Army Guy

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.....

It seems to be the new thing these days , the more we involve ourselves in conflicts the more of a target we become.....Is there any proof to back up such a statement.....Has the any of those nations directly attacked Canada, because that would go with the other old thing that has been floating around here, What threats does Canada have.....They say none.... So what is it, do we have threats or is that all right wing hype.....or left wing hype quick hide your head they won't notice us....

I think those pictures have made Canadians forget all that, instead of making a well thought out decision they are jumping at the heart strings which may bite them in the ass later.....I like the British response, not taking any of those already in safe zones, instead going directly to those countries which have set up camps.....in an effort of trying to keep them from making those deals with the smugglers to get them into europe.... to do the screening there makes sense....

Please be patient with me as immigration is not a strong point, I thank you for the reports, but within your sources they seem to contradict themselves... one is saying immigrants are good over all for Canada, another says we spend over 25 bil a year on immigrants and will never see a positive return on that investment.....I'm just to find out what is there thinking behind saying that immigrants are good...both fiscally and population wise....and why are they pushing that Canada would be better off with 100 million , than with just say our current 40 million, as they are assuming that they will all be paying taxes similar to avg Canadians, and yet all your sources have disproved that theory....

I gt the point your making, however your using it to show that Canada is no where the top of the list of accepting refugees, when Jordan has had theres for over 40 years now, kind of unfair comparison, also those countries are neibors to a war zone, and have not taken these people in permanently.....it might be interesting to see which countries are doing this..instead of just housing them in camps and shipping them out to others....

Cybercoma: I read your source, and still can not find how they are sponsored, other than from the government. i find it hard to see where the benefit of immigrants come in... Is this the sponsorship you are talking about...granted these are in 2006 dollar costs, and we have since added millions more to these numbers....Sorry could not find the latest figures.... http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/immigration-and-the-canadian-welfare-state-2011.pdf From your orginal link.... Then there is this statement, which contradicts your early statement. That these investments we make in Immigrants may not be paying off even in future generations....Perhaps i'm not reading enough into it.....can you point me in the right direction.....

Thanks.

I see your graph clearly shows that those countries at the top of your list that have excepted refugees are next door to a conflict zone.... Jordan being number one, just a question though does your list include those refugees they've had for 40 years.....it just looks that way....

Then please explain.....

What kind of red tape are we talking about, it all over the media, even become a talking point from the opposition leaders.....so what is classified as red tape....if it was doing back ground checks, criminal record checks, past employment records, skills or education then i'm for it.....making sure we don't just open the flood gates hear onlt to find out later, one of these syrians was a member of a death squad, or terrorists......making sure we get the people we are looking for.....before we invest in them for not only their future but ours as well.... As for the pictures.....like Justin said you don't get compassionate over night....like they all did....even justin.... there is a system already in place, if it is red tape or delaying measures then i would agree with you, but if it is for security then i understand.....

what kind of sponsorship are you talking about, your making it sound that every Immigrant does not have an effect on tax payers....

You mean no direct threat to Canada....or her interests abroad.... And our military action in Iraq has made us a target.....how so exactly ? and how are we making things worse?

Actually he said there needs to be a balanced approach, refugees, aid and seeing to the cause of the problem.

Any one that works in Canada pays EI, those that also pay into a pension can not collect EI, unless they work once again in a job with no pension then they can apply for EI.....

So what of the other sources that were produced by other posters here that are higher than those numbers by previous liberal governments, if they are true how can Harper being doing less.... I thought hours here in Canada were only limited to part time positions, that anyone could work as long or as hard as they wished as long as the company had the work available.....I've tried to find a source about the overtime, but can not....as over time policies varies from company to company...

I did'nt see any barrel bombs being dropped, they are getting feed, have water, so the basics are being looked after....or are you suggesting they are not.

I know eyeball, you'd be content with sticking your head in the sand, and forgetting everything that happens in other places in the world.....how did you react when you seen the picture of that little boy.....did it piss you off, or did you just change the channel its not our problem....