Army Guy

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....

Want the truth waldo, i was taken back that anyone would say trudeau's economic record was better than anyones.....Then provide a source that even suggested it...and yet not put anything into context like how trudeau boosted his numbers.....by throwing the nation into a massive debt.....I'm not the only one in history to have the GALL to throw Trudeau under the bus where he belongs.....goggle it there is lots of them.....and they have the same thing to say that it was this PM that started the ball rolling...... Want to talk about Mulroney.....talk...he is another black eye on Canada debt problem one of the largest contributors, with 330.3 bil dollars added...I was not singling out just the liberals.....PC had a large hand to play here as well, not sure what your point is or was.....

Smallc it's not about what makes sense, they want to clear their conscious about that little boy on the beach.

Such bad policies, how dare we....slip into the top third.....you still have not answered my question How is it bad policy.....but good policy to allow 25,000 in tomorrow no questions asked....

I'd be curious what Harpers exact words used were....was it the world , G-7 ,G8, to what was he comparing our record to.

One question, how does that make bad policy,when others have posted here the true costs of these policies, In your mind does it make sense in years of fiscal restraint..... How many nations are there in the world any how ? wild guess....

OK waldo below is the post i was targeting.....please note there is no mention of any other PM other than harper and trudeau Pierre type, comparing economic records.....So armed with that info, I am selectively pulling from a source I PROVIDED .....to prove other wise....Trudeau used 139.1 bil dollars to improve his economic record, and drove us into debt, which has spiraled to what it is today...Harper part of this whole issue is 60.4 bil....and is accredited with two recessions.....thats according to the NDP, and Liberal candidates, and they can't be wrong can they.....

Take a look at the debt amounts then.....Trudeau spent 139.1 Bil dollars making his record look good..... Harper spent 60.4 bil ...did i miss something waldo......According to the NDP, and Liberals they say Harper was responsible in 2 recessions.....so what is it....one or two.....i guess we can play with numbers as long as it serves our needs....anyways.....How many recessions did trudeau have again.....id look better if i spent twice as much as well driving the country in to this endless spiral of debt.......the guy that sent us down that path.....he has a better economic record than harper....give me a break.... I was responding to a post , check it out....might put this into context....

I was responding to a poster that suggested that trudeau had a better economic record than Harper....and no i did not ignore the actual amounts.....

Thats horse shit and you know it.....Canada's national debt rose some almost 739 % under trudeau's tenor....from 18.75 bil to 157.2 bil....kind of hard not to put his successes into perspective.... http://www.taxpayer.com/media/CoverStory24-27WEB.pdf

ReeferMadness: I'm actually a fan of Gwynne Dyer earlier works, and respect his opinion just not in this case...i think his theory in this case has huge holes in it....and i'll explain. he assumes that all terrorist want the wests involvement to boost their cause to gather up the locals, in some massive recruitment drive....and Dyer pigion holes everyone of them into the same hole....thats not the case... Do you think the Taliban wanted the direct US involvement in Afghanistan, they had the world by the balls, and no one wanted to bother them, sure there was a few sanctions , the world gasped in horror as they destroyed historic artifacts.....but other than that they had everything they wanted......and everything to loss with direct US intervention......they did not need any more recruitment, they had nothing to gain from the outside of the world they had everything, and where living life , according to their twisted version of islam..... Bin ladin and his twisted apes....they were bent on some version of history, they had to punish the US for past aggressions ......They knew the consequences before they planned and attacked the US, he did'nt do it to attract thousands to his cause he did it because of revenge, out of hatred....explain to me how you adopt a policy for Bin Ladin on dyers specific things to do......as laid out below.....He wanted to punish the US, there was no negotiations, dealing with grievances, he wanted the US to pay for what they had done....So how does one deal with the fact that the US had just been dealt the deaths of 3000 of it's people.....if diplomatic options were already closed.....do you turn the other cheek....because dyers theory is telling us to do that very thing..... My piont is we are not dealing with yesterdays terrorist groups, groups that may have numbered a couple hundred at best....Bader minhoff gang, was a joke....compared to ISIL.....IRA had serious numbers but they did not cause the terror we see today in Syria....... Your sources theory does not explain how to deal with todays terrorism, Nor are they interested in talking with the the west....for anything....so with diplomatic solutions off the table.....that leaves what....we turn our heads, and refused to deal with the problem....that includes dealing with the refugees as well.....or we take matters into groups like NATO, or the UN and take direct action to solve it...... I'll ask my question again....the more we involve ourselves in conflicts the more of a target we become.....Is there any proof to back up such a statement..Who has made a target of Canada ? and what threat are they ?

Being Mechanized and being Motorized are two separate beasts.....Just the shear fire power alone is worth the investment of going mech...., not to mention the speed in which you can move, plus the additional firepower can allow you to cover more ground with effective fire......In most cases i'd say on a two to one basis, if not more....meaning one mech inf bn could cover the same space of 2 or more motorized or light inf bns with ease.... Of course a mech Bn tends to attract armour.....but todays IFV and additional wpns it remains a concern but not a major problem.....so it does make great sense both on the money side and manpower side.....300,000 less guys to drive, feed, and wait for them to catch up to the battle..... Thanks derek for that poke for the lone inf guy....not very often does an naval aviator stick up for the little green guy covered in mud.... I think that china does pose a major threat, as seen by shift in NATO and even US defense priorities , shifts in theaters from atlantic to pacific....while they may not be at the same equipment level....they are a threat.

Just a question why is immigration so important to the NDP, and Liberals....and no i am not talking about the current Refugee crises.....