Commons vote could undermine Afghan mission, says MacKay

[GostHacked]

Liberation can only come from within.

It is really not liberation of Afghanistan when you consider the US really supported the Taliban to fight the invading Russian forces.

Just does not sound like liberation, sound more like they got it in the ass. Ok now that the Russians are gone, you can't have any more weapons and we feel now our relationship is at an end, and you are no longer welcome here, if you say anything, I am going to slander the hell out of you and make you look like a complete jerk. Eventhough it was us who did