Dutch01

While that sounds good in theory, it's what got us into this mess in the first place. The USA was so eager to arm Syrians against Assad, they ended up arming the people who became ISIS! You are right about one thing though, It has to be people from the region that put boots on the ground if there is a ground assault. It has to be Muslim nations. Infidels marching on the caliphate is exactly what Islamic State wants.

Chris, I've been following this issue very closely and to my knowledge the Liberal party has not previously released a settlement plan, so it's a bit disingenuous to say they changed it to exclude single males. Their plan is being released publicly tomorrow for the first time. There are three different agencies vetting these refugees (UN, RCMP, and CSIS), so while it's always possible someone could slip through, I think we are not leaving due diligence behind as we move forward.

Sorry dude, Rand is a wacko too. EDIT: to clarify, I believe you have to be the Republican kind of wacko to want to be part of that party. The only one worthy of consideration, and he'll never win because of it, is Bernie Sanders.

Now you've done it, I'm going to have to go out for a shawarma! So delicious ?

One thing I'd like to add.... Several members spoke earlier about not shirking our international obligations. I think it's important to note, this IS an international obligation. It's not as though "Canada" was sitting around and said "hey I think we should take in refugees" out if the blue. The UN refugee response team formulated a plan to get these people out of UN camps, because they can't live there forever. They came up with what I would call modest targets for a bunch of member nations, and then asked us to assist themv with their plan. We said no to bombing, and as far as I know, the bombing is not UN sanctioned. I'm a little fuzzy on that point I admit I could be wrong. However, refugee settlement is sanctioned and we said yes to our international partners. I'm not always pro UN, it's a flawed governing body at best. But we are either in, or out. Right now we're in, so this is the right thing to do in my opinion.

If it were 1.2B "down the hole" I might be inclined to agree with you. The expectation is that enough of these refugees will become contributors to the tax base and that figure will be greatly reduced over time. Remember, many of these refugees have skills and can contribute. It isn't like bringing people from the desert of Somalia. Damascus was a city of 1.7M before the coalition and Assad levelled it. A city that big has doctors, lawyers, electricians, butchers etc. As mentioned earlier, it was an election promise so I'm not going to fault Trudeau for following through. It's my hope that we'll look back and feel like we did the right thing.

Fyi: NOVEMBER 21-28th, 2015. PRE-HOLIDAY STOREWIDE TAX-FREE* EVENT! A Canadian-Owned FISHING-CAMPING-HUNTING Marketplace! Celebrating our 55th Anniversary! TONS OF GREAT IN-STORE SPECIALS! The Le Baron Team Quality Merchandise - Dependable Service - Best Price *Le Baron will pay the equivalent of the taxes (Ontario HST, Quebec GST & PST) *EXCEPTIONS: ITEMS ON SPECIAL, AMMUNITION & AMMO COMPONENTS AND CANADA GOOSE APPAREL. NO FURTHER DISCOUNTS WILL APPLY. VALID ON IN-STOCK MERCHANDISE ONLY. VALID IN STORES ONLY - NOVEMBER 21-28th, 2015.

That's not a chainsaw, THIS is a chainsaw! (They always seem to go a little overboard down under, don't they)

Cliff, I would imagine it costs more than 10 times that for each bomb we drop. If we're counting pennies we ought to start there. I'm okay with a Canada that spends money to resettle legitimate refugees. These refugees are not fleeing poverty, they're fleeing war. Before the civil war Damascus was a thriving city of 1.7m people. They have skills and I believe they will contribute and become a part of our society.

Remember how I said I read a variety of sources? I clicked your link and it said I've already read my "ten free articles for the month"! So I can't check your link until I get to a computer, but I will. EDIT: found a workaround, and was pleased to see this: "RCMP Commissioner Paulson, whose agency will conduct database checks on all refugees, said that all necessary security work can be quickly accomplished. Yes, he answered in a direct question on the governments ability to meet its deadline. We will play a role in making the security checks and confirm peoples identity. In my view, the system is satisfactory. Added Mr. Coulombe, the director of CSIS: I am confident that the measures in place are robust and appropriate. This should put some fears to rest I would think, but perhaps I am being naive.

