Sir Bandelot

Yes I heard about that several years ago. Thats why they've been talking about the pipeline for years, and Haliburton has been very interested in having troops there to protect it. "According to the U.S. Geological Survey and the Afghan Ministry of Mines and Industry, Afghanistan may be possessing up to 36 trillion cubic feet (1,000 km3) of natural gas, 3.6 billion barrels (570,000,000 m3) of petroleum and up to 1,325 million barrels (2.107E+8 m3) of natural gas liquids." Wikipedia "The US government Energy Information fact sheet on Afghanistan dated December 2000 says that.."Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographic position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes proposed multi-billion dollar oil and gas export pipelines through Afghanistan." http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html I think that plays a major factor as to why western countries are so interested in "liberating" Afghanistan.

I am only a protector as far as my ability to protest it in some way, or vote against it. I am only responsible as far as that small part goes. I share that responsibility with milions of other Canadians. If the mission proves to be a failure by our neglect, I accept 1/35,000,000 of the responsibility. The minister of defence has much more power to do something, and much more detailed knowledge about what is going on, information coming from military leaders. And he has the ear of the Prime Minister. Sorry Army Guy, if thats truly the case in Afghanistan. I'm just... sorry

I see you're back for more, eh... that must have hurt

Its an example of the kind of abuse I was alluding to, imagine our troops protecting a pipeline. I doubt anybody signed on for missions like that. It is only an example of the kind of profiteering that threatens to abuse the loyalty of the troops for personal gains. In the US there is Dick Cheney's Haliburton. Canada is no different in the way business works to influence/ manipulate government. Not saying that is the only reason our troops are there now, but that is a constant threat that must be checked when corporations start telling our government what to do. I think neither of us is blaming the Canadian people. If anything has changed it's that Canadians do not believe in the mission. But Canadians should know if our troops are being neglected or under-funded by the government who have no problem helping banks even when there is no crisis. So I am interested in finding out more about this. "was it not you that said it was YOUR responsiablity to ensure that our soldiers are not abused or neglected....This has been reported over and over for the last 20 years, our forces are rusting out....you've read it we all have, each Canadian knows it, and knowing that very fact we have not connected the dots, rusted out military, and combat....we as a nation have sent our troops into combat with rusted out equipment or in some cases without the equipment needed period....so you have failed to protect us from anything....From a soldiers view piont it suggests that the majority does not support them at all...." That is unfortunate because its not true. Yes we all know the military was neglected, but we were not in a prolonged war and citizens who are disconnected from the realities of war expect that the government would know what to do. The ministry of defence should have knowledgeable leadership that makes sure troops are properly equipped. THe fct that they send in troops without the right gear is borderline criminal, but the average Canadian has no clue. They had surplus money why didn't they use it when the war began. I don't know if its my personal responsibiity, other than as a citizen. It's definitely the responsibility of the Minister. All I can do is jump up and down or write letters to the papers, but the government has the power to make decisions and move money around. As a soldier you would know the role of leadership, leaders should be held responsible for failures, not troops. "Your side have been very good at swaying the majority of people who once agreed and supported the mission" I don't belong to a "side". This should not be about sides. That comment makes me think you are just a CPC supporter playing a game here. Although I am anti-war in principle I believe any fight once started is on, and needs to be dealt with great seriousness. That is why I am not easily persuaded to engage in a fight unless there's no option, because I do not believe in fighting by half-measures. I understand how serious it is. The government has all the power in the world to change things, to use the money to buy proper vehicles, flak jackets and equipment. They are making other decisions and thye are not telling us, the Canadaian people whats going on. So I don't understand how you can actually support them. Citizens are kept oblivious of these facts. I scour the news daily and I tell you, we hear nothing about these problems, only some vague headlines calling for more troops. The reason is, because the government knows that would truly outrage Canadians to find out they have done a shit job providing resources to troops, and if Canadians knew that they would get mad and protest it, and force them to end the war. But they don't want that... nor do they fix the problem.

In short Army Guy, it's not the people of Canada who don't care. We simply don't get to hear about it. Even an anti-war person like me is apalled that we would do this sort of thing to our Canadian troops, but I have yet to hear from the pro-government pro-war bobble heads around here to say anything about it. Notice how the self rightous and arrogant CPC yes-men remain tight-lipped, they would rather ignore and cover up this info before they would raise a single objection. Thats why I say, I and others like me are your biggest defender, I hold no allegiance to a party, and I do criticise them. Its the government, whose main interest is not you but making deals and lining the pockets of rich bankers who is betraying you guys.

