Gabriel

If you've read my other posts on this very subject you should know that allegations of abuse in Afghanistan don't surprise me. The idea that prisoners in Afghan are being mistreated in Afghan prisons isn't a big shocker to me. Assuming that mistreatment is occurring to prisoners under Afghan custody, the question is what has the government done to address this issue? Has it made reasonable efforts to address these concerns? We also need to put this in context - have improvements been made to the standards of Afghan prisons? If reasonable efforts are being made and improvements are being seen (i.e. MacKay indicated that there have been significant efforts to address these issues, also stating that over $100 million has been spent towards this issue), then the government deserves credit. If there concerns were washed over and swept under the rug, the responsible parties should be held accountable. wyly - Flaherty is supremely unqualified for the job of Finance Minster. It is typical of Canadian politics to have persons in positions without any relevant expertise. We've all seen minsiters fly around from position to position, in charge of finance one moment and then agriculture the next, health one year and then foreign affairs the next. It's pathetic. I'm not going to defend partisan appointments on any side. It is a no-brainer that the Finance Minster should have specialized education in economics and/or accounting. As a side note, wasn't the recently disgraced Minster of Health of Ontario (I think his last name was Kaplan) a real estate agent? It's pathetic. As far as the PM goes, being an economist (not a Ph.D, unfortunately) puts him in strong position. We need more politicians with educations in economics. I reject the idea that a PM should have a legal background. He may have made statements that turned out to be incorrect, although I don't remember him saying we'd never have a deficit. With respect to engineers and scientists, I'm propose that we'd be better off if we had more technical professionals represented in political positions. Our educational programs are far beyond the level of journalism majors. EDIT - I just want to add that it will never cease to amaze how we have ministers of health at the provincial and federal levels who aren't medical professionals. To me this is shocking. When will politicians put credentials and capability ahead of party loyalty?

That's right, I think there are nuptial exceptions. Usually women aren't put into direct combat situations, though.

Hi Riverwind, I disagree strongly with your statement. How can you deny that the face of the party is a huge factor in determining its success? While there are circumstances in elections where there are strong factors beyond the public perception of a given political that influence how the people will vote, the leadership of a party is always important. Of course public perception of a party can be damaged beyond the scope of its leader (the Republican brand in the USA most recently, for example), but I must reiterate that the leadership of the party is the probably the most significant factor in shaping the vote. Look at the most recent Republican ticket - McCain and Palin. How could they possibly defeat the presence that Obama had? Obama's presence and charisma (and intelligence) eclipsed that of McCain and Palin combined. I think in Canada the leader of the party is only slightly less important than in the USA, because of course we don't vote directly for our PM. This still doesn't diminish the huge impact a leader can have on public opinion. That being said, of course a strong leader must be combined with an intelligent platform that resonates with independent Canadian voters. Bottom line - you're grossly underestimating the influence that a charismatic and intelligent leader can have in shaping public opinion.

I don't have any desire to get into a serious exchange with you (I find you a ridiculous poster 99% of the time) about this issue, but I'll indulge your request briefly. What quickly comes to mind is Ignatieff's fake outrage over the entire body-bag fiasco - clearly proving that he is a small man desperate for any fake controversy. He'd rather mouth off about nonsense then tackle real issues. I also recall him making allegations of possible war crimes being committed by Israeli during the recent military operations in Gaza - complete switch from his previous positions on such issues before he became a political "leader" in Canada. This proves that he has no principle and will say what he thinks he needs to say to appeal to his radical base. I also recall him criticizing the Harper government for acting too slowly and not spending enough on the "stimulus package", while by all accounts Canada was weathering the financial storm better than most other countries. He was unable to give credit where credit was due. If anything, Harper wasted money in those efforts in order to try to buy votes - GM, for example. These are just handful of examples that comes to mind.

Of course you're unconcerned about costs - you probably don't earn any money. Nobody is suggesting that we DON'T spend money on health care. What IS being suggested is that value for money be emphasized. This emphasis can manifest itself in various ways. For example, careful auditing of ordered treatments by doctors to identify possible frivolous use of resources, and appropriate disciplinary actions. On the other hand, an audit could also reveal that a doctor didn't request a diagnostic that would have reduced the likelihood of a patient's development of an illness, and therefore led to increased hardship for the patient as well as an increased financial burden on the public purse due to potentially higher costs associated with advanced stages of an illness. The bottom line - high standards need to be enforced.

