Cut and run jack

[Wilber]

Canada put an army of 600,000 into Europe in WWI (all volunteers) with a population of 7 million. In WWII it was over a million (almost all volunteers) with a population of around 13 million. If what you say is true it doesn't say much for the country Canada has become.

There were conscripts in both wars. Thus the argument I'm having with some others about Borden in another thread.

True but I don't believe any conscripts served overseas in WWI (to placate Quebec) and only around 2500 ever reached operational units late in WWII with less than 70 killed in action.

[Argus]

Harper shouldn't have gone ahead and committed the troops to this mission until we had looked at the pros and cons of doing so. I think this is our Iraq, we went into a war that we can't win because we don't have the people power to maintain the same length of time that is needed. Just look at the US in Iraq, they've been there for 4 years and have loss close to 3000 soldiers and maimed 20,000 for life! So what have we got over there between 2000-2700 over there, by 2.5 years we won't have anyone surviving unless Harper brings in the "draft", which I don't think he will until after an election. So, are we suppose stay there until we loose all the troops? We also, don't know who is friend and whose foe. I read that Pakistan and Saudis, supports the terrorists and supply them with money. Also, like Bush, Harper has no exit for this war.

Casualties to date have been minimal. As has already been pointed out, we had a million people in WW2 with half the population we now have. We've lost what, two dozen to accidents and combat over five years? That's a long weekends traffic accidents in some parts of the country. We lost more people in the Cyrprus peacekeeping mission. We lost 67,000 dead in ww1 with a population base about 1/5th what it is today.

This seems to be the video and instant gratification generation. People expect an entire nation to be rebuilt from the ground up overnight. And when that doesn't happen they want to call it a day and move on to something new and interesting, and perhaps easier. Darfur anyone?

Layton wanted us to go into Darfur. Did he not realize that would involve combat? Or did he think that it was all right to kill in defence of Black Africans but not in defence of a concept of democracy and human rights for women? There are about 17 of our allies there, and we have commited to the mission for the next two years. Layton's answer: abandon them, break our commitments, and run. Not because we're afraid of the Tablian, but because, gosh darn it, engaging in combat is just too militaristic for the saintly, noble, holy order of canadian eunuchs. Hey, if we can't negotiate then it's time to run! The hell with whoever we were supposed to be protecting. The hell with the mission. Violence is just too gauche for us! We're the beautiful people! And khaki just isn't fashionable!

[Canuck E Stan]

Layton is all about image and posturing without reason or substance.

I think the truth about Jack Layton will come out later this fall when the test results come in. Fall test results

Layton's blood samples will be sent to two independent laboratories for analysis, and results of all of the politicians' blood tests will be available in the fall.

Maybe,like in the Olympics if he fails the tests they'll take his leadership away from him.

Who can forget Jack and his endorsement a few years ago“wonderful substance.”

One has to wonder if Jack's thinking is result of something beyond his control. Stay tuned.

[jdobbin]

It appears you haven't been paying attention to the latest events in Khandar and the various villages and patrol bases in the surrounding areas of operation. Local village chiefs have been feeding the coalition forces intel on who and where the taliban and more particularly the 'foreign' type insurgents are hiding and operating. Why you might ask. It may seem to you that violence has escalated; did it occur to you the reason violence escalates only during the spring/summer months and has done since 2002. No? Have you noticed a lessening of the violence around the villages and patrol bases lately? Do mountains and snow ring a bell?

Probably not. Any successes of our troopers and the coalition forces would not be welcome news; hmmm?

That news may make Harper's/Canada's commitment to 2009 appear less repugnant to the voting public. Couldn't have that, could we?

This was all addressed in a link in this thread from the former chief of staff for Defence if you care to look. There has not been a lessening of violence near patrol bases. Or haven't you noticed?

This British soldier was killed today defending his base.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5306892.stm

And the Danish pulled out of their base because they were being attacked every day. A more heavily fortfied British contingent replaced them.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_n...06090111713.xml

Meanwhile, the President of Afghanistan's brother is being accused of involvement in the drug trade.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/internatio...,434523,00.html

Harper doesn't have till 2009 to prove the security situation is improving. It is going to have to happen a lot sooner because the election is coming and Canadians have been indicating they don't know what is happening over there.

[jdobbin]

Casualties to date have been minimal. As has already been pointed out, we had a million people in WW2 with half the population we now have. We've lost what, two dozen to accidents and combat over five years? That's a long weekends traffic accidents in some parts of the country. We lost more people in the Cyrprus peacekeeping mission. We lost 67,000 dead in ww1 with a population base about 1/5th what it is today.

It isn't just the casualties. It is the lack of faith in the ability of Afghanistan to ever be able to stand up for itself.

It doesn't help that the Afghan President's family might be involved in the drug trade.

[B. Max]

Yeah and we know the type. Anti American, anti Israel.

http://www.westernstandard.ca/liberal/liberal.html

As much as I despise all Liberals in Canada, I find The Western Stardard to be even more despicable for hosting such disgusting bigotry on its webserver.

Furthermore, your argumentative style will never be as neurotic as mine. Give up.

Then you must find free speech despicable. That satirical liberal link that the standard has on its web site was first put up by some kids. They were then threatened by some liberal party lawyer who forced them to take it down. When the standard found out about it they hosted it and dared the liberal party to threaten them. To date i believe they have not. Trotting out the liberals favorite word "bigot" where it is not applicable could be a sign of some type of neurosis. Maybe that's whats with liberals, but i always thought it was because they had no argument.

[jbg]

To date i believe they have not. Trotting out the liberals favorite word "bigot" where it is not applicable could be a sign of some type of neurosis. Maybe that's whats with liberals, but i always thought it was because they had no argument.

People who resort to insults rarely have any argument at all.