Further to this comment I would like to know why our government is not providing adequate resources to fund our troops, yet finds it easy to buy out bad loans to shore up banking profits. Anybody? Any of you financial geniuses? The point Oleg made, rings loud and clear

I see a pattern here... republicans, conservatives, neocons, leaving economic destruction in their wake. But somebody must be lining their pockets. Same with Mulroney. It's not business savy- it's a sellout.

Yes true, but now your new president says, "we are fighting the wrong war" in Iraq. Maybe with Obama Canada will finally get the help it needs. Otherwise there's a growing sense we got suckered into accepting this mission as a way to appease George Bush.

If you mean like Gitmo, far be it from me to defend any of those things. Thats not the kind of honourable military we were talking about a few posts up. But I assume they took their orders from Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld when he was in it. I suspect they are not members of the "marshal class", but more in line with oil barons. Cheney has ties to Haliburton, and security companies too I think. They have strong business interests in these wars, for oil and economic dominance of the region. It's nothing new. Canada is in on it too by making similar deals. It's not about freedom. If it was, we'd be fighting wars all over the place, but those other places don't have as much to offer. At least thats my view of it. I don't think what our troops are doing is always bad, they want to help the ordinary people defend themelves from Taliban. Thats their mission... but is that the right way to do it, will it work at all, and how does it end? Sometimes we have good intentions but they clash with the harsh reality of what other people want. Those people have had nothing but war for at least a century, and most of it came from western countries who want to lay claim to their spot for reasons other than freedom and democracy. And they have long memories.

Post deleted, sorry for bad language.

Well this is the point I am alluding to, and thats what I interpret Oleg Bach to have meant also, I think by Marshal Class he means military leaders, not kings or business tychoons. "In many countries, the rank of Marshal is the highest Army rank, outranking other General Officers. Typically the equivalent navy rank is Admiral of the Fleet."

It's not about envy. I have no desire to be a rich man. I think the question is, how much would you do for it, how much are you willing to screw other people over to get rich. I have no such ambition. Envy has nothing to do with it. What I meant was, when rich people help their kids to get into a position of power and influence, they don't have the same amount of experience as Dad or Grandad did, who worked their way up through the system and "learned the ropes". But because they inherited power and always had a life of privilege, many second or third generation rich kids are technically incompetent to be leaders. It's much like the degenerates of aristocracy, the problem of inheritance perpetuates itself in any system.

"If it is such a problem perhaps you can give us some examples of our political leaders licking the hands of big business whom are abusing our military." Come on, you must realize that war opens the opportunity for profiteering. And where there's money to be made comes the greedy ones who abuse their privelidge. Pipeline opens new front in Afghan war SHAWN MCCARTHY From Thursday's Globe and Mail 19/06/08 OTTAWA — Afghanistan and three of its neighbouring countries have agreed to build a $7.6-billion (U.S.) pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to energy-starved Pakistan and India – a project running right through the volatile Kandahar province – raising questions about what role Canadian Forces may play in defending the project. ...security issues remain daunting and the Canadian military could - wittingly or not - become embroiled in a "new great game" over energy security that is playing out in the region. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home "Just so i'm clear, just how well do you think the citizens are doing in protecting them from this abuse of power. Is it having any effect?" Most citizens simply don't know, others couldn't care less. "Most Canadians have made it very clear, they no longer support the Afgan mission, which also has it reaction, polictical leaders take thier cue off this info, Now as a result funding is hard to come by, be it for anything....What most Canadians have forgotten are thier soldiers, whom they had no problems waving goodbye to at the start of the mission, they are still caught in the middle....with no funding for the mission, it makes things extraordinary hard to accomplish on the ground, meaning our soldiers are paying for your actions...not the politions...but our very own soldiers... And when your on the other end of the stick, on the soldiers side, it does not not like support to our troops....your working again'st us...your putting our lifes in danger to make a piont that that accomplishes nothing.... Want to support us, want to hold our political masters accountable then finish what you started..." Somehow I think most Canadians never supported the war in the first place, but were told by Chretien that it was part of our obligations to international treaties to send troops. And the original mission is not the same as the extended and more aggressive mission we have today. I also truly believe, that most Canadians would care TREMENDOUSLY about what you just said, that they would be very angry to find out our troops are at risk because of government neglect. Certainly thats not available to us in any of the mainstream media. But if its true, it really should be! There's a very simple way to finish it. Pull out and let someone else have a turn. Or do what Peter Mackay said we would never do, but is increasingly becoming the only option- negotiate. Third option, which never worked yet, is to get others to contribute their fair share. Maybe President Obama will now help with that by moving in more US troops. He seems to have his priorities straight.

