Peter F

Thats the thing though. Argus rejects the pack up and go home bit. Thats the mistake it seems. We should never pack up and go home.

In answer to Scribblet above: Of course not. Iraq should be quite capable of defending itself against what is essentially a poorly equipped and supported mob. That Iraq seemingly can't indicates to me that the Iraqi government has a bigger problem than ISiS. The problem with Iraq - as many have pointed out - is that it is a construction of the Western Imperialist powers. Now that the strongman is gone Iraq is breaking up into its component bits - as everyone and their dog has known about since 1997. Kurdistan, Southern Iraq, and the Sunni area. This is a civil war . Stay out of it militarily. Provide Humanitarian support whenever and where-ever possible.

Herer Here! *pounds desk*

Yah Harper said "there is a clear and present danger" with "Let myself be perfectly clear, " and he's full of shit. If he truly believed that there'd be more than 6 f-18's heading that way. But there isn't and therefore he doesn't believe his own bullshit. Too late now? Not at all. six f-18's doesn't a war make: its insignificant to the point of meaninglessness. Except for Domestic Politcal purposes.

That course of action is hopeless. The fact that you occupy the middle east - by force of arms - then broadly announce that the west is doing so to actually change their belief system will result in the failure of the occupying forces. They will resent and hate the occupiers. The Korea comparison fails due to the fact the USofA didn't occupy South Korea nor change their ideology. They occupied South Korea - not to save them from themselves - but to save them from North Korea. The same goes for Germany, once the germans were capable of establishing their own government the USofA didn't stay to save Germans from themselves they stayed to save the Germans from Ruski's.

What is this goofiness... Who's a clear and present danger? Specifically who? Assuming you know specifically who then what are they doing thats a clear and present danger? Since those questions cannot as yet be answered then there is no Clear and Present danger. Harper never made anyone a clear and present danger. We don't have a clear and present danger. All we have are imaginings that maybe - just maybe - there might be some as yet unidentified person/s in this country who may or may not support ISIL - maybe. And - maybe - if they do support ISIL, perhaps they might choose to do something - maybe. This is not a clear and present danger.

I made the mistake of thinking August 1991's OP was an accurate resume of Fowlers article in the Globe and Mail...WRONG. I quote the final 3 paras of Fowlers article: I cannot understand how August thinks what Fowler says is what Steyn says. I should have known better especially since Steyn doesn't say anything but 'We are way better than them'.

ah, it is because of their actions that they should be confronted. Not because of their ideology. Well that I will agree with. So? How will nuking Mecca solve things?

You don't get it Argus. Fowler and Steyn are saying people with a certain ideology must be killed. It is their ideology that justify the killing and not their actions. It wasn't Naziism that started WWII - It was the invasion of Poland...OR..,it wasn't Japanese Imperialism that started WWII it was the attack on Pearl Harbour/Malaya. It wasn't our most-marvelous western cultural superiority that gave the allies victory but the destruction of the means for Germany/Japan to wage war.

Lol. When has war ever defeated ideology....thought these democrats like Steyn were hard about free speech. The ideology isn't the problem

The objective of military aid being to ensure security through the rest of the country. Which country? Iraq? Within the borders of? What about ISIS beyond those borders? Syria too maybe? Golan heights? How much impact do you suppose six F-18's are going to have in ensuring security for Humanitarian aid workers throughout ISIS territory (or is it only Iraqi territory)? Considering that the Saudi's are launching strikes, the US is launching strikes, the French are launching strikes and the British are launching strikes, How important are Canada's six F-18's (along with the support personal and equipment) to the establishment of security for humanitarian workers? Our military commitment, while certainly getting some Canadians to pump purple piss to their patriotic hearts, is and will be insignificant. Bangs for Bucks. Trudeaus right and Coyne is wrong.

Edit: in response to Keepitsimple post 73 I acknowledge that it is your right to imagine Godzilla rising inexplicably from the sea. My point is this: Coyne is a partisan hack. He derides Trudeau's sensible belief that Canada should be humanitarian aid and support to those fleeing the brutal crackpots of ISIS controlled territory. Coyne is wrong and Trudeau is right in that Humanitarian aid plays to this country's strength while military aid plays to our weakness and plays to that weakness at great cost. It won't be cheap supporting six F-18's plus all the ancillary stuff those six F-18's require and for what? Insignificant results for (for canada) serious cost. And remember, the point of this whole intervention - not just by Canada but by this whole coalition - is not to destroy ISIS but only to limit its expansion. Your fears will not be soothed by the coalitions goal. Canadian terrorists won't be stopped by F-18's in Dubai but by Customs and Border services and the RCMP/local police.

1. Stating a desire and actually being capable of carrying out that desire are two different things. 2. Like Africa, ISIS/ISIL are actually 'fighting amongst themselves' vs 'Arab states' that actually do have far more capability than ISIS/ISIL 3. Military intervention is guaranteed to drastically increase the bloodshed not a few years from now but right now. Dropping bombs does not build schools. 4. What is this clear and present danger? ISIS/ISIL will take over the world?

