betsy

What RECENT RE-DEPLOYMENT are you talking about? According to this news report this is current....the very same mission launched by the Liberals. "New Democrats are also demanding a full parliamentary debate and vote on Canada's military deployment, which has nine months remaining on its current mandate." http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060306/ca...ghan_cda_debate You seem to know more about this, so please enlighten me.

GerryHatrick, read this. "The Abu Ghraib story began, in a sense, just weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks, with the American bombing of Afghanistan. Almost from the start, the Administration’s search for Al Qaeda members in the war zone, and its worldwide search for terrorists, came up against major command-and-control problems. For example, combat forces that had Al Qaeda targets in sight had to obtain legal clearance before firing on them. On October 7th, the night the bombing began, an unmanned Predator aircraft tracked an automobile convoy that, American intelligence believed, contained Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader. A lawyer on duty at the United States Central Command headquarters, in Tampa, Florida, refused to authorize a strike. By the time an attack was approved, the target was out of reach. Rumsfeld was apoplectic over what he saw as a self-defeating hesitation to attack that was due to political correctness. One officer described him to me that fall as “kicking a lot of glass and breaking doors.” In November, the Washington Post reported that, as many as ten times since early October, Air Force pilots believed they’d had senior Al Qaeda and Taliban members in their sights but had been unable to act in time because of legalistic hurdles. There were similar problems throughout the world, as American Special Forces units seeking to move quickly against suspected terrorist cells were compelled to get prior approval from local American ambassadors and brief their superiors in the chain of command. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact ------- In the other topic you've mentioned about the importance of making sure conditions that drive soldiers to lunacy do not exist. Frustration is one very driving condition. Especially when your troops are being killed and dying...and your own people "tie your own hands" so you cannot retaliate or do your tactics in normal war-time fashion. That frustration will be vented out to someone, somewhere, somehow. As you said, there's a lunatic in everyone. And we're talking of survival. Of course it is almost impossible to envision what you want to eliminate...for how can you monitor and make sure every soldier do not break any rules. It's bad anough to monitor bad employee habits in a contained environment such as a workplace...what more with soldiers out on a mission, on their own? But there's one thing you can do though. One thing that you should advocate is for civilians to butt out of military tactics and warfare. Political correctness do not have any place in war...unless if one does not consider that war a serious matter (and soldiers are nothing more than expendible props) to politicize matters at home.

So GerryHatrick, answer the questions. "Canadians Made Ready for Afghanistan Death Toll - Chris Cook*, PEJ News, September 15, 2005 - The nature of the Afghanistan mission has transformed somewhat in the past few months, as has the nature of Canada's military. No longer focussed primarily on "peacekeeping," Canada's forces are being restructured to more resemble the American model." Since Sep 2005, it had been noted the way our military was being re-structured to model the Americans. Have you or have you not voiced out your fear on this forum that this may include torture? Have you demanded of Martin what you demand of Harper now? It's hard to imagine that in the course of 6 short months, your concern over our country's and military's reputation and shame, had suddenly engulfed you in such dramatic proportions. Of course I try not to think that your topic now (two similar ones ,as a matter of fact) is not due to partisanship.....and that you're not using the situation of our troops as an excuse to find faults with our PM. But the facts seem to point that way. So who's practicing partisan nitwittery then? At the expense of our military? Unless of course you've demonstrated such same zeal in the past 6 months or so.

Canada's Military Involvement in Afghanistan: Why Aren't We Having a National Debate? - Paul Weinberg*, GlobalResearch.ca, August 31, 2005 - In a season of extreme heat and parliamentary vacations, there's barely a murmur among the political classes about Canadian soldiers hooking up with a failed American-led coalition of counter-insurgents in the volatile Kandahar region of southwest Afghanistan. But those closely following on-the-ground developments in Afghanistan are astonished that Canadians have sent their military into a stepped-up mission the aims of which have not been debated. They also worry that our military doesn't truly understand the nature of the conflagration. ------------------- So why was there no demand for a debate? Why suddenly now? From Jack...hello? The Liberals....yoo-hoo? Seems hypocritical. And you wonder why I call them "opportunistic". And why I say Pseudo-Humanitarian Posturing!