Thanks for that clarification, I would have overlooked that had you not reminded me. Not that I don't trust you, but where did you learn that government spending portion of total health care costs in Canada is about 70%? I'm just curious, it's an important detail that for some reason has never occurred to me! Thanks again.

Hi Keepitsimple, Thanks for the link, it's an interesting which I will fully read later. Although slightly tangential, I'd like to share how my impression of Ignatieff has changed since I first saw him on the political scene. Aesthetically, he's strong. He's tall and thin and looks good. He's also clearly intelligent and well=spoken, with a reasonable amount of charisma (more charisma than Harper, IMO). These are the first qualities of him I noticed. Actually, the presence or lack of these qualities is always the first think I notice on virtually any politician. I really though this guy could be a force to be reckoned with. As time went on, however, and I payed some attention to his "positions" on various issues, it became clear to me that he is a not a man of principle. He's been wishy washy, small-minded, hyper-partisan, and just plain wrong on so many things I've seen him talk about. He reminds me a lot of Mitt Romney in that regard - a politician who initially looks like he's got the tools to be forceful, but can't capitalize due to a complete lack of fire. If you've got no integrity and no principles, it can seriously damage in the public eye. To me, I can't stand Ignatieff anymore. I've got not respect for him. I do, however, think he isn't finished yet. Although I don't think he'll ever make himself a serious leader, if he can somehow get inspired, develop strong and intelligent positions on issues that matter to Canadians, drop the hyper-partisanship and obsession with insignificant issues in order to claw at the government in order to drum op the support of his radical left-wing base, he might just resonate with intelligent and reasonable Canadians. I don't think he's got it in him, though, you can't "find" integrity and passion. You've either got it or you don't. And since he doesn't have it, and he knows he doesn't have it, he's had to find political consultants and disappear from the public eye for awhile in an effort to remanufacture himself into something he isn't - a leader with a message. I'm wondering if other intelligent, reasonable, and middle-of-the-road Canadians feel the same way about Ignatieff. Looks like he's got some of the attributes necessary to be a strong leader, but he's missing the main attribute - leadership based on principle and integrity.

I'm pretty confident I'll never read another one of your posts. I think congratulations are also in order for your blatant (and baffling) attempt to derail this thread into something painfully broad in scope. I'm definitely adding you to the list of folks whose posts I just skim over or completely ignore due to their absurdity. I invite everyone to read the very first sentence of the link Topaz posted here - The recent attacks in Mumbai, while largely blamed on Pakistan’s state-sponsored militant groups, represent the latest phase in a far more complex and long-term “strategy of tension” in the region; being employed by the Anglo-American-Israeli Axis to ultimately divide and conquer the Middle East and Central Asia. I stopped reading at that point. You can now accurately be labelled as a left-wing nutcase conspiracy theorist. Are you also unemployed, or 19-years-old, or a travel and tourism major, or some other type of chronic underachiever and overprojector?

Wow, is The Star ever a deceitful and left-wing newspaper! The entire article erects a strawman that it goes on to attack - that Colvin has been personally attacked by the government. The government has NEVER attacked Colvin' personal credibility. If anything, the government has made positive statements in reference to Colvin's career. All the government has criticized is the legitimacy of Colvin's allegations given the evidence - four interviews he's had with self-professed Taliban detainees who many or may not have been apprehended by Canadian forces. As if Taliban testimony isn't to be taken with a kilogram of salt! What the hell are people running around to defend his personal character for? Colvin' personal character has never been attacked by the government. This is the same strawman we've seen in these forums from the leftist extremists. I'll say it again, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER ATTACKED COLVIN'S CHARACTER OR PERSONAL CREDIBILITY (although it should have)! Personally, I think his personal character SHOULD be attacked. They should go over his career and personal life with a fine-tooth comb and destroy his reputation and career. Find any and every infraction he's ever been associated with. Spare no personal details. Why the hell do we have a journalism major over in Afghanistan on a high-level diplomatic mission, anyways? I am not a politician, however, and perhaps Canadians would not response well to vengeful politics. That being said, my personal intuition tells me Colvin is just a left-wing idiot who is grandstanding as some sort of human-rights advocate when he is in actuality a weasel vying for the spotlight in order to build something more for himself. Perhaps a book deal or an NDP position, as the OP has suggested. There is no doubt in my mind that he is putting personal ambition ahead of the nation's security. In other words, he's undermining our mission in Afghanistan by smearing our nation and military in order to make a name for himself.

