Our Military

[betsy]

The Liberals' selling out of our military, of all people....really gives the impression what kind of government this is. It's almost like the typical sleaze bag they portray in the movies....the kind who will sell his own mother just for self-gain.

The military's image took a blow with that torture incident in Rwanda(?).....committed by only a handful of Canadian soldiers. It took months and hard work on the part of the military to assure the Canadian public...and the world, that our soldiers are not monsters out there hurting innocent people.

This despicable ad is saying otherwise! This despicable ad is saying that our own military is out to hurt us, in our own cities! Here, in Canada!

An editor for the military paper was interviewed. Military used to be diversified with their choice of government. Some are Conservatives, some are Liberals, etc..,

What that ad did was so hurtful that now....they're all anti-Liberals!

The veterans are hurt! The families of these soldiers who are now being demonized felt betrayed too....for they were prepared to commit the ultimate sacrifice in giving up a loved one for the good of our country.

How could they do this to our own military?

It is not enough to deprive them of pride by having them all ill-equiped to go into batttle...or to "hitch a ride" with other country's generopsity....

but to actually do this to them???

[wellandboy]

They don't care Betsy. I have yet to hear Liberal say anything other than dismiss the whole affair. If they thought they could get away with it they would in English Canada. The fact they haven't pulled the ad in Quebec boggles my mind. I guess this gives a whole meaning to when Paul Martin turned to Gilles Duceppe in the first debate and stated he would fight him on every street corner. Only a Liberal has placed troops on the ground in Quebec so who's kidding who. I'm old enough to clearly remember the October crisis and Trudeau's use of the War Measures Act. It was a huge over reaction to tragic but isolated events, that put the entire country under Federal control suspending the rights and freedoms the Liberals supposedly cherish.

This is a disgrace of the highest magnitude, offending our military, ordinary Canadians and in particular the people of Quebec. Who are the purveyors of fear and hate in this country? Easy Paul Martin and his Liberals.

[PocketRocket]

Like we need ANOTHER thread on the attack ads???

Oh well...

Seeing as this one is superfluous, maybe this little story will fit in here.

Last night, whilst driving, I heard this political satire show on CBC radio (don't recall the name of the show)

They completely and utterly slammed the Libs for the ads.

They did several send ups in the same style about every two minutes.

One of them went something like this....

The Liberals have spent thousands of dollars on advertisements attacking Steven Harper.

Thousands of dollars.

Attacking.

Harper.

Thousands.

In Canada.

Advertisements.

Attacking.

In Canada.

Oh well, at least this time the Liberals actually got something for their advertising dollars.

We're not making this up.

Choose your Canada.

Another went......

When Jeffrey Dalmer was arrested, body parts from his victims were found in his refrigerator freezer.

Steven Harper has not allowed us to look in his freezer.

What could he be hiding.

There.

In his freezer.

In Canada.

We're not saying that Harper is a murdering cannibal, but wouldn't it be better if he came right out and publicly denied it for himself???

We're not making this up.

Choose your Canada.

(Hopefully I got them both fairly accurately.)

I was at a gas station during one of these, laughing my ass off.

The guy pumping gas thought I was out of my mind.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Like we need ANOTHER thread on the attack ads???

Oh well...

Seeing as this one is superfluous, maybe this little story will fit in here.

Last night, whilst driving, I heard this political satire show on CBC radio (don't recall the name of the show)

They completely and utterly slammed the Libs for the ads.

They did several send ups in the same style about every two minutes.

One of them went something like this....

The Liberals have spent thousands of dollars on advertisements attacking Steven Harper.

Thousands of dollars.

Attacking.

Harper.

Thousands.

In Canada.

Advertisements.

Attacking.

In Canada.

Oh well, at least this time the Liberals actually got something for their advertising dollars.

We're not making this up.

Choose your Canada.

Another went......

When Jeffrey Dalmer was arrested, body parts from his victims were found in his refrigerator freezer.

Steven Harper has not allowed us to look in his freezer.

What could he be hiding.

There.

In his freezer.

In Canada.

We're not saying that Harper is a murdering cannibal, but wouldn't it be better if he came right out and publicly denied it for himself???

We're not making this up.

Choose your Canada.

(Hopefully I got them both fairly accurately.)

I was at a gas station during one of these, laughing my ass off.

The guy pumping gas thought I was out of my mind.

I'm trying to read these using the voice of William Shatner in my mind it just seems perfect.

[betsy]

They don't care Betsy. I have yet to hear Liberal say anything other than dismiss the whole affair. If they thought they could get away with it they would in English Canada. The fact they haven't pulled the ad in Quebec boggles my mind. I guess this gives a whole meaning to when Paul Martin turned to Gilles Duceppe in the first debate and stated he would fight him on every street corner. Only a Liberal has placed troops on the ground in Quebec so who's kidding who. I'm old enough to clearly remember the October crisis and Trudeau's use of the War Measures Act. It was a huge over reaction to tragic but isolated events, that put the entire country under Federal control suspending the rights and freedoms the Liberals supposedly cherish.