Mr. Coyne (from the OP) That is hilarious. Coyne berates Trudeau for not supporting Canada's military role by affirming the inability of Canada to actually achieve anything militarily. The only reason we are engaging militarily, in our paltry fashion, is that Harper thinks it will somehow raise our standing in foreign affairs (read that as standing with America) as if our paltry - minimal - engagement will actually result in our standing rising! The Saudi's and other like minded states in the region are quite capable of, as Coyne says "are intended mostly to buy time until ground forces can be assembled from within the region, and though they have already succeeded in keeping ISIS from taking, for example, the Mosul dam." There is no 'need' for Canada to get involved in this. The local powers and Great Powers that be are quite capable of dealing with it. We are getting involved purely for domestic political reasons. Elections are coming and its good to look tough and pretend to act tough for the votes of folks who actually think we are indeed tough

and at least as free as the Liberal mps too. There is no law that requires any future Lib mp to vote the way he promised to. They too can vote their conscience and there isn't anything more stopping them than is stopping Con mp's or NDP mp's.

It seems many think that the party flag mp's run under has no bearing on how the mp votes. They can vote whatever way pleases them without regard to party policy and should the party decide to eject that member then the party is being a bunch of Nazi's! The position is ridiculous.

ah, so the cost to the employer is X (either 77,500 or 114000) but the employee's wages and benefits is not X.

Well, at the very least he stopped digging. Which is a good thing but was obviously a tremendous blow to the ego to apologize to the terrorist loving NDP.

Apparently each and every FPS makes 114000/year thus the outrage that the lowest level clerks make $114,000/year. I get the distinct impression that moon box really doesn't know what 'average' means. I suggest he refer to Cybercoma's post regarding averages back at post 91 of this thread. Low level clerks in the federal public service do not make $114,000/year. In fact even mid-level clerks do not make 114,000/year. As an assistance in this thread here is a link to the PBO study that the 114000/year average total compensation figure comes from: http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/files/files/Fed%20Personnel%20Expenses_EN.pdf

Interesting concept. So does my compensation include the pension I don't collect? The health insurance I don't use? The company car I don't have?

http://mail.aimsedu.org/solutions/goalpostsol/goalsol.html

Lordy you're hopeless... Who runs the Waterloo Region District Schoolboard? Hint: its not the Treasury Board of Canada. Are the employees of the above mentioned school board Federal Public Servants? Who runs the Hamlet of Gjoa Havn? Hint: its not the Treasury Board of Canada Are the employees of the above community Federal Public Servants?

Perhaps economically illiterate but definitely morally superior.

I guess you have no idea how the public sector promotes. It ain't by seniority.

Incentive to ingratiate myself with my boss? Why would I aim to ingratiate myself with my boss? My work is proof of my value to the boss not wether I wash his car during my lunch-break or coo sweet-nothings into his ear or make him godfather of my children. Y'see, this is why there are unions. I am curious what union contract sets out minimum performance standards. I suggest that no contracts set out minimum performance standards. Such minimum standards are set by management and not the union. No doubt - at least I would hope - some consultation with the union takes place but such minimum performance standards full under managements 'right to manage'. They are set by upper managers so that the lower managers know wether they are whipping the work force enough - not too much so's they all quit or get destructive - and not too little so as nothing gets done. Minimum performance standards are entirly for managers to determine wether they are managing effectively. That is not the purvue of the Union nor the employee. They perform to whatever level management wants them to. Or quit. or get destructive. Increased retention of lousy /toxic employees is entirely 100% managements responsibility - not the unions. If lousy or toxic employees are being retained its because managment is too chickenshit to fire them. When such employee's actually do get fired (as happens from time to time) the union cannot stop the sacking. They employee is sacked no matter what the union does. The only thing a union can do is appeal the sacking to an arbitrator somewhere and let managment account for thier decision to them. Either the sacking will be upheld or it wont. The union has no power to stop any manager from sacking anyone. I left out mediocre employees...why would they be sacked? y'see thats why there are unions. Bunk. Pay encourages them. Bonus's encourage them. Praise encourages them. Discipline encourages them. Sackings encourage them. company BBQ's encourage them. Recognition encourages them. Why isnt the worker going to be rewarded? I think its entirely within managements power to reward employees for good performance. Management does not need to seek union permission for this. Nor will there be found a clause in the contract for this. Managers now get to use thier brains . I would go on but my essential point is this: Moonboxs post is another example of management refusal to take responsibility for thier own failures in management. Cant get the trooops motivated? Unions fault. Cant sack lousy employees? Unions fault Cant get employees to ingratiate themselves to managemnt? Unions fault Cant get employees to excel? Unions fault. ad nauseum