Canadian troops VS Armchair critics

[Argus]

I do blame you for sinking to depths that you accuse others of.

I'm not sinking to any depths. My judgement regarding your party is entirely honest

Look, the poster children for the LPC were Chretien and Copps. For almost ten years the LPC under them had almost absolute freedom to do anything they wanted; with big budget surpluses and a weak and fractured opposition. What was their vision? What did they want to do? Where did they want to take Canada?

They did nothing. Can you imagine if Harper had ten years with big budget surpluses and absolute power like that? He'd have a long list of things he'd want to get through, reshaping this country's culture, policy and attitude, its judiciary and legal system, its welfare and prison systems, its entire moral code. I don't know how much of it he'd have been able to accomplish but he'd sure have given it a strong shot.

I could say the same for Layton. There's so many things Layton would try to get done, would get done.

The only thing anyone can say about Chretien is he let Martin keep the budget surpluses and pay down the debt. But he didn't do it because he cared about the debt. He did it because he didn't care about anything else. He wanted to be in charge just for the sake of being in charge. And that's the LPC in a nutshell. You guys don't stand for anything. You have no values and no ideas. You want to be in power so you're in power.

He did that by blocking any Parliamentarian from seeing things first hand by saying it was too dangerous and then he and other members of the cabinet showed up to hammer the Opposition from not seeing the progress in the country. Or have you forgotten that?

The opposition people who wanted to go to Afghanistan wanted to use it as a backgrop to denounce the war, which is what they eventually did when they got over there. Small wonder he didn't want them there.

Ultimately, Harper realized that people were not going to support the mission if the government did not communicate for months on the subject and when they did, use it to attack critics. It is why he had to ask a panel to look into the mission? Remember?

The only reason people weren't going to support the mission is because the LPC and the NDP and BQ - but the LPC the most - relentlessly criticised every aspect of the war, from its morality to its usefulness, while bemoaning every casualty with crocodile tears. Your party did everything it could think of to sap public support for the mission.

And you seem to have the standard's of a pimp's charge.

Well, you know, someone once said there was no whore like an old whore, but if I was a whore I'd be over there with you posting on behalf of the LPC.

[Fortunata]

That is what is frustrating soldiers....and yet thier voice is silent , Canadians don't want to here what they have to say, and when the soldier final gets heard, they are discounted as spouting the party line, or they have been ordered to say that....there is a clear majority of Canadians that say they support our troops .....But How can we say we are supporting them but not listening to them.... is that supporting our soldiers.....we should be atleast at the very minimum be listening, and taking that info into account before making a decision should we not....

I disagree that Canadians don't want to hear what they have to say. I think we do but we absolutely want to know what is said is not government talking points, military talking points ... no spin. Just say it like you see it and what you believe it to be.

Our government is letting down, not only the citizens of this country, but the military as well - big time. We don't want muzzling, secrecy or political correctness about this fight from the government. They should be out giving us as much information as possible, raising the awareness and not keeping mum about things such as costs because they don't want to take the heat.

Now, when we need lions, we have scared coyotes as leaders.

[Who's Doing What?]

Can you imagine if Harper had ten years with big budget surpluses and absolute power like that?

I have to imagine it, because he couldn't run a surplus if the Ottawa river started flowing high grade crude oil. lol

[jdobbin]

I'm not sinking to any depths. My judgement regarding your party is entirely honest

So is my opinion of you.

Look, the poster children for the LPC were Chretien and Copps. For almost ten years the LPC under them had almost absolute freedom to do anything they wanted; with big budget surpluses and a weak and fractured opposition. What was their vision? What did they want to do? Where did they want to take Canada?

I think that is obvious. It was a single bloodymindedness on the deficit.

They did nothing. Can you imagine if Harper had ten years with big budget surpluses and absolute power like that? He'd have a long list of things he'd want to get through, reshaping this country's culture, policy and attitude, its judiciary and legal system, its welfare and prison systems, its entire moral code. I don't know how much of it he'd have been able to accomplish but he'd sure have given it a strong shot.

Well, we certainly know that Harper's vision doesn't include keeping spending down. Even before the economy turned, he was draining money out of the coffers despite a promise every budget not to do so.