There have been several mentions of the Nazis in this thread. Many ordinary Germans were manipulated by propaganda to support the atrocities done to Jews. (In fairness to Germans there were many resisters too). Right now we have a new Nazi to fear (Trump) who has just advocated a policy of registering all Muslims. Sound familiar? Bush once said you're with us, or the terrorists. This is known as a logical fallacy (because we are not limited to only A or B.). Using the same failed logic, I can claim "you're either with freedom, or with the Nazis who want to register all Muslims." The shoe is on the other foot, now the republicans have become the fascists they claim to hate.

This just in, it is the stated goal of all Christians to put all gay people to death: Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. ------------------- This is what it looks like when you lie and distort.

This just isn't true. There are over one million Muslims in Canada according to Statistics Canada's 2011 National household survey. These are Canadian Citizens with the exact same rights as you. They are as Canadian as you. This is a country governed by the rule of law, meaning until and unless they break the law, they are innocent.

I acknowledge that "only a portion" of those 210,000 deaths were caused by the coalition, and we'll never know exactly how many. But I do know it is exponentially more deaths than they have caused in our country.

The irony is delicious. We have killed 210,000 Syrians, half of whom were civilians and therefore NOT part of IS BUT you want "THEM" them to stop fighting and co-exist with US? (Nevermind the fact they are victims of both IS and "the coalition", and are NOT actually trying to kill us AT ALL). Can you not see the irony?

Directly? No. I don't know any Canadians currently deployed in Syria. Neither do you though, since there are no Canadian Forces members in Syria. I knew a guy who drove a supply truck in Afghanistan as a part of the Reserves. He said it was a sh!t show and no one knew what the hell was going on. For him it was a paycheque when he signed up. He retired from the Reserves as soon as he got back. He said he wouldn't fight any more "bankers wars".

Again, that's not really relevant. I identify as neither left, nor right. I read many news sources and time permitting I look up who owns the source. I try to spend as much time learning about them and their agenda as I devote to their writing. I noticed you have no comment on the source of your article though. That says a lot. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Cram has already explained why your analogy falls flat. I'm not going to go back over old ground.

I recommend you check your sources. You're reading a known Republican propaganda piece. It is owned by Richard Mellon Scaif, a billionaire 1% whose family dynasty includes banks and oil companies. He is known to fund Republican candidates, but I'm sure he does that out of the good of his heart because I doubt he wants anything in return for his money. Rich people are generous like that. He's also a really crappy human being based on the details that became public during his divorce hearings. I say this sincerely with no intent to insult: have you given any thought to where you get your news and what their agenda might be?

This isn't relevant, it's just more fear mongering. We already know terrorists are bad guys. You're not telling us anything new. You're also trying to conflate terrorists with innocent Syrian people who are actually victims of IS. They are not the same.

"The death toll after nearly four years of civil war in Syria has risen to 210,060, nearly half of them civilians, but the real figure is probably much higher, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Saturday.Feb 7, 2015" Source: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0LB0DY20150207 As part of the coalition, that blood is on our hands too. How many Canadians have been killed by attacks actually planned and financed by IS? Who should fear who here?

So we should let fear rule the day and close our borders? That doesn't sound like the Canada our veterans fought for. That sounds like a Canada where IS won because we traded our liberty for the illusion of security because we couldn't control our fear.

You keep alluding to heads in the sand, and it tells me you're too busy formulating your "comeback" to even read what is being written. I haven't seen one single post in this whole thread that advocates doing nothing.

I actually read the article you are referring to. I'm not sure they are any more successful than anyone else though. They sent some of these units to Mali last year or the year before. Today gunman took a hotel in Mali by storm and there is an ongoing battle with rescue forces right now. So I think it's fair to say they haven't yet accomplished their objectives. I also think the U.S. sends everyone and everything because it makes their backers (like Blackwater and Halliburton or whoever is pulling the strings today) more money.

I know you didn't that's why I added my disclaimer. You say that ignoring another attack would not do a thing and that's a valid opinion. Do you think dropping more bombs than we have already in the last two years will do a thing? I do. I think it will just create more hatred and lead to more attacks. That's just my opinion, no one knows the future.