AngusThermopyle

I hear people saying we should "bring in the Army" quite a bit. As a former serving member I must state that I believe this is an absolute fallacy. The forces should never be used as police except in the most dire and severe situations. Martial law should only be invoked as a very very last resort. Armies are not intended to be used as police. To use them as such leads to a very slippery totalitarian slope.

My knee jerk reaction is to think "what an excellent idea!" but then I think about some of the people I've worked with and have to reconsider.

You know what? I think you may be onto something there capricorn. I remember first arriving in Yugo, I felt fear, so did many others amongst us, we went anyway, we had made a commitment to do so. Yugo was a real mess when it first blew up, it was a mess for years after as well. we lost guys over there, we took some serious casualties as well. Not a lot, but serious nonetheless. I also saw atrocities that were beyond the pale, things I don't talk about because the average Canadian citizen just would not be able to relate to them in any way. Not to mention the fact that I just don't like to think about them. I'm sure that if our other missions and losses had been made public there would have a hue and cry from the likes of Layton back then. The governments at the time liked to call casualties "accidents" back then though. That way no one could really get their backs up and start squealing about the brutal canadians. In my opinion Layton is nothing more than a social parasite, willing to gain opportunism from the sacrifices of better people than himself.

Some interesting points here indeed. Yes, teachers do see our children every day, so do parents (at least they should). I don't think all the onus should be placed on the teachers, it should be shared to a greater extent by the parents. I remember when the guy who shot the little girl in the head was sentenced in Toronto. His mother was outside wailing to the camera's about how good he was and how he was being persecuted because of his race. Pure delusional poppycock! He was, to put it simply, a worthless piece of sh*t who murdered a three year old girl because of a drug dispute. As long as parents submerge themselves in denial in order to shelter their precious little popet's from the law this problem will only continue to worsen. Frankly I don't believe that Jordan Manners was pure as the driven snow as his familly and aquaintance's claim. I think it quite probable that he was a little gang banger in the making, if not already one. Our Youth Criminal Justice Act does nothing to rectify this problem and in fact may only serve to amplify the problem. I see no harm in getting tougher on youth crime. The opposite approach doesn't appear to be too effective at the moment.

First off, to the person whose daughter sent them a ribbon. Display it. She is your daughter, you are supposed to love her unconditionally. To allow silly political assumptions to interfere with your support of your daughter seems rather callow and craven. Based on personal experience I can state that in the past a significant number of Canadians did not support our troops. It's good to see this attitude is changing. When I served in Somalia some bright spark leaked our names and addresses to some very left leaning folks. Imagine my wifes delight the morning she woke up and discovered a fake body bag with my name on it outside our front door. Upon my return to Canada I was perplexed by the fact that younger Canadians reviled me as a baby killer. In fact the opposite was actually the case. The whole point of being there was to ensure the women and children weren't gunned down and received adequate food and medical supplies. I still find it horrendous that the entire mission was sullied by the actions of one psychotic person and a cowardly commanding officer.

You make some good points MadMax. I'm not sure if coward would be my choice of words to describe Hitler though. I'm not saying he wasn't, just that the word coward seems like it would fall far behind other descriptors that could be applied to this man. What I fail to understand is why some here seem to take pride in being cowardly. Have we become so jaded that we no longer see value in honour, self sacrifice and virtue. Has our society become so indolent that attempting to denigrate those who choose service to others is seen as a virtue? I'm not directing these questions at you Max, just musing as to why this malaise of character has become so accepted.

It's too bad that partisan politics has to saturate any discussion on just about any subject. I don't believe any of our Politicians are worthy of overwhelming respect, they are just people, and for the most part people have feet of clay, so to speak. Having sailed on a number of our ships for quite a few years I for one more than welcome any increase in funding. As I said earlier the Frigates are fine ships. It would be a shame to see such an investment degraded through a lack of funds. Control of the sea lanes used to almost guarantee success in almost any endevour undertaken by nations. Today, even though not to the same degree, this still holds true. Not that Canada wishes to control any sea lanes, it is however still important to be able to project some form of credible naval presence.

Oh, sorry if I didn't catch that. In that case you're absolutely right. :-)

I'm glad someone decided to bring up some Muslim history here. I have no doubt that the Iraq war has converted some formerly moderate Muslims to extreme beliefs. However, it's quite a stretch to blame the war for all terrorism. One merely has to do a little reading about their history to realize that they have always had a "conquest" mindset. Indeed, the Quran explicitly states that they should subjugate or destroy all non-believers. Considering this predates the war by about 1500 years I think it's safe to say that the war pissed some of them off, but certainly is not the cause of terrorism. Terrorism did actually exist prior to 911.

I don't think the term "Divine Right" has any real application in Islamic Society. When one considers that the entire judicial and societal fabric of Islamic society is intimately bound to their religious beliefs it would appear that "Divine Right" is more of an accepted given than something which must be specified. All in all an extremely silly concept.

I tend to agree that we are all free to make the choices that will define our lives, in context of the western world that is. However there are many places in this world where it doesn't matter how hard you work nor how ambitious you are. Places where all your energy would be expended just to survive from day to day. I have spent extensive time in such places and seen with my own eyes the struggle that some of our worlds inhabitants must endure just to subsist. Asw for the teachers. Well, if they are just part time teachers they could consider another job that compliment their part time job. Full time teachers really shouldn't need to go on EI. We wont even go into the subject of value for money, thats a whole different ball of wax. I do know a few people who work 2 or even 3 jobs to make ends meet. If they can do it then why cant the teachers who find themselves financially strapped do this? Is it that teachers are so sacrosanct they should never have to do anything but teach? Just a question. As an aside, Margrace made a rather valid point. I really dont believe it warrants telling them to go elsewhere.