He certainly can't blame a weak Liberal party that he was able to push around for years for his overspending.

I keep hearing from the right that Harper has no hidden agenda but then complain that he can't do what he really wants in a minority. Make up your mind.

I could say the same for Layton. There's so many things Layton would try to get done, would get done.

And be wrong about. That is reason they never make a break from where they are.

The only thing anyone can say about Chretien is he let Martin keep the budget surpluses and pay down the debt. But he didn't do it because he cared about the debt. He did it because he didn't care about anything else. He wanted to be in charge just for the sake of being in charge. And that's the LPC in a nutshell. You guys don't stand for anything. You have no values and no ideas. You want to be in power so you're in power.

He obviously undercut conservatives of their main issue for years.

The opposition people who wanted to go to Afghanistan wanted to use it as a backgrop to denounce the war, which is what they eventually did when they got over there. Small wonder he didn't want them there.

The main reason the government supported going into Afghanistan was because there were direct links to attacks that killed Canadians.

The only reason people weren't going to support the mission is because the LPC and the NDP and BQ - but the LPC the most - relentlessly criticised every aspect of the war, from its morality to its usefulness, while bemoaning every casualty with crocodile tears. Your party did everything it could think of to sap public support for the mission.

That is the only reason? I think you must be overlooking the sense that our allies had priorities elsewhere and were leaving us at the pointed end of the stick for a time undetermined.

Well, you know, someone once said there was no whore like an old whore, but if I was a whore I'd be over there with you posting on behalf of the LPC.

And you servicing the Tories.

Edited October 2, 2009 by jdobbin

[wyly]

The British Monarchy was an Idea....the US revolutionaires defeated it.

monarchy was not an idea, it's a system of government...the revolutionaires had the idea just like the Taliban, resist the oppressor, freedom of belief...time was on the americans side just as it is for the Taliban...

Spanish Colonialism was an idea...

it was capitalism/imperialism and it lost, the "idea" for the colonized was "freedom" from the invader and now they have it...

European Facsism was an idea...

it was suppressed at tremendous cost, and it is still with us and once again gaining strength in europe...

Spanish Republicanism was an idea

and the spanish now have their liberty/democracy, the "idea" could not be defeated only suppressed temporarily...

The Supremecy of rome was an idea...

captialism/imperialism a change of ruler nothing changed

You aren't saying anything insightful.

how about this for insite....you don't understand the concept of "idea"...

[Argus]

I have to imagine it, because he couldn't run a surplus if the Ottawa river started flowing high grade crude oil. lol

Actually, he was running surpluses until the recession. You weren't around then? Perhaps travelling in Kenya while someone else was here using your passport?

[Argus]

So is my opinion of you

Tsk,tsk. Your anger always causes you to personalize these discussions.

I think that is obvious. It was a single bloodymindedness on the deficit.

Uhm, no. The reason I used ten years instead of thirteen was to give them a break for the first three years when we were still in recession. I'm speaking about after they had the deficit beat and looked upon a broad open field with all sorts of possibilities. They did nothing. Nothing whatever. In his final year Chretien was left frantically searching for something he could use as his "legacy", even to the point of proposing huge building programs in downtown Ottawa.

He certainly can't blame a weak Liberal party that he was able to push around for years for his overspending.

You are being disingenuous. He was, and remains in a shaky minority situation. There are inevitably great limits on what you can and cannot do in such a situation.

I keep hearing from the right that Harper has no hidden agenda but then complain that he can't do what he really wants in a minority. Make up your mind.

I think we all pretty much know what Harper stands for - generally smaller, less intrusive government. He hasn't been able to do much about that, but I wouldn't call it a hidden agenda.

He obviously undercut conservatives of their main issue for years.

That's as may be. But you're talking politics and I'm talking national vision and what your party wanted to do for Canada. Turns out, you had no ideas. All you wanted to do was "undercut" the opposition so you could stay in power. For what? So you could stay in power.

And you have no more vision, no more ideas of accomplishing anything now than you did then.

The main reason the government supported going into Afghanistan was because there were direct links to attacks that killed Canadians.

