I have just ordered the book. Fresh thought on old things.

The only realistic hope for Afghanistan is accomodation with the Taliban IE: Start negotiating. See 'Canada in Afghanistan. Is it working?' at Canada Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute CDFAI website

Kuzad: The American founding fathers certainly did understand why guns guaranteed freedom. Guns of the 18th century being muskets. The most fabulously equipped European armies of the time were equiped with the best weaponry money could buy - muskets. Of course it wasn't all that difficult for lowly citizens to acquire the very same weaponry as any elite European army (excepting cannon, of course) - more muskets. But things have changed. Anyone that thinks that their and thier fellow citizens 9mm Glocks, Smith and Westons, the odd kalishnikov and Ruger, are going to stand up to Tyranny's grenade launchers, rocket launchers, armoured vehicles, 25mm chain guns, mortars, medium MG's, 500lb bombs etc - is, simply, a fool.

Betsy: Safety of the prisoners. They are unarmed and at the mercy of thier captors. It is the duty of the captor to do all in thier power to ensure thier safety.

No, Canada was very distinguishable from the other colonies. Canada was very French, very Catholic and very (as David Bowie sang) scared of Americans. I think the taxes were just as burdensome in Halifax and Canada as any other NA colony. The reason there wasn't 14 stars on Betsy Ross's flag was that the wealth of Nova Scotia was primarily derived from Royal Navy gold flowing into Halifax. For Nova Scotia that wealth took precedence over taxation. For Canada (ie ex-New France) fear of losing thier laws, society and faith took precedence over taxation. Thus the First Continental Congress doesn't include anyone from the Nova Scotia, and I'm not too sure that the other colonies were all that interested in accomodating the Catholic Church in Canada.

jdg: One would think. But things rarely work out the way they're supposed to. After France chooses filthy rich Guadeloupe over Canada in 1763, the English colonists don't flock to Canada. The stories of Canada's horrid winters are widely beleived, 99% of its population is French and Catholic. Not particularly appealing when a prospective colonist can go to English protestant pleasant Virginia instead. So Canada remained predominantly French. The Governor-Generals Murray and later Carlton are running the place peacefully enough but also know that with thier scant military resources, they do so at the sufferance of the French populace. Naturally they adopt a policy of appeasement. French civil law is not replaced with English Common Law, the Catholic Church remains unmolested. There is pressure from the American colonies to do the right thing and ban the Church and French. But neither Murray nor Carlton are prepared to bow to the American press. As it so happens, GovGen Carlton is deeply concerned about the future of the American Colonies. As he sees it, rebellion is inevitable and considering the wealth and disenchanted population of those colonies, when rebellions does come Britain will be in very serious trouble. He is also intimatley aware of the animosity between the 'Americans' and the Canadians. When the rebellion breaks out Britain will need a secure base to conduct operations from. Carlton believes that secure base will be in Canada - particularly Quebec. But in order to ensure it remains secure the Canadians have to be assured that Britain will do them more good than the Americans. This is not hard to do since the Canadians despise the Americans and Vice-Versa. As Governor General, his opinion matters much to the British parliament in London. So comes the Quebec Act of 1774 guaranteeing that the Church will not be meddled with, that French civil law will continue to function, and that French will be recognized in the courts and in the colonial administration. So what was the expected result of the Battles of the Plains of Abraham and Sainte-Foy and Quiberon Bay do not come about at all. Political realities force the British to make sure that the British victory in the Seven Years War is pretty much just a flag raising ceremony to the Quebecois. And so it goes. Until the advent of the railroad the only efficient means of accessing the interior of the American continent is via the rivers. The rivers accessing the interior all exit the interior via two rivers - The Mississippi and the St. Lawrence...and nothing exits the St.Lawrence without sailing under the guns of Quebec. British colonial policy, until Confederation when it was no longer thier concern, required them to appease the French Canadians. and they did because they were smart. So French is an official language in Canada. For that we can thank America and Geography.

Of course not. Nobody pays anyone what they're worth. Its called Capitalism.

Thank you FTA, for pionting that out , the next question should be "WHY" are we so quick to believe heresay, and my final question is Have the majority of Canadians based thier current opinons on the same type of materials. From the G&M article immediately prior to FTA's quote It isn't about the army...its about Afghani treatment of prisoners - be they legal combatants or not. Considering Afghanistans reputation regarding prisoners I think its quite reasonable to ensure that Canadian authorities can effectively monitor the treatment of said prisoners. Obviously, the Canadian government felt themselves to be on shakey ground regarding the issue and have taken steps to molify criticism. The scandal got the government to act. Soldiers and Hillier may take it as a slight on thier reputation but since the question is doe's Afghanistan treat thier prisoners humanely, the oppinions of the military personel don't really matter. I would hope that the boys continue doing thier job in the professional manner they have been. Good luck.

