Army Guy

The costs are laid out in several sources, the Fraser Institute did a study that captures cost per year per Refugee,or immigrant, cost to todate... today Canadian taxpayers pay out more 17 to 21 billion on both Immigrants and refugees, they also quote 6051 dollars per year ( in 2006) so these cost have risen....it should be noted that this costs are not just for a full year and then there are on their own, but ongoing costs...every year... While the CBC story has those numbers up to around 26 bil a year. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/immigrants-cost-23b-a-year-fraser-institute-report As it does not explain how they arrived at their figures, it is somewhat clouded.... CBC also did a piece on this subject, as seen below...which lays out another study done by the fraser Institute titled studies of immigration policies. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/immigrants-a-fiscal-burden-fraser-institute-report-suggests-1.1366906 Recently on CTV news they had done a piece on private sponsor ship, her group and i forget the name was going to sponsor 1000 refugees....in the piece she had said that to sponsor a family of four would cost on average 26,000 k for one year....that covers finding a temp place to live, food, clothing, and searching for employment etc....

Squirrel.........

It is not just about a military mission, That is my point, just like it is not all about saving a few people from drowning in some boat.....the entire mess must be looked at.....we all have been sitting on our hands.....the UN, NATO, US and Russia, the rest of the World Governments, and their citizens..... What i would support is forcing everyone involved to sit down and discuss solutions....while that is taking place aid to those agencies that are running camps in the surrounding countries.....along with aid, helpful assistance be it teachers, hospitals, etc.....and security of some sort, be it military or civil police..... Bringing all those depts necessary to these camps....to assist with accessing claims, processing them, and choosing the people we want to take in....not from europe but from those countries who have camps in them......so refugees journeys are not so dangerous, and filled with smugglers who profit from refugees misery......so we can start bringing in refugees , ones that have been properly vetted....and while they are in safe camps... Have NATO contain ISIL on one side and Russia on the other....until diplomatic solutions can be resolved...and if it takes redrawing borders on some map so be it.... Im sure there are millions of things i'm missing , well above my pay grade, but this needs to be looked at by all levels, by multi governments, with the outcome being that ISIL stops its expansion and terror, Assad stops his terror, it s not about regime change its about working this mess out so millions can move on and start rebuilding.....

Easy big fella, you have chosen your path in life, and i mine...you have an opinion, i have mine...a debate is sharing those opinion in hopes of someone getting educated....yours seems to you have to be right above all else..... nice try though guilt card, don't tell me you got another cartoon for that....

Now this is quit a graph you got Waldo......Canada 41 st .....shit did you know we were beaten out by Syria, and Afghanistan....thats bad considering a full third of their population is now roaming the streets of europe with another third on its way......what it does do however is compare refugees figures base on GDP figures i guess countries with high GDP numbers and low populations are favoured here.....How about refugees compared per every thousands of population.....Those smaller countries with high population rates don't fair out that well.....then there is the Number of refugees per 1000 Km2......no consideration to how much is actually populated or useable.....canada sure lost in that category...... and i've been told i was mining info to target one guy.....good list though...

Thats my shot, to over the top for you i can tone it down if you like..... And no frustrations here , not from the great Waldo how could anyone get frustrated with your superiority, your vast worldly knowledge on all things.....joking aside, i do value your opinion, i don't have to agree with it, but i do value your content most of the time...there are times your like a dog with a bone, nothing will change your mind, regardless of what facts are being brought up..

It would have just as much or more impact than say bringing in 10,000 or 25,000 refugees a year....atleast it is step in stopping ISIL from spreading....where the plan you support does nothing to stop anything....Except maybe clearing your conscience.

Lets be clear there are 6 fighter planes, and 60 troops training rebels....thats not a combat mission, it's assisting the assistance in a very small way. just enough to say we are there and we are doing something..... Now critics are asking it does not seem to be working, where are the results....like we where at a drive through at Mac donalds.....want to end this, then give the resources and manpower to get the job done....and stick with them until it is completed.....

It's not about trying to sponsor a nation to be more democratic.....making the world a safer place in the future.....It's all about pointing the finger, at the US....and keeping our heads buried in the sand, so the monsters in the world don't take notice of us....

I've always wonder how you got your news.....now we know

Look i'm not the one that has been saying Harper has been misleading the entire nation here when it comes down to immigrants and refugees....I'm just trying to get at what is the truth.......and what is BS...

And i thought the US created ISIL, which one is it.....

And there is proof that he deliberately mislead us all, no chance at all he was briefed wrong, or mixed up the numbers...i know a PM is supposed to be perfect.....

The term immigration and refugee have been made quit clear, however my question is the process in which we treat both groups are similar if not the same are they not, both are handled by the same dept, and both share the same rules and regulations, not all but most... Do both not serve the same objectives, increasing Canada's population base, and all the improvements that is reported to come with that...the only difference i can see was one is planed, the other was not....with that said, Canada has let over 2.5 million new residence into Canada has it not. I thought the new laws passed in 09 were to allow the government to give preference to those occupations we were short on, which sounds like a good policy to me, and if it has meant delays on the entire process, that would be expected when adding in a new process or set of requirements would it not.....

It has also been pointed out by the fraser institute that those investments are never recovered..