Which bank is hurting? Why should we use any money to increase their profits when they don't seem to give people a break on interest rates. And explain to me where the money comes from, if not ultimately from the taxpayer somehow. I didn't read the article so please tell me. Even if its surplus money used to make investments, how can they find that money to help banks that already make a windfall profit every year, while cities infrastructure is failing, some hospitals are so old they should be torn down, while the number of children living in poverty is still so high. But for the banks the Government can find money? Thats why I don't approve of the idea. http://www.cbc.ca/news/interactives/who-bank-profits/

As long as there's a few of us guys around, it's not a problem. A running man can impregnate many women in a single night...

What do you mean, I "totally" don't understand. Your post says this- "now that foreign banks are being backed by their governments Canadian Banks are at a huge disadvantage competitively without federal help" How is that "totally" different from what I just said, that our banks want the same deal as whats happening elsewhere.

That is my suspicion exactly as to why we are now doing this- Since other countries are jumping in, giving tax money to the banks to keep them in the black, our Canadian banks want their "cut" now too. So much for "fiscal responibility", working hard to keep the national debt down by collecting large amounts of tax from the Canadian people, to help keep our economy healthy. Those countries that are less responsible have to bail out the banks with the peoples money. In the end, Canada still has to do the same.

One thing I read recently that concerns me, could be related to this- the amount of pharmaceuticals appearing in our drinking water. Whenever you take pills, including birth control hormones as someone mentioned earlier, those chemicals are excreted in your urine and make their way into to the water system. Chances are there is always a low-level amount of hormones and drugs in every glass of water you drink, use for cooking and bathing. It's like a chemical cocktail, mixture of a little bit of everything, and this is cannot be easily filtered out. No one knows what long-term effect this will have on human populations. Animals would be affected as well.

That is an interesting point of view. A bunch of rich peoples kids are running the country- the problem of inheritance.

So you don't like my use of the word "we". It's a generalisation and I'm sure there's some who still know what remembrance day is. I believe it should not be used as an opportunity to promote militarism, or for recruiting young people into the forces. That is not the point of it, but it is being used that way in some instances. You are wrong to claim I don't have a clue "wrt the Geneva conventions". I certainly have some clue. I know it includes the protection of civilians and prisoners of war, that they should be treated humanely and not be publicly humiliated. These laws were accepted after the world wars, and people who break them should be charged with war crimes. Yet the reality is that while our countries have broken these laws, its only the weaker country who gets charged. so therefore its not really a law at all.

He did say some bullying things to me in the first place, if you read his post. They were unprovoked. He tried to stop me from expressing myself, and he seems to enjoy doing that often, so thats why I called him a bully. But even if I take a shot at somebody, thats not my main interest. I try to make comments relevant to the discussion. My main reason for debating is not to make people look stupid, but to share what I know and learn from others. Like if young people come here, and say things that are wrong, I wouldn't jump on them and ridicule them. I have more patience than that. Because, I was and perhaps still am naive in ways, amd I would not want that done to me. And those people would only stop coming back to the discussion. Better to teach them, through reasonable arguments. but I am a parent and a coach and a leader, and I know how to get people to do things. Outright name calling is pointless and, quite boring. I do not call that "winning" anything. I have other more competitive interests that satisfy me when I feel the need to win.

It is the smart thing to do.

No, because it doesn't interest me to engage in all out sniping attacks, especially when there is no relevant point to any debate. Let someone else do that

I have no comment to you.

Nope not at all. That is what I meant by saying that, unlike some who possibly are. Do you have anything important to add, or are you just working on increasing your post count, with useless comments like that. Who are you trying to impress