There are also homosexual pedophiles in the general population as well, primarily the child molestation type (up to age of consent). In the RC case tho, a great many of the pedophiles also abuse little girls. We may never know the number of homosexuals or pedophiles that have gained ordination within the Catholic church. But as I said in my earlier post, I will exercise my freedom of speech and continue to condemn the organization until major changes are made. Well, if you're going to condemn the Catholic Church for the miniscule percentage of pedophiles in it, shouldn't you condemn homosexuals for the disproportionate number of pedophiles in that "community"? Pedophelia is neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality...its pedophelia.

the day the universe changed Love that series.

and they have a lot to be proud of. But still no big whup since I have risked nothing nor sacrificed anything on the scale that they have. Should I ride thier coat-tails and claim thier courage and dedication for myself?

This all stems from what WestViking was saying in post #35 and was asked simply to provide proof to back up his assertions relating to Quebec's involvement with two battalions and resulting casualties. So maybe now you can provide proof to the actual number of casualties (dead and wounded) the 22nd suffered compared to everyone else who fought in that war? More or less, I don't know What it says (the link) is that 5,919 served in the Regiment during WWI. Of wich 1,074 were killed in combat or died of wounds recieved and 2,887 were wounded for a total killed and wounded of 3,961. That is a casualty rate of 67%.

But the French feel pride nontheless. So military victories are neither here nor there.

I don't understand the relationship of won/lost battles to 'Pride'. Probably never will. No big loss to me. If won battles = national pride then Communist Russia has very much to be proud of, and Quebecers nothing to be proud of. What is it about Vimy Ridge or the Plains of Abraham that Canadians should feel national pride about? Why do Americans feel pride about Valley Forge? or do they?

...and why would they lay out buildings to be exactly like swastikas?

Scott SA: Thats the usual justification that a democracy must employ to appease the home-front. It's tripe. The actual reason we are there is because we are a member of the NATO alliance, and our government intends to remain a member of the NATO alliance. As such this is an instance of meeting the requirement of toeing the line, even if no national interest is at stake. If we were'nt in NATO would we have committed 2000odd troops to a combat role in Afghanistan? I doubt it.

As Rene Levesque said, Canadians are a civilized people. That may be so but I don't think our continuing national unity soap opera is anything to be proud of. No. Nor is it something to be ashamed of. Its the normal run of politics in a free democracy

As Rene Levesque said, Canadians are a civilized people.

How about we use whatever economic power we have and force them to accept that thier treatys are nothing ? We could do that. We could also take the ScottSA approach and honour the terms of agreements by adhereing precisely to the clauses. $2.00 per man woman and child per year and a communal plow and one scyth per five families. There are many things we could do. There are many things the natives could do. True, there is no requirement for Canada to honour any agreement it has ever entered into with anybody. We don't have to abide by the terms of NATO, or NAFTA, or GTA, or ITU, or anything. Canada can do whatever the government of the day figures is best. But I would hope that Canada, as a civilized nation, would honour the terms of the agreements to the best of its ability. If its impossible for Canada to honour our obligations, then the government should admit such and offer to open our agreements to re-negotiation or enact those agreements escape clauses. Unfortunately, there are no escape clauses in the First Nations treatys. As long as the FNs continue to abide by the terms of the treatys - and so far they are - then it is our job to adhere to the treaty's also. Even if it is very expensive. Probably hugely expensive considering the Haldimand claim. If the treaty's are, as many have suggested on this thread, mere scraps of paper - well, then I guess in the final analysis we each get to decide what to do about it.

How much more? Would be willing to pay a 15% GST? How about a 25% GST? Would you sign the title of any property that you own to the local indian band and start pay whatever 'rents' they decide to levy?It is rediculous to make such an open ended commitment when you don't understand what the potential costs are. That is why I take the position that a negotiated settlement that respects the treaties is a good objective to work towards. Unfortunately, if the price is too high then we will have to throw them in the trash. If the local indian band has the rights to my property, then how could I have ever acquired title to it? By being defrauded by somebody. thats how. Sorta like buying stolen goods. I may not know the goods are stolen - but that doesn't mean the goods belong to me, and the law has determined that they can be taken from me, without compensation and returned to thier rightfull owner. It sucks - but thats the way it works. Buyer Beware comes to mind. As for how much I'm willing to pay - I don't know at what point I would say enough is enough. Obviously its a lot further down the line than most others on this thread. But when things start approaching that point I won't be advocating throwing the treatys in the trash. I, as with you, take the position that if things suck that much then lets negotiate a new deal. Of course the Natives will milk that for everything they possibly can. But then, thats bargaining. From The Treaties of Canada with the Indians by Alexander Morris, 1880 Chapter V, Treaty number three or the North-West Angle Treaty