GerryHatrick, read this! "Canadians Made Ready for Afghanistan Death Toll - Chris Cook*, PEJ News, September 15, 2005 - The nature of the Afghanistan mission has transformed somewhat in the past few months, as has the nature of Canada's military. No longer focussed primarily on "peacekeeping," Canada's forces are being restructured to more resemble the American model. Graham recently ordered Canadians out of the north of Afghanistan, where they've operated out of Camp Julien for several years, patrolling the streets and near environs of the capital, Kabul. The bulk of the Canadian contingent, one of more than a dozen international military forces in the country, is to be redeployed to the more volatile south and west of the country." http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/D35151.htm Check the date. Since it said that our military was being "restructured to more resemble the American model"....did you ever write a topic during that time voicing out your fear that "resembling the American model" may have included methods of torture? If I remember correctly, Martin was still in power during that time. Did you ever voice out on this forum demanding from Martin the very same thing you're demanding from Harper now?

Here's where that "Bill Graham pre-body-bag-speaking tour" quote came from: "Military insiders, report Mike Blanchfield and David Pugliese of CanWest News Service, refer to Mr. Graham's travel plans as a "pre-body-bag speaking tour." Though, Mr. Graham would certainly disagree: Nobody calls them "body-bags" anymore; the au courant term in the United States is "Transit Tube." And, Mr. Graham wants nothing more than the complete integration of Canadian and American military terminology, and more." http://www.cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/D35151.htm The way I understand it, the quote came from military insiders...

Stephen Harper's photo-op seems to fit that description. http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/stign...CPCPhoto-op.jpg Or the Liberals going from supporting the troops to calling for debate because Harper has an agenda! The same agenda as the Liberals had... how odd eh? Then of course we have Jack, who's always opportunitistic, that wants us out of Afghanistan because there are Americans there. We can't work with the Americans, its bad. Sorry Jack, your auto workers would be out of a job without the Americans, I'd get used to working with them in a hurry. Well, that's what betsy was saying wasn't it? I was just stating that it's not just the opposition leaders who are playing politics with the troops. I don't remember the supporters of the Prime Minister's trip giving credit to our minister of defence, Bill Graham when he made the same trip in October. Actually, one right-wing statement I saw called it "Bill Graham's pre-body bag tour." Nice try. Harper was there to rally the troops...and God knows they need to have some moral support since it seems some politicians we know (along with their like-minded supporters/media) are beginning undermine the importance of their mission. Why do we need to give further credit to Bill Graham? Bear in mind that it was the Liberals who made the commitment to have the troops in Afghanistan...they already have that credit! Harper is just seriously fulfilling that commitment. As for that quote "Bill Graham's pre-body bag tour", that comment sounds very left-winger. Must have come from someone awfully opposed to Afghanistan. Ask the NDP.

Well then, we have a problem at the moment. Harper or his MOD need to step up and make a public comment about the policy. Why does it have to be a public comment?

You mean, up to the opportunistic party leaders who are already getting ready for the next election? You engage in your partisan nitwittery. I'll watch out for Canada and her troops. So, you fall back to the same familiar method of rebuttal.......personal attack!

You mean, up to the opportunistic party leaders who are already getting ready for the next election?

So how do you propose "making sure the wrong conditions don't have a chance to exist?" Withdraw from Afghanistan?

BTW, according to Webster: Admonish - to caution against specific faults. (i.e. torturing?), to inform or remind.

What you on about??? Considering Gerry here is suggesting our soldiers may not survive the horror of warfare...that our men are so likely to crack up under extreme pressure....and that our military officers have not learned anything at all from that torture incident involving our own men!

No, I want our PM to show leadership and clearly state our policy in the matter. Given the recent (ongoing) revelations regarding our allies the USA, this would be a welcome move. It has nothing to do with adminishing anyone. Unbelievably, you present ANOTHER false argument in the same breath as you deny them! Do you even realize what one is? The PM is showing true leadership by refusing to be boxed in a corner just to satisfy petty demands ...reserving the right to make a decision depending on circumstances as they arise!