This is a disgrace of the highest magnitude, offending our military, ordinary Canadians and in particular the people of Quebec. Who are the purveyors of fear and hate in this country? Easy Paul Martin and his Liberals.

UPDATE: Martin Campaign in Markham, Ont.

After speeches of several alleged "experts" and whatever in their fields....and after Martin's speech....the reporters all but ignored everything that was said and launched a barrage of questions relating to the military ad.

Martin tried to squirm his way out of it by saying all the ad was trying to point out was that you "need a critical mass" in order to deploy the troops efficiently in cases of disasters.

A reporter insists that was not the message perceived.

Martin also defiantly said that the particular ad had never been aired.

Of course he was challenged that it aired in Quebec.

He siad, it was not the same ad.

[Wilber]

I'm glad the ad was at least shown in Quebec. It finally confirmed the view that the present Liberal party has of the people who put themselves at risk for us. As for any other Canadians, Quebecers or otherwise who may share that view, to hell with them as well.

It's easy to understand why Martin wanted to send troops to Sudan last spring in order to buy an MP's vote in the failed non confidence vote last spring. He never asked the military if we had them to send. He never asked Sudan whether they would be welcome (they weren't). And he wanted to send them unarmed so they wouldn't offend anyone. Lewis MacKenzie said it would amount to sending our people into a country full of warlords and bandits with a big ROB ME sign hung on their backs. Martin has no scruples about using them as a personal political tool when he feels it necessary.

[betsy]

They were having a good laugh over this on Mike Duffy Live today.

Apparently one Liberal honcho had apologised and asked, "Who was the idiot who approved this?"

Then right on cue this morning, Martin in his campaign had announced, "I approved it."

I mean, I wonder if running a skit ala-Farce show is now one of their campaign tactics.

Maybe we got it all wrong.

We were bracing for a really scary show....when actually their top secret weapon is comedy!

[mar]

While this is covered elsewhere, the main problem with demonizing The Liberals and their attitude to the military can be summed up in one sentence:

THEY DID NOT SENT TROOPS TO DIE IN IRAQ in 2003; HARPER WOULD HAVE.

What part of "supporting the military" is wanting to send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives to die for an invasion not sanctioned by the U.N. and not supported by the majority of Canadians (let alone the rest of the world).

To me, that alone disqualifies Harper from ever holding a position of responsibility as he was either a fool or was willing to have Canadians personnel die so he could support Bush.

Why he gets a free pass on this is beyond me as its hard to find a clearer example of a position that renders someone unfit for the job of PM.

[betsy]

While this is covered elsewhere, the main problem with demonizing The Liberals and their attitude to the military can be summed up in one sentence:

THEY DID NOT SENT TROOPS TO DIE IN IRAQ in 2003; HARPER WOULD HAVE.

What part of "supporting the military" is wanting to send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives to die for an invasion not sanctioned by the U.N. and not supported by the majority of Canadians (let alone the rest of the world).

To me, that alone disqualifies Harper from ever holding a position of responsibility as he was either a fool or was willing to have Canadians personnel die so he could support Bush.

Why he gets a free pass on this is beyond me as its hard to find a clearer example of a position that renders someone unfit for the job of PM.

By the way, why do we have troops in Afghanistan?

[August1991]

While this is covered elsewhere, the main problem with demonizing The Liberals and their attitude to the military can be summed up in one sentence:

THEY DID NOT SENT TROOPS TO DIE IN IRAQ in 2003; HARPER WOULD HAVE.

What part of "supporting the military" is wanting to send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives to die for an invasion not sanctioned by the U.N. and not supported by the majority of Canadians (let alone the rest of the world).

To me, that alone disqualifies Harper from ever holding a position of responsibility as he was either a fool or was willing to have Canadians personnel die so he could support Bush.

Why he gets a free pass on this is beyond me as its hard to find a clearer example of a position that renders someone unfit for the job of PM.

Does that mean that Tony Blair and John Howard are fools too?

----

BTW, Harper never said he would send troops to Iraq. He merely said that we should support our allies such as Australia, the UK and the US. Our troops are committed to Afghanistan and our army is so small that we could not have them in two countries at once. Now, how do you feel about our presence in Afghanistan? Are we an "army of occupation" there?

[betsy]

While this is covered elsewhere, the main problem with demonizing The Liberals and their attitude to the military can be summed up in one sentence:

THEY DID NOT SENT TROOPS TO DIE IN IRAQ in 2003; HARPER WOULD HAVE.

What part of "supporting the military" is wanting to send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives to die for an invasion not sanctioned by the U.N. and not supported by the majority of Canadians (let alone the rest of the world).

To me, that alone disqualifies Harper from ever holding a position of responsibility as he was either a fool or was willing to have Canadians personnel die so he could support Bush.

Why he gets a free pass on this is beyond me as its hard to find a clearer example of a position that renders someone unfit for the job of PM.

