Sir Bandelot

I see. Now your hidden agenda is revealed...

Why would you want to read from somebody who opens up by saying, I don't respect your views and I don't care?

How about castration? Forced sterilization? That would be more humane than killing them. Then we could use them to do some work for us. Set up a few labor camps,

"Ignoring reality is ignorance" Now theres a philosopher for ya.

So basically the only way to win is get an Afghan government and Army going to take on the Taliban themselves. A far cry from Oh I think your interpretation is a farther cry. Looking at the quote, he doesn't say we can win, at all. "Not going to ever..." Period. No qualifier, no "unless..." The next sentence is the one which you extrapolated into fantasy land- "What has to happen in Afghanistan is we have to have an Afghan government, that is capable of manageing that insurgency and improving it's own governence." See the qualifier there, Managing that insurgency. Ahh, that means, keeping it to a minimum. He didn't say a word like "eliminating". Why canst Johnny read??? I think Mr. Harper has done a lot of reading on Afghanistan's history, and has drawn his own conclusions independent of media, outside pressure or political rhetoric. And he had the guts to say it in front of an American audience on national TV. Lets hope he keeps to his word based on his current understanding... what some of us sensible people already knew on day one of this mission. So, I can't believe I'm saying it for the first time ever- hats off to Stephen Harper!

We are still waiting for your dissertation, Mr. Ambassador...

Bushit

Another question is, why is Obama waiting. I think maybe the reasons are the same, resolve this election question first, then decide whether to escalate or not.

NATO members: no more troops to Afghanistan Oct . 23, 2009 NATO members the Netherlands and Denmark said Friday they will not send more troops to Afghanistan unless its Nov. 7 presidential runoff creates a legitimate government and until President Barack Obama decides on a new strategy. ... Danish Defense Minister Soeren Gade said allies won't increase troop levels until they are assured the new government in Kabul is committed to the international effort. "I think whoever is going to send more troops to Afghanistan will put up some conditions," said Gade, whose country has 690 soldiers in Afghanistan. "They need to see the new Afghan president and say: 'If we send more troops to your country, you have to deal with this, this and this.' We have to make sure the new government in Afghanistan are committed to their job before we send any more troops to Afghanistan." On the sidelines of the meeting, the top U.N. official in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, said the extensive fraud that marked the first round of presidential elections will be reduced but not eliminated in the runoff. ----------- I think the reason is, they don't know if the new government would fully support the mission. And if not, they won't be wasting their time or troops. Because Karzai was our man in the region, and the corrupt election results are now well known, so he might not win. We bestowed the blessings of democracy on this people, and they might just vote us out of the country.

Right, I agree there are some checks n the system. There is always corruption, but there are also checks to stop it from happening again. THe first step towards that, is to expose it.

Welcome to our wonderful forum. They don't like you because you speak broken english, and are probably chinese and you put down our fine democracy. Thats why they like to throw china in your face. But to the point, these problems you highlight are real, but they are not systemic. When people are given power over others (like, a police officer) some of them will abuse their power, use it in aways that it was not intended. Those things happen sometimes, because of individual peoples actions. If we believe it is not systemic, the next question has to be, how does the system respond when these things happen? Does the system try to cover up the mistakes or does it do something to fix the problem. So to that I must say, Robert Dziekanski.

He HOPES it? Worse than that, he's going to make it happen. Cheney should be arrested, for supporting terrorism.

Interesting little aside that I just came across. US cuts funding to Iran opposition BBC 20 October 2009 In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster regime change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White House has all but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund. While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it has been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists. It's no surprise to me, I expect this sort of thing is happening everywhere. Even here, in Canada, where Stephen Harper met with GWB when he was still leader of the opposition. Not that I necessarily think it is a bad thing to promote regime change, without direct war or violence. But if the funding (and training) is used to stir up violent protests and revolution, it amounts to the same. If you read the article you'll see that the Iranians knew about it, and it harmed legitimate NGO's who were trying to work within the boundaries of law, to promote democracy and human rights.