No, you want to pretend that atrocities such as this will never happen if a nation's leader "vocalize" it. Your argument eventually ends up wanting us to continue insulting the US...certainly undiplomatic, especially when you consider that our troops will be fighting side-by-side with them! When our troops are edgy from facing possible torture and deaths from the TRUE ENEMIES...you want them to also feel edgy and uncomfortable alongside their comrade-in-arms because of sheer politics...and the fact that you want Canda to rub the US's nose on that unfortunate torture incident. That's why it's just pure baloney...and I call this "PSEUDO-Humanitarian POSTURING!

With that well-publicized torture incident, you think our own military is not aware and doing anything to prevent that kind of shame happening to our men? Especially when our own military have been put on the spotlight for the same type of atrocity not too long ago? Is our military led by a bunch of incompetents???

I didn't say they might not have. Why do you keep setting up false arguments? Again, false argument. Go into a room by yourself someplace betsy if that's all your're going to engage in. No it's not false argument! You want the PM to jump the gun and PUBLICLY admonish and warn off our troops that they better follow the law regarding prisoners of war.... ...like as if our soldiers (whose experiences as reknowned PEACEKEEPERS) have not been trained well enough to include that important part!

A couple of days ago on CTV newsnet, I had seen a scrum with the soldier that was injured when a bomb exploded. I think his name was Pte Salikin. A lot of questions from the journalists seemed to want to hear him question the military presence in Afghanistan. The questions were repeatedly asked in various ways...baiting...fishing for anything he might say against their deployment. This soldier repeatedly conveyed the message that he finds the mission important. Finally, one reporter asked what he would like as a show of support. He answered along this context: No more negatives. Say positive things! I can't blame Harper for shutting down communication. The situation in Afghanistan is being politicized...by the other political leaders and some supporting media.

So yes, it will hurt! See post #39 for the reason why. Your demand for public vocalization is nothing more than a petty demand to satisfy yourself....placing your own petty satisfaction just for the sake of "knowing" that the PM did PUBLICLY castigate...and WARNED OFF...show lack of confidence and pride in all our men, assuming they are all possible lunatics....before sending them off to fight in a war! A very touching and sensitive gesture, don't you think?

What makes you think that Harper and key military high-ranking officers have not discussed the prevention of any of this atrocities? Our men have not dealt in a real combat situation since the war in Korea (at least that was what was said at M Duffy talk show). All these years, they've been trained and experienced as PEACEKEEPERS! And they've been so well-respected as such! You think they've not been trained well enough to handle civilians???? Why are you assuming that they are not well-trained? That they could easily lose it while they're there (ala-Lord of the Flies)...and what, indulge in torture sprees? Your demand of Harper smacks of doubting the capability and capacity of our own troops! It shows lack of trust and confidence in our men! Our troops are not some juvenile teeners that Harper ought to warn and remind about rules of engagement...and the dire consequences should they not behave themselves. If there be any warnings and remindings to be done, it should be through their immediate ranking leaders!

Congratulations in winning your own straw man argument. You have no proof that all who have been tortured in Abu Garaib (or anywhere else) were terrorists. Often they were completely innocent...just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or they were thieves. This is supported by US intelligence testimony. Those who claimi that all who are tortured are terrorists are only attempting to rationalize it for weak minds. And besides that, nobody here has said "not hurting a terrorist is more important than saving innocent lives". That is a straw man argument you set up. I don't like torture because it's never been shown to work (often produces false or useless information) and it destroys the reputation of your nation and makes your soldiers targets for people who otherwise would not have targetted them. Who was our sitting PM when a handful of our own soldiers tortured a boy in Africa, not because he was a suspected terrorist...but for being caught sneaking in and stealing from the base? I think it was Chretien. Did you demand from this same PM, (and the next PM Martin), to assume that this atrocious behaviour is very common among our troops that they must castigate the whole military and warn them against any future atocities such as this before being deployed as peacekeepers?