The Crown signed those agreements with the natives in good faith. The Crown actually meant the terms to be fulfilled. When Canada gained its own constitution we agreed , again in good faith, to actually take on the responsibility of fulfilling the obligations of the Crowns treaty's. That was the deal. I'm with Posit on this. Fulfill the obligations. Its our duty - even if it does mean more taxes.

You got the scam right but you have under estimated the amount that tends to be taken. $500K over five years would not easily be found out. It takes millions before anyone notices. The Insurance Company will not necessarily agree that anyone specifically took the money. They will never the less agree to pay the amount that's gone missing under your care, if they want to as a supplier of insurance products to municipal organizations. You will be asked to resign which you will do on terms that involve you getting another $500,000 in severance pay-out. You will also get a 30 day vacation to enjoy some of your gains, before you start yous new government job in some other municipality or level of government. This is the rule rather than the exception. These scams are pervasive throughout the system. Pretty much every resignation is associated with million dollar level intentional mismanagement like this. So nobody notices until I pocket Millions of dollars. Then I resign and my employer gives me another half million or so. Then the insurance company repays the millions I absconded with. Nobody is aware of this happening because they don't advertise it (except you, of course). Even the Insurance companies are happy to fork out the 10s of Millions because the governments of various levels pay them 20's of millions as premiums. And this is better than arresting me how? And what insurance company in the world would gladly fork out millions in claims each year (because as you say, it happens all the time.) without a peep to the police? Sounds like impossible bunk to me. People steal millions of taxpayers money. We don't know about it because insurance pays the millions back, then collect millions in premiums from the tax payer. Forensic accountants never come across the scam because the books are cooked. The proof? Nobody knows about it - so it must be happening. Typical conspiracy theory. I'm off. Thanks for the entertainment.

The British and Americans have no difficulty in identifying DDay as a glorious victory and neither do Canadians. Do a poll of Americans and see how many know what Utah beach is, or the British for Gold and Sword. The results I'm willing to bet will be the same as Canadians recognizing Juno. Omaha would propably gain significantly more correct results with Americans...but not Utah. For the simple reason that it fits the bill of the Great Victory. It was a near-run thing. They were staring defeat in the face. The enemy was holding all the cards. Things were looking grim. They overcame the defenders not with overwhelming firepower but 'courage' and 'determination' and great loss. It even gave rise to a famous line 'The only ones who are going to remain on this beach are the dead and those who are going to die'. Omaha Beach may very well be another glorious victory for the Americans to feel patriotic heart-thumping about....but no other beach will. Waterloo. True, British victory accomplished with a very large allied component. But did the British milk the participation of the 30odd thousand Dutch, Belgian, Nassau and Hannovarian troops also engaged? No, of course not. We are talking about the British, after all, and at the British Defining Moment - the Napoleonic Wars. There is no room for others in such circumstances. Here were the British (not Scots, not Irish, not Welsh, not even English) with a rag-tag army facing conquering French armies under one of the greatest Generals in all of history - Napoleon himself. The German allies are far away, the French are about to sweep the rabble off the field after the victory at Quatre Bras. The stakes are high, and all that stands in the Arrogant Frenchmans way to Brussels and European conquest is this tiny army of shop-keepers. ...and its the proverbial Near-run thing. Under overwhelming French firepower the British hold thier ground through 'courage' and 'determination'. But the British overcome the insurmountable odds and defeat Napoleon. The Germans only showed up later and the Dutch-Belgians-Hanovarians-Nassau troops were never really involved in the really serious fighting....etc etc. Waterloo has all the makings of the Great Moment. The Dutch and Belgians never cottoned on to Waterloo as a great victory for them, even though as a result of the battle thier nations regained independance (Holland) or were created from it (Belgium). They don't have waterloo as a Great Moment because they were they were part and parcel of the Allied(British) army. Waterloo was not unique to them and their people. So it cannot be used as the Defining Moment. As for Canadians should take pride of their martial accomplishments, well many do. Many don't. Why should they? To feel Pride for Canada? That may be compelling reason for you and Leafless and, yes, even me. But others, believe it or not, could not care less about military prowess. Do they have to? is it required for Canadian Citizenship? No. Not at all.

From the link: ...the fundamental point Polly cannot grasp.