Just who sits prominently in the UN? Why do we need the approvals of dictators?

Why do we give so much importance to this joke of an organization?

[betsy]

While this is covered elsewhere, the main problem with demonizing The Liberals and their attitude to the military can be summed up in one sentence:

THEY DID NOT SENT TROOPS TO DIE IN IRAQ in 2003; HARPER WOULD HAVE.

What part of "supporting the military" is wanting to send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives to die for an invasion not sanctioned by the U.N. and not supported by the majority of Canadians (let alone the rest of the world).

To me, that alone disqualifies Harper from ever holding a position of responsibility as he was either a fool or was willing to have Canadians personnel die so he could support Bush.

Why he gets a free pass on this is beyond me as its hard to find a clearer example of a position that renders someone unfit for the job of PM.

FYI, Harper caught my attention when he alone, stood up before the others and gave his own personal views about Iraq and the USA. He did this knowing the consequences that would possibly arise from his speech.

I found in him a strenght in character where others failed for all they did care about was what was popular at the moment. Harper stood for his principles.

He may have changed his stance now....but nevertheless, he was not afraid to say what was in his mind even though he knew it could cost him dearly.

I may or may not have agreed with him on the issue of Iraq. But one thing sure, I admire him for saying what he felt he should say. That's how he won me.

[mar]

FYI, Harper caught my attention when he alone, stood up before the others and gave his own personal views about Iraq and the USA. He did this knowing the consequences that would possibly arise from his speech.

I found in him a strenght in character where others failed for all they did care about was what was popular at the moment. Harper stood for his principles.

He may have changed his stance now....but nevertheless, he was not afraid to say what was in his mind even though he knew it could cost him dearly.

I may or may not have agreed with him on the issue of Iraq. But one thing sure, I admire him for saying what he felt he should say. That's how he won me.

Ahhh. Another variation of the "strong leader" motif expressed as: "even if he was totally wrong he stood up for what he thought."

You must really admire that strongest leader of all time - you know, Germany, 1930's, little mustache, bad hair . . . man stood up for what he believed in, even died for it. He fits your definition perfectly as he:

"stood up before the others and gave his own personal views . . . knowing the consequences that would possibly arise from his speech"

"he was not afraid to say what was in his mind even though he knew it could cost him dearly"

"I admire him for saying what he felt he should say. That's how he won me."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[August1991]

You must really admire that strongest leader of all time - you know, Germany, 1930's, little mustache, bad hair . . . man stood up for what he believed in, even died for it.

We got to Godwin's Law fast on this thread.

[betsy]

FYI, Harper caught my attention when he alone, stood up before the others and gave his own personal views about Iraq and the USA. He did this knowing the consequences that would possibly arise from his speech.

I found in him a strenght in character where others failed for all they did care about was what was popular at the moment. Harper stood for his principles.

He may have changed his stance now....but nevertheless, he was not afraid to say what was in his mind even though he knew it could cost him dearly.

I may or may not have agreed with him on the issue of Iraq. But one thing sure, I admire him for saying what he felt he should say. That's how he won me.

Ahhh. Another variation of the "strong leader" motif expressed as: "even if he was totally wrong he stood up for what he thought."

You must really admire that strongest leader of all time - you know, Germany, 1930's, little mustache, bad hair . . . man stood up for what he believed in, even died for it. He fits your definition perfectly as he:

"stood up before the others and gave his own personal views . . . knowing the consequences that would possibly arise from his speech"

"he was not afraid to say what was in his mind even though he knew it could cost him dearly"

"I admire him for saying what he felt he should say. That's how he won me."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Hah! Look who's supposedly so against Iraq...and hero-worshipping the UN! Are we surprised with all the shenanigans happening around here now...when the ones our leaders are looking up to is an organization dominated by dictators and crooks?

[betsy]

FYI, Harper caught my attention when he alone, stood up before the others and gave his own personal views about Iraq and the USA. He did this knowing the consequences that would possibly arise from his speech.

I found in him a strenght in character where others failed for all they did care about was what was popular at the moment. Harper stood for his principles.

He may have changed his stance now....but nevertheless, he was not afraid to say what was in his mind even though he knew it could cost him dearly.

I may or may not have agreed with him on the issue of Iraq. But one thing sure, I admire him for saying what he felt he should say. That's how he won me.

Ahhh. Another variation of the "strong leader" motif expressed as: "even if he was totally wrong he stood up for what he thought."

You must really admire that strongest leader of all time - you know, Germany, 1930's, little mustache, bad hair . . . man stood up for what he believed in, even died for it. He fits your definition perfectly as he:

"stood up before the others and gave his own personal views . . . knowing the consequences that would possibly arise from his speech"

"he was not afraid to say what was in his mind even though he knew it could cost him dearly"

"I admire him for saying what he felt he should say. That's how he won me."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

And yes, I find in Harper a strong indication of a strong, credible leadership!

The current leader we have now have demonized our own military...and yet glorifies the UN!