Congratulations in winning your own straw man argument. You have no proof that all who have been tortured in Abu Garaib (or anywhere else) were terrorists. Often they were completely innocent...just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or they were thieves. This is supported by US intelligence testimony. Those who claimi that all who are tortured are terrorists are only attempting to rationalize it for weak minds. And besides that, nobody here has said "not hurting a terrorist is more important than saving innocent lives". That is a straw man argument you set up. I don't like torture because it's never been shown to work (often produces false or useless information) and it destroys the reputation of your nation and makes your soldiers targets for people who otherwise would not have targetted them. Excuse me, but how many US troops were actually involved in this infamous torture incident?

The USA thought it was a "given" too. See? What more can I say? It's plain as day!

One more thing betsy.....demanding that the policy on detainees is vocalized by our leadership IS supporting our troops. You talk about "damaging our soldiers morale" but obviously haven't considered the damage that the torture pictures did to the morale of the US forces. And then to have thier civilian leadership blame them for a policy of "softening" that they asked for. Not exactly a morale booster. And all for nothing, since testimony indicates no real useful information ever came out of all that "softening". The only result was a tripling of enemies and a loss of respect worldwide. I would also like to hear that our troops who are required to guard detainees have suitable training. I find your complaining above to be "fluff" and pseudo-something. Certainly not logical or thought-out at all. It's just more partisan nonsense. I don't think the torture incidents damaged the morale of the US troops, if indeed there is damage. More so it is the divided position of the US...with every celebrities, partisans and anyone anti-Bush vocally voicing out their criticism of that war! So some soldiers did something awful. Some of our soldiers did too, remember the torture of that African boy? How can you really spot out the rotten apples in your troop? The psycohological impact of warfare? Every country have had their own share of having some of their troops do atrocious things....it's ugly, but it's the real face of war! Let's not go painting all soldiers with the same brush. Well I called it fluffy pseudo-humanitarian posturing...because that's just what it is. Actually your suggestion to insult an ally in the guise of humanitarian concern is nothing more than just another anti-US whipping.

Why should everything be spelled out for everyone to know??? Especially when it comes to war?? What "guarantees" that there won't be any tortures do you need to hear? A promise? A swear on boyscout's honor? If given, will you then go back peacefully to pretend that this kind of reality does not exist anymore? I want to hear Stephen Harper tell Canadians that detainees will be treated humanely (according to the convention we're a signatory to) and never turned over force without assurances (prefereably written) that they will be treated in the same manner by them. I sense that many here are either unaware of the profound damage Abu Garaib has done to the USA or they're just cavalier about it....dwelling in a "it can't happen to us" mentality. I realize anything can still happen, but hearing our PM speak publically about it would stamp the idea on every citizen and soldier and help protect against the worst case scenario. If it even came out that our forces had turned over detainees who were mistreated by the Americans then you can kiss any goodwill they've earned goodbye and start digging 5 times as many 6 foot deep holes. Beyond all that, maybe you can explain your opposition to me? What possible reason do you have to be against Harper clarifying our policy on this issue? Do you think making this information public would be a threat to the operation? Why does Harper need to "vocalized" something that is already a given? Isn't there already an international law about treating prisoners of war humanely??? Why does Harper have to demand something written from an ally (which I presume you mean the USA), before turning over detainees to them? Do you understand what that written demand signify?? Kiss what "goodwill" goodbye? Whose "goodwill?" You mean the terrorists? The Taliban? So you want that on one hand while our soldiers go fighting in this war, we alienate an ally through insults and demands of guarantee (that seem to protect the enemy)....and protect our own hide since we do not want to really offend the enemies or we will, as you said, start digging 5 times as many 6 deep holes. Whose side are we really on then??? What did we send troops there for if we'll quibble and pussyfoot around? The international community involved in this operation must show solidarity! Besides, once we've turned over detainess to somebody...we've relinquished responsibility. If there be any criminal mistreatments, let whoever actually did it face the music.