True enough, the difference being they are dragged down by the US economy, and are US companies. But in regards to the banks, or the health of the Canadian economy, it's all smoke and mirrors. Harper noted Canada has not had to subsidize its banks, has a low and stable inflation rate, and has a diverse economy that should help the country weather the storm. "The reality is this: Things are very tough," he said. "We know that. But Canadians should not lose sight of the fact that we remain in a relatively good position compared to other countries." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/18/...ge-economy.html Hard to find the other quotes by Harper and Flaherty at the time, due to excessive media obfuscation (information overload) But you get the idea

Yes I read about the threats some time ago. Now about SNL, seems to me there was quite a bit of a "stink" when they parodied Sarah Palin. There was a lot of coverage on CNN too. Why do they bother with it as news? Answer- "Wolf Blitzer"

Honky Jive My view is, it didn't happen. Not in Canada. At least that was the initial reaction of our own government before the lying started. Why we ended up paying anyway is subject to debate.

That sounds like skewed logic to me. Only a Fool would stay silent while fat assed politicos sit in their cushy chairs, ordering troops to jump off a cliff without proper equipment, and only half a chance for success. The one who dares to speak out against the administration is not a coward. Our military itself did not "fail". But staying silent and allowing the problem to continue would assure failure of the mission. If they have failed in some way it is only because of a lack of proper political support, and all that must come with it. So it is the top commanders job to make sure that the minister knows what the problem is. And if the minister refuses to listen, we Canadians want to know about this. All such jobs involve politics to some degree. Else without this kind of vigilance the minister himself would run the army.

Well, I believe in science but not politics, and the mechanism of retaining heat in greenhouse gases is well understood. I read a book about planet Venus last year that explained that the study of the venusian atmosphere led to the discovery of the greenhouse effect. Carbon Dioxide has certain electronic properties that make it transparent to solar radiation, but absorb light at lower infrared frequencies. This allows energy from the sun to pass through, where it heats planet surface and reflects the heat as IR radiation. But the CO2 in the atmosphere blocks this radiation from being able to escape. back out into space. I wouldn't say there is "not one shred of evidence", but there is "some" evidence.

In the blunt autobiography Hillier denies he was responsible for getting Canadian soldiers involved in volatile southern Afghanistan, where the highest number of casualties have occured. And he sheds light on his strained relationship with former defence minister Gordon O'Connor and what he paints as businesslike relations with Harper. Hillier also gives his side of what was a tense standoff over the repatriation of Canada's first female casualty in Afghanistan. He writes that he was ordered by the PMO to hide the return of the body of Capt. Nichola Goddard, because the PMO didn't want the event covered extensively by the media. In the book, the charismatic military leader also says he argued to keep Canadian troops in Kabul working on a reconstruction project -- a much safer region than Kandahar province. Hillier also has tough criticism for NATO in his book, saying it was "embarassing" that the secretary general of the powerful military alliance had to beg for troop and equipment commitments from individual countries. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ub=TopStoriesV2 It's always good to get the inside story, so people will know more about whats really going on, instead of just believing the sunny propaganda coming from our mealy mouthed politicos. Not only did they have to beg and plead for proper equipment to engage the enemy, they were asked to hide the dead bodies. Come on people, I mean wtf.

The state does less, but collects more money. It used to be that the garbage man came twice a week.

What ever makes you think that? I'm not selfish, I need you to do be able to do your part so that I can do my part.. I am not happy if I'm the only one getting some. In fact, I am willing to do with a bit less, just so you can have some.

I don't know if its much of a "law", but it seems to focus on only those companies that get federal funding. I say its not much of a law, because for punishment all they do is cut the funding. My view of this is that all it does is keep the government at arms length, so they are protecting themselves, not the person. Companies that don't get the funding don't have any restrictions. But you know that

But they have measured the co2 levels directly, and they are increasing. So this in combination with the model that shows the effect of co2 increasing is strong evidence. I don't know if youwould call it 'direct'. No other evidence is as direct as that. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91008152242.htm

Ahhh. NOW I understand what you're saying. ->What is really needed here is a law that applies to all companies. I agree, and tried to say essentially the same thing.

When Obi-Wan became POTUS, I watched the show and was somewhat amused, and a little amazed by peoples hyperactive response. On the one side, an almost rabid love for the guy. On the other, an equal an opposite reaction., rabid hate. I put the one response to the fact that people want to hope, they want to believe in a messiah who will save the world. The others had their world come apart. Some were depressed, shell shocked, devastated. I have seen this sort of thing a few times before, like when we hire a new CEO and we hear all the accolades and the applause and the hopes. Next day its just business as usual. So I know But to those poor souls who flew so high up towards Obama heaven, their lofty expectations melted wings now tumbling down and crashing to earth. Welcome to sunshine of your disillusionment, which is called, reality.