If you say so. I think Chretien decided it would be politically less dangerous than going into Iraq. He was quite right, too. So again, the decision was not made on the basis of what was best for Canada, or what was moral, or what was right - but what was politically advantageous.

And you servicing the Tories.

Again with your angry personal insults. You really need to relax.

[Topaz]

Actually, he was running surpluses until the recession. You weren't around then? Perhaps travelling in Kenya while someone else was here using your passport?

So can you tell all of us here what happened to those surpluses. Harper knew in the debates, in the last election, that they would be in a deficit. So show us were the money went.

[jdobbin]

Tsk,tsk. Your anger always causes you to personalize these discussions.

Not angry in the least. It just doesn't surprise me that you seem to lose it every time in your own fury and bile.

Uhm, no. The reason I used ten years instead of thirteen was to give them a break for the first three years when we were still in recession. I'm speaking about after they had the deficit beat and looked upon a broad open field with all sorts of possibilities. They did nothing. Nothing whatever. In his final year Chretien was left frantically searching for something he could use as his "legacy", even to the point of proposing huge building programs in downtown Ottawa.

I think Chretien stayed too long. Don't think I've made any bones about that. However, they made spending cuts and keeping the deficit a priority and basically didn't give the right any traction on that important issue.

You are being disingenuous. He was, and remains in a shaky minority situation. There are inevitably great limits on what you can and cannot do in such a situation.

I think you the one being disengenuous. There were cuts the Liberals in spending that the Tories restored that didn't need to happen. Certainly the Liberals weren't pushing for them to come back.

I think we all pretty much know what Harper stands for - generally smaller, less intrusive government. He hasn't been able to do much about that, but I wouldn't call it a hidden agenda.

It is hidden if he won't say what will be cut. This is a huge deficit and while he might blame the Liberals for it, he had better be clear about how it will be ended.

And I think if he argues astromical growth will pull us out, he is probably hoping on a star. Corporate remittances were huge the last number of years because of the bubble.

If we have a minority for a few more years and this is the justification for continued spending, we are going to be in terrible shape and likely into the next cycle downward before we act.

That's as may be. But you're talking politics and I'm talking national vision and what your party wanted to do for Canada. Turns out, you had no ideas. All you wanted to do was "undercut" the opposition so you could stay in power. For what? So you could stay in power.

Think that vision was reduced spending, no more constitutional battles and economic growth.

Canadians needed a break from the Conservative vision that created the Reform party and the Bloc is one fell swoop.

And you have no more vision, no more ideas of accomplishing anything now than you did then.

Guess that remains to be seen.

If you say so. I think Chretien decided it would be politically less dangerous than going into Iraq. He was quite right, too. So again, the decision was not made on the basis of what was best for Canada, or what was moral, or what was right - but what was politically advantageous.

Afghanistan was where the terrorists received support that killed 23 Canadians. I don't know too many people who thought it would be less dangerous. As with Iraq, the feeling was that the days after was going to be the real struggle. However, Canadians at least were able to link our action there to something that had affected us.

Again with your angry personal insults. You really need to relax.

Very relaxed. Just making a casual observation.

Edited October 5, 2009 by jdobbin

[Army Guy]

as much as I dislike the Taliban I have never supported this mission (yes I was happy to see them out of power) unless the Afghans themselves remove the Taliban, it cannot be won by NATO troops no matter what method is used...this isn't a simple civil war for political control this a religious war an "idea"...when you're battling an "idea" only extermination or diplomacy will end it...with the primitive mindset that the Taliban have diplomacy isn't likely to work and we don't have the stomach to ethnically cleanse the Pashtun tribal areas...the Taliban know their own history well and are fully prepared to go the distance because they have no where else to go and we do... in the end they'll win unless the afghan people themselves turn on the Taliban...

Bullshit.....The taliban are just a small group terrorists, who are fighting for thier rights to terror whom ever and when ever the want.....Your making a mountain out of a mole hill, The Taliban idea has already been defeated, the majority of Afghans have already publicly voiced thier opinion on that very topic....As for diplomacy working your right, nobody is going to give them what they want....why should we...

And your wrong about the primitive mindset, don't count them out , they are well aware of thier history and ours....they know that the real battle ground is in the western world....that we will cave in eventually...