That is certainly true, they did fight tooth and nail against scientific and social advancement. I think the main difference is that they did not succeed. With this lack of success came a rapid advancement of science, both technological and social. In Islams case this was never achieved. Religion is still the main determining factor for social policies in these countries and as such acts as an anchor on the sensibilities of their populations. It's pretty hard to advance new ideas when those very ideas are prohibited in many cases by the words of a conquering warlord 1500 years dead and severe sanctions, up to and including death, are the punishment for such heretical thoughts and activities. As for the subject of "Divine Right". Nothing particularly new or even European here. Remember, the Egyptians amongst many others believed this (the Egyptians just happen to be the most prominent example I can recall at the moment). Unfortunately many Muslims believe to this day that Mohammed was directly endorsed by Allah and as such they act accordingly. What is interesting though is the fact that Mohammed kind of just made stuff up as he went along in order to excuse or legitimize his excesses and debauchery. One would think that this would be obvious and apparent to any who read his words.

Actually I mentioned the genocides as one factor that has held back their society, most certainly not the only one. The point you raise is a very good one. In Islam the leader at the time of Mohammed was Mohammed. Since he was the chosen one of Allah there was no distinct seperation of church and state (that sounds so trite). His illogical decrees touted as the direct word of god served to lock the culture rigidly into a set path that embraced no social progress whatsoever. However it cant be denied that the Muslim chain of conquest and policy of expansionism resulted in more than a few instances of Genocide through the ages. Point of fact is that quite a few current Islamic societies hold true to the teachings of Mohammed in a fundamental way and as such are not entirely opposed to traditional methods of spreading the "word".As fascinating as the history of Islam is, it is not certain that it could ever attain the momentum it enjoyed in the past. One would certainly hope not anyway. The mediteranean area would suffer greatly and Spain would once more fall under Islamic servitude (no more Penelope Cruz's strutting their lovely stuff for us). It doesn't appear to be possible to pin the recessive nature of Islamic culture down to any one particular factor. It would appear to be the result of a cumulative effect instead.

Well I've never heard that theory before, it would probably be interesting to hear his justification for it. It could also have something to do with the policy of pogroms that have regularly been enacted in more recent Islamic history. The continuous series of genocidal campaigns by the Islamic empire since Mohammed's time may have contributed as well. When you exterminate and forcefully assimilate entire cultures you also exterminate any cultural, economic or technological advances they may have been able to offer.

Thats true. Although Islam has had high points throughout its history this particular era doesn't happen to be one of them. I think the rigidly structured and repressive nature of Islam has held the Muslim people back and severely limited both their technological and cultural growth. After all due to the Qurans proclamations regarding women and their role in society, Islam has wasted the potential for advancement of a large segment of their population. That would be bound to retard progression to some evident degree.

Certainly. I did not mean to imply that I find the Bible to be any more credible than the Quran. But we aren't talking about the Bible here, we're talking about sexual attitudes instilled by Islam. Personally I cant fathom this need to believe in such things. I'm not trying to insult any here of any faith or, for that matter, anyone in particular. I just cant understand this need that is present in so many.

The City class Frigates were superb ships when they were commissioned. Although they are getting older they are still amongst the better ships sailing. Canada has a tradition of building superb ships. The old River class were revolutionary in their day and the Tribals were better than anything else in their class upon commissioning. The Trump refit brought the Tribals up to current standards at the time. The concept being one of area defense capabilities combined with long range striking power in concert with the City class Frigates. In other words these ships were intended to sail in tandem with each other. A city and a Tribal forming a small multi capability battle group. Weaponry on both ships is very good. The Tribals carry a 36 cell vertical launch Sea Sparrow missile system for air defense, along with the usual CWIS system that most ships now mount. The City Class of course have the Harpoons, which give them their long range strike capabilities, of course they also carry a CWIS. In adition both classes also carry very good rapid fire guns with a 24 kilometer range. The "tails" are superb sub hunting tools and both classes are equipped with them. I believe the new Destroyers will be based on the City hull design. Thats a very good thing. The Cities are fast and stable platforms with a good long range capability. Although the Tribals were a great ship succesive disinterested governments have kept them in commission long past any reasonable time frame. They really do need to be replaced at this point. As do our AOR's. (Sorry About the spelling, I'm in a bit of a hurry.)

I've noticed a few statements so far in this thread that would seem to indicate some uncertainty as to exactly what the Quran does and does not specifically state. earlier ScotSA provided a link to a very informative site. If you go beyond the home page death count you'll find it answers many of the questions being debate in this thread. It's hard to argue with quotes taken directly from the book. Islam does seem to have some very serious contradictory issues related to sex. These stem from directly opposing statements made by Mohammed. He is quoted as proclaiming that all homosexuals should be executed yet the Muslim world has historically always had far more than a casual flirtation with homosexual practices. Adulterers are to be executed, unless they are unwed men performing the act of adultery with married women. In that case the women are to be executed, not the men. Islam permits a man to wed up to four women and bring an unlimited amount to his bed. If his woman objects he may beat or divorce her. Mohammed also stated that women should cover themselves and lower their eyes so as not to meet the gaze of other men. As I said, a very informative site. It astounds me that supposedly educated people can find reasons to admire or support such a hodge podge collection of random decrees intended to do no more than tip the social balance overwhelmingly in the favour of men. Actually it was primarily in the favour of Mohammed and just happened to benefit Islamic men in general. Oh, yes, hello everyone.