I never claimed Bin Ladin was Taliban, that is why i described them in two different paras...Bin Ladin had a huge group, that were used by the taliban as their strongmen...He had all the fighters he could handle... Below is what Dyer is advising, With the Taliban they already had everything they wanted, they did not want direct contact with the west, they already had what they wanted with nothing to gain, and everything to lose... In the taliban's case dyers thought process does not apply does not apply as written below here. In Bin Laden's case he was not interested in anything except revenge, he wanted the US and the west to pay for all the things they had done, he did not want any discussions with the west or the US, he wanted to bring them pain, Dyer suggest diplomatic resolution and how to go about it, but if talking is off the table how does a nation solve the problem of finding whom was responsible for the attacks, and bringing him and his organization to justice, it would leave the military option as the only on that was viable.. Which my point not all groups can be neatly wrapped up in his theory, or course of action. i would there are times when his course should be used...and there are others that boots on the ground maybe the only option.... while bin laden was there , the US did not single him out and arm him they armed the group he was involved with, and many more...Bin Ladin was not in charge of anything at the time....I think that has already been pointed out Iraq was in the works well before Afghanistan came about.... You also have to remember the the majority of Afghan citizens did not support the Taliban or Bin Ladins thugs, and where happy to see them go. I won't argue that coalition military action there drove some into joining the terrorists, but that is a double edge sword, the taliban and Bin Ladins buddies killed many more Afghans than the coalition ever did....and drove many Afghan citizens to helping coalition forces fight the taliban....or joining the Afghan armed forces.....They are still not very popular in the country, yes they enjoy the support of thousands, but the country has millions.. Other than the bombing, British forces were heavily engaged with fighting the IRA every where in the country, including in the towns, cities etc....they had more troops and equipment involved than their commitment to Afghanistan.....and while that did end, with eventual talks and a peace agreement....both sides suffer great losses..which i'm sure was one of the reasons that they sat down and began talking.... To be honest with you, once a nation agrees to take up arms, both sides have already lost....It is that or let them have what they want , when they want it...sooner or later a line has to be drawn....the groups like the Taliban, ISIL they want a place where they can rule over it occupants through fear and terror, a place where they can practice their own twisted version of Islam....and they don't care how they get it.....So like the picture of that boy washed up on the beach, there are many images of the crimes these groups have committed, that drive other nations to say that is the line in the sand..... thousand of innocent civilians have died, millions have been displaced from there homes in fear of their lives....and many nations are tired of war and it's commitments, so they are now moving that line....it's like the crimes these terrorist commit do not count, all that counts right now is saving those running for their lives.....we will be picking these people up for years to come, until ISIL has what it wants....ISIL and any other group that decides they can redraw the lines on a map through force and terror....Is that a winning strategy..... You know as well as i do, that there are no guarantee that anything will work....what i do know is one day the refugees will ask, why did you not help us....military action alone will not solve this, it needs to be a concentrated effort of aid, delivery of that aid to the people, security of the people rebuilding their nation, education, getting them providing for themselves.....it takes generations to accomplish....history has shown us that with Cyprus, and Turkey.

Like i said they have already engaged the enemy....and they are not just doing training.....they have carried out BDA, and designated targets.....if you increase the boots on the ground, you also have to increase security, logistics, admin, now your talking a good size mission.....with a much higher percentage that some of those troops will engage the enemy..... Thats the problem , not all the locals are up to the fight....see Iraqi soldiers....there not all kurd rebel quality....

your aware that those training troops have engaged the enemy....and they have been used to call in airstrikes right....i thought you were again'st putting boots on the ground, to increase our training foot print there needs to be more security forces, which mean contact with enemy forces.... Why equip anyone you've stated that your against that to, please explain....

I di'nt say it was good policy, i asked you how it was a failed policy.....if your suggesting that there is a problem with meeting goals where is it? i not the one making these claims you are. and i did'nt blame the fiscal restraint as the end all of excuses, i have suggested that it may of played a role....And so what if other countries have better humanitarian skills than us, at the end of the day what does it matter. there are plenty of lists out there in the world that we are not on the top off....spending on our military forces.....does that make us a bad nation.....

Ya because taking in all the refugees will solve everything.....until they make more that is.....

Are you saying we are not training locals....our military mission has more than 6 cf-18's it also has teams of CSOR training locals, it is just not enough....

yes it was and it did have defined criteria....but are you saying that with all trudeau's spending, that those criteria were not influenced in any way.....in my opinion debt tells a huge part of the story i was trying to uncover....

Smallc has valid points that in my opinion well thought out....and to waldo you crossed the line.... but no one wants to asked the tough questions, like What are we going to do with 100,000 refugees, where do they stay, who feeds them cloths them employs them.....how much will it cost tax payers, and what about tommorrow, do we except 100,000 more because some one else washes ashore....excepting these people does not do anything to end this crises.....in fact how many more refugees have not even left, does this aceptance of refugees entice more.....to risk everything including their lives....That shit does not matter to you....because your thinking with your heart, and not your head, some of you even suggested it was stupid......when has thinking a problem over in this country become stupid.... The solutions to this mess are not going to happen over night.....

I din't realise how important list where to you waldo....I asked you how is that a failed policy....i know you don't have time to answer questions....just one linners, you have this need to control the conversation, with your own questions, but no time in answering anyone elses.....

I'm not an apologist, but i'm not thinking that dropping a few points on some list, is a matter of national importance that would take over an election campaign......i think it is being used to gain votes..... Are you denying the liberals said they wanted to take in 25,000 immediately....