To sum up they can be defeated, where we need to strengthen is on the home front....were this conflict is being lost....

supporting troops with touchy feely endearments has nothing to do with winning or losing, it's a job...and it's job that can't be done I don't blame the military for the failure of the mission, the military is only doing what it has been told to do...I blame the politicians for not seeing what they were getting us into, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it...

Who says it can't be done the media....or the troops doing the fighting....pick one....shit you claim you support the troops....which one is it....Canadian military history is full of jobs that can not be done, in fact were pretty good at rewriting history....and this job is just one of them....The new US general has already stated that they where going to copy the Canadian way of doing things....and put this 3 block war theory into practice....with more troops, money, and support it just may work....but then again according to you we should be throwing in the towel and letting the Taliban run all over these people....

We've extended the people of Afghan our gift and offer of help....now are we to retract that and say we're sorry but this is a lost cause....

[Army Guy]

I disagree that Canadians don't want to hear what they have to say. I think we do but we absolutely want to know what is said is not government talking points, military talking points ... no spin. Just say it like you see it and what you believe it to be.

Our government is letting down, not only the citizens of this country, but the military as well - big time. We don't want muzzling, secrecy or political correctness about this fight from the government. They should be out giving us as much information as possible, raising the awareness and not keeping mum about things such as costs because they don't want to take the heat.

Now, when we need lions, we have scared coyotes as leaders

There has not been a ban on what military members can say until just recently, and that ban only covers the future of Canada's involvement after 2011....Members have been cautioned to only speak on thier experiances, and areas of thier expertise , not to spectulate, or talk about anything they are unsure of....So any comments by military pers have not been the party line but thier own opinions....no spin...

They're is some proof in that...

The mission is voluntary....meaning a soldier has to ask to go....If they did not believe in the mission volunteers would be hard to find....

The soldiers vioces are repeating the same thing....over and over....we need the peoples support, ....that we are accomplishing something good....and progress is being made.....we are making a difference....

And i know that it is difficult to separate party line to real soldiers opinions but when soldiers are asked they will speak thier minds....all you have to do is ask....

As for the Canadian people needing as much info as possiable there is more than one source, and if you truely want info it is available...all you do is have to look....Soldiers are growing tired of not being heard....and for most they think you've already made up your minds and can not be conviced other wise....so they are growing silent ....It's one of the major reason i decided to post on this forum....trying to get our voices heard or correcting some of the misinformation that is out here....

But you are correct about our governmnet not doing a good job on passing info down ....

[Oleg Bach]

No "mission" is voluntary if you do not have full understanding of the subtext. The mission for the Americans in Iraq for the most part was "voluntary" - It's like voluteering to jump off a bridge after being told the water is 50 meters deep..but in reality it is two centimeters in depth.

[wyly]

Bullshit.....The taliban are just a small group terrorists, who are fighting for thier rights to terror whom ever and when ever the want.....Your making a mountain out of a mole hill,

no they're militia and their method of attack is no different than NATO forces sending in a missile into the their midst killing all innocent or not...are IEDs different than land mines or missiles? no...

The Taliban idea has already been defeated, the majority of Afghans have already publicly voiced thier opinion on that very topic....As for diplomacy working your right, nobody is going to give them what they want....why should we...

if the majority were that dead set against the Taliban NATO wouldn't need to be there, after all they're just a "small group" according to you..Hamid Karazi the Afghan President has called for negotiations with the Taliban who are we to tell him no, it's his country is it not???

And your wrong about the primitive mindset, don't count them out , they are well aware of thier history and ours....they know that the real battle ground is in the western world....that we will cave in eventually...

they're uneducated bumpkins who couldn't find Canada on the map until we invaded them they had no idea who we were...their history for centuries has been one of resistance that's their nature it's not something their PR department came up with...resist the invader until they go home...

To sum up they can be defeated, where we need to strengthen is on the home front....were this conflict is being lost....

the home front has done nothing to weaken the mission, the mission has failed all by itself the Taliban is as strong as ever...