:lol: She probably wears one of those terrorist scarfs around her neck, as well! The amateur psychologist in me think her obsession with misrepresenting the entire I/P conflict is rooted in her own desires to justify her desertion from Israel in order to avoid military service. Or perhaps she's a Muslim, who knows?

First of all, there are no Jewish majority neighbourhoods in Winnipeg. Unless your neighborhood is about one block. It'd be more accurate to say that there are more Jewish persons living in your neighborhood than the overall proportion of Jews in the broader Canadian population. Perhaps having a few Jews around, in your mind, is an imagined Jewish majority. As a Jewish person living in a neighborhood (a great neighborhood, I must say, mostly professionals and high-income earners, and extremely multi-cultural) with a significant Jewish population (let's say 10% of a neighborhood of ten thousand), I also receive cheesy Conservative mailings trying to appeal to my ethnicity/religion. Although much of what's being claimed is largely true - the Liberal party has only a mediocre record of supporting Israel, opposing global anti-semitism and standing up strongly for freedom on the international stage, I find this strategy somewhat lame. I know that Harper is a greater friend to Israel than previous governments, and I know that Harper is a more principled leader who stands up for freedom and democracy and human rights than previous leaders. I am concerned, however, that Jewish people are mistakenly viewed as one-issue voters - Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth. Harper would do well to utilize a more universal message that resonates with intelligent, hard-working Canadians of all religions and ethnicities and not attempt to do niche marketing. But then again, I'm not a professional politician. What do I know about building support? Perhaps Harper is utilizing tried and tested methods at building support. I'd rather Harper (or anyone!) formulate a clear and comprehensive agenda to reduce costs, slash through waste and stand up for our values unapologetically.

There are many government-covered physiotherapy places for those who are unable to afford it. There are also government drug-assistance plans that help Canadians pay for medications they cannot afford. My advice - if you need coverage, go get a damn job and get some benefits! If not, the government WILL help you.

Why are you even PRETENDING like you earn enough money to matter? Either you're unemployed or a 19-year-old women's studies major. Who do you think you're fooling? Get back at me when you break $40K a year. Is it any surprise that the extreme left is so anti-military? I bet they'd prefer to give the money to drug addicted Aboriginals and alcoholic single-mother white trash living in subsidized housing.

Notice how there is no mention of the fact that Palestinians utilize medical infrastructure such as hospitals and ambulances to conduct their terror operations. That being said, this video is a complete lie.

One more comment - for my friends in here questioning the credibility of Colvin's testimony, I agree with you folks only to a small degree. Let's be honest, are any of you surprised that torture would be occurring in Afghani prisons? Let's not be naive and assume that Afghanistan has strong cultural values rooted in human rights. This is primarily a tribal country filled savages and barbarians. These people sell their daughter off to be married at the age of nine. That being said, of course the Taliban testimony of four detainees being passed off to us via Colvin is suspect. Our enemies have long been using our values and morality against us. They exploit our humanity. But still, the idea that abuses are occurring in Afghani prisons isn't an allegation I find hard to believe. Perhaps I'm too cynical, though.

I'll break this down all really simply, and I'm pretty confident most of us in here with agree with what I'm about to say. What needs to be evaluated in order to really understand this issue are the existing protocols in place that manage the transfer of detainees from the custody of the Canadian military to Afghan security forces. What are the existing procedures in place? What type of monitoring system is in place? How have these systems evolved over time? Basically - is the Canadian government making reasonable efforts in good faith to reduce the likelihood of abuse in Afghan prisons? If Canada has made reasonable efforts to manage this issue over time, then we aren't at fault. Has Canada received credible reports suggesting that abuses were occurring in Afghan prisons? If so, how has Canada responded? Was it a reasonable response? If Canadian officials fell short in any of these regards (when compared to reasonable standards and not to the absurd standards of ultra-leftists who want to provide Taliban terrorist detainees with correspondence education and HBO), then they should be held accountable. I feel like the Conservative party is behaving slightly more in a damage-control mode than simply being open and honest about the issue. Tell the truth, and showcase the truth if we did right by our values. If Canada has already been implementing reasonable policies to reduce the likelihood of abuse occuring in Afghan prisons, tell us about it! MacKay has already alluded that Canada has made serious efforts in this regard, suggesting that over $100 million has already been spent towards this matter. If Canada isn't living up to its values by not making reasonable efforts to reduce the likelihood of abuse in Afghan prisons, then give all responsible officials the boot! Then address the shortcoming by implementing a new system to deal with the problem. That's called accountability. That being said, the leftist Liberal and NDP are continuing to destroy themselves in the public eye by masquerading as human rights advocates, when real Canadians see what they're really doing - attacking Canada and undermining its security in order to score political points. If this story is managed properly, it can further bolster the Conservative lead in the polls. Harper and his government need to utilize this opportunity to further trash the left's hypocrisy - it can be done. What the left doesn't realize is that it is portraying itself as being more concerned about the human rights of the Taliban than the safety and security of our soldiers, as well as the success of our mission in Afghanistan. If managed properly, this story will advance the popularity of the Conservative party and illustrate once again how treasonous much of the left is in Canada - grandstanding for human rights at the expense of Canada's security and reputation.

That's unfortunate, but the risks of false positives do not outweigh the benefits of regular examination. Another important fact that you are clearly unaware of is that over 90% of breast cancer patients have no history of breast cancer in their family. I am unsure of the other risk factors, but don't be so certain that a lack of other risk factors is a reason not to be examined. Anyways, it's your life. Do whatever you want. The guidelines from all relevant professional associations will remain the same - women should get annual mammograms after age 40. EDIT - I just saw on CNN, 10 seconds ago, Sanjay Gupta saying that 75-90% of women who are diagnosed with breast cancer had no family history and NO RISK FACTORS. Just an interesting little piece of information.

Wow, dude... I never said NEW FINDINGS.... I said NEW GUIDELINES! Anyone who's been following this story (not you!) knows that the new guidelines aren't based on new research. They're based on a strange new evaluation of old research. The bottom line is that all other relevant organizations have rejected the new guidelines released from the governmental task force. To add insult to injury, the task force has released edited guidelines this evening after the wholesale rejection. Do yourself a favour and stop talking about this story. EDIT - This is like the 20th time you've misread a post of mine. You must have some sort of chronic disorder that impairs your reading comprehension.

Did you read my reply to his post? All of his links referenced the task force's new guidelines as proof. And the task force's guidelines have been rejected by all relevant professional associations. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Disliking me isn't a reason to support incorrect positions.

It's only humorous if it's read out of context. The American Cancer Society, for example, acknowledges that false positives can occur during mammogram tasting. On the balance, though, there is greater value in regular testing for women after age 40 - contrary to the guidelines of the governmental preventative task force's new guidelines. To further ratify what I'm saying, the task force just today released "clarification" after its guidelines were rejected by all relevant organizations. So as much as dummies in here lie to play devil's advocate, the bottom line is that the task force was wrong in issuing its updated guidelines.

Feel free to continue lying about my statements and positions. I never supported the eradication of an entire people - unless you consider the Taliban and similar terrorist groups a people. My statements have been consistent since the beginning of this thread (and every other related thread). You seek to advance the status of the Taliban and other terrorist groups to that of some sort of civilization that should be shielded from eradication. I will no longer discuss this subject with you, btw. Your pathological dishonesty (and stupidity) lost its appeal long ago.

Yes, how culturally insensitive of me to refer to the selling of young girls into marriage for a goat as a barbaric practice. How ethnocentric I must be to even suggest that only savages throw acid in the faces of young girls trying to go to school to learn to read and write. How racist I must be to ever describe religious extremists who are opposed to laws prohibiting rape and the establishment of a minimum age for sexual consent as ANIMALS. Get real. Cease masquerading as some sort of champion of tolerance when in reality you are supporter of terrorists. There are many valuable cultures in this world. Islamic extremism a la Taliban isn't one of them. Only a fool would consider my statements controversial.

I'm not on the same page as Sarah Palin in claiming that death panels are part of Obama's health care plan. I'm not going to speculate why the government task force arrived at such conclusions contrary to well-established guidelines from major medical associations. All I am saying is that the new guidelines released by the government's preventative care task force have been rejected by all relevant organizations. Case closed.

I never said they all were. Just that more than enough of them were. Stop playing stupid. I never said all Afghans subscribe to barbaric ideology. What I said, quite clearly, was that I suspect MANY Afghans subscribe to barbarism and savagery. As I said earlier, it's quite difficult to gather a Gallup poll in Afghanistan to quantify to what degree the overall population are savages.

Is that a serious question? Do you know what context is? Do you know what relevance is? Apparently not....