Who says it can't be done the media....or the troops doing the fighting....pick one....shit you claim you support the troops....which one is it....Canadian military history is full of jobs that can not be done, in fact were pretty good at rewriting history....and this job is just one of them....The new US general has already stated that they where going to copy the Canadian way of doing things....and put this 3 block war theory into practice....with more troops, money, and support it just may work....but then again according to you we should be throwing in the towel and letting the Taliban run all over these people....

history says it can't be done, you can't destroy an idea, particularly a religious one without exterminating the followers...

I never said I supported the troops, I don't want them dead but it's a job they chose and every job comes with risks...I'm all for equipping them properly but that doesn't mean I need to support the mission or actually care if they get killed, any more than they care if I get killed at work tomorrow...

We've extended the people of Afghan our gift and offer of help....now are we to retract that and say we're sorry but this is a lost cause....

that's all touchy feely BS...I read a quote from a Canadian officer(general?) in today's paper who said that if the Afghans want to be rid of the Taliban they need to step up and help...if the afghans don't care why should I...it's a lost cause and money better spent on medicare at home...

[M.Dancer]

...are IEDs different than land mines or missiles? no...

Given that missiles are as different from a land mine as one can get, you comparison is as idiotic as one can get.

[M.Dancer]

the home front has done nothing to weaken the mission, the mission has failed all by itself the Taliban is as strong as ever...

As strong as ever? Woul;d that be as strong as when they were in power?

Something is flawed in your premis.

history says it can't be done, you can't destroy an idea, particularly a religious one without exterminating the followers...

I thought tiy said you were a history maven? You seem to be falling short..

I never said I supported the troops,

I don't think anyone will question you....

[wyly]

Given that missiles are as different from a land mine as one can get, you comparison is as idiotic as one can get.

missiles and land mines don't discriminate on who they kill, anyone with-in the kill zone will do...

[M.Dancer]

missiles and land mines don't discriminate on who they kill, anyone with-in the kill zone will do...

Missiles are aimed by a living breathing being and travel to their target, often with great accuracy. Landmines are set off by whomever steps on one, even by goats.

The two are as different as they get.

[wyly]

As strong as ever? Woul;d that be as strong as when they were in power?

Something is flawed in your premis.

strong is relative...they were never strong while in power, a bunch of illiterate thugs out muscled another bunch of illiterate thugs...they were merely stronger than the others...nothing has changed if NATO wasn't there they be power again likely within a year...

I thought tiy said you were a history maven? You seem to be falling short..

still here, and still right...change can only come from with-in or extermination, "ideas/ideologies" never go away...

[wyly]

Missiles are aimed by a living breathing being and travel to their target, often with great accuracy. Landmines are set off by whomever steps on one, even by goats.

The two are as different as they get.

the effect is identical, indiscriminate death...a missile launched from a drone, an artillery shell, a land mine don't care if there are innocents around and neither do the people who use them...

and IED's are often triggered remotely for the intended target so I would say that makes them as accurate as a missile...

[M.Dancer]

still here, and still right...change can only come from with-in or extermination, "ideas/ideologies" never go away...

You will have to point me to the extermination camps where we denazified Germany.....and Japan...and Italy.

How about the postbellum south? Where are the massed graves of the plantation belles, lined up a exterminated for their idea that darkies were chattel?

Sounds like you need another term at Google U

[DogOnPorch]

the effect is identical, indiscriminate death...a missile launched from a drone, an artillery shell, a land mine don't care if there are innocents around and neither do the people who use them...

and IED's are often triggered remotely for the intended target so I would say that makes them as accurate as a missile...

True...but you still have to remain unseen...a hard thing to do on the modern battlefield.

As seen here...

[Who's Doing What?]

Actually, he was running surpluses until the recession. You weren't around then? Perhaps travelling in Kenya while someone else was here using your passport?

That must be it. I was travelling in Kenya. OFcourse then I had to go to Nigeria to look into that million dollar fortune my distant cousin left me.

Jeez without you around here to mind everyone's affairs just how would we ever get through the day?

[Army Guy]

no they're militia and their method of attack is no different than NATO forces sending in a missile into the their midst killing all innocent or not...are IEDs different than land mines or missiles? no...

Really, NATO, UN, Inter-National courts, Canadain courts ref to the Taliban as terrorist, not militia, soldiers, reseves, or what ever you want to call them....no they have chosen the term terrorist.....As there use of terror tactics is thier primary wpn....

While your at it, look up the defination of Militia, and compare it to Afghan local Taliban organization....

The main difference is the taliban plants IED's to terror not only NATO, but the people of Afghan as well....take a look at the areas in which they are planted the location alone should tell you alot about thier intent.

And while true NATO does not have a stellar proformance in regards to civilians killed in the battle space....atleast they are trying...One could pull up the latest stats and you'll find the taliban kill 10 to 20 times more civilians than NATO....

if the majority were that dead set against the Taliban NATO wouldn't need to be there, after all they're just a "small group" according to you..Hamid Karazi the Afghan President has called for negotiations with the Taliban who are we to tell him no, it's his country is it not???

You have no idea what, is like to live with terror, or the power it has over the people....people who every minute of thier lives is spent just surviving....and they are a small group when compared to the entire Afghan population ....

Do you have proof that he was told not to negotiate....or is that something the media split for you to lap up.....

President Karazi runs the nation, NATO are his guests, NATO does not wag the dog....

they're uneducated bumpkins who couldn't find Canada on the map until we invaded them they had no idea who we were...their history for centuries has been one of resistance that's their nature it's not something their PR department came up with...resist the invader until they go home...

Who told you that....give us a source that will back that up, something like saying all black men have big dicks.....it's myth.....one that you've told so many times that you believe it....

Shit right outside the gates of Kanadar there is an intra net caffee, might have 50 to 60 laptops in it , and it's packed all day and all night....so they have access to the same intra net as you and me....or did you think there was one for bumpkins and one for the west....

once again your really showing your lack of knowledge on this subj....Yes thier history is full of war, infact the last 30 years has been steady war....the people themselfs want peace...i know hard to believe....and while that may be Taliban party line to resist the invader.....NATO is a guest, ask to stay on by the elected government....

the home front has done nothing to weaken the mission, the mission has failed all by itself the Taliban is as strong as ever...

Bullshit....one can not have a majority at home again'st the mission and sit there and tell me it does not effect the mission in any way....now i know you know nothing about this topic....as for the Taliban growing stronger....more bullshit brought on by the media or some gen trying to get more troops over there so we can finsih the job....the media split it you lap it up and pronouce it as gosple.....check out the body counts the TALIBAN can not sustain this kind of damage without feeling it....they might be alot busier planting IED's or attacking some police station....but they are not gaining ground....they are not controling the country side NATO is....last time i checked NATO owned the air, the roads, the night....in 3 tours i've yet to see a bunch of armed Taliban cruiseing the roads in a pick up of armoured veh....or flying any fast air....

history says it can't be done, you can't destroy an idea, particularly a religious one without exterminating the followers...

Bullshit, your not very good at this history stuff are you.....What do you call NAZISM if not an idea , what about the japanese culture prior to WW II , historians have claimed it was a religious based group, with the empour being compared to god himself....both where defeated soundly....and yet there is still Germans and Japanese cultures here today doing quite well i might say....Shit the entire crusades where based on religion and yet how did the christians make out .....

I never said I supported the troops, I don't want them dead but it's a job they chose and every job comes with risks...I'm all for equipping them properly but that doesn't mean I need to support the mission or actually care if they get killed, any more than they care if I get killed at work tomorrow...

It's not a job but a way of life...and your safety is our primary concern...along with protecting your rights and freedoms so you can go to work tommorow....i'm just guessing but your job did not require you to sign an unlimited liabilty contract did it....not unless your job is with the police dept, fire dept, or military is it...

that's all touchy feely BS...I read a quote from a Canadian officer(general?) in today's paper who said that if the Afghans want to be rid of the Taliban they need to step up and help...if the afghans don't care why should I...it's a lost cause and money better spent on medicare at home...

Yes they do in some cases need to step it up, but for the most part they are doing what needs to be done, and with our assistance they'll get it done....i guess you don't know what our freedoms and rights have cost us....and how important they are to our everyday life today....Some Canadians have fogotten that, freedom has a price....and what a huge gift it is to have it....or better yet have the ability to offer it to someone else...

Edited October 6, 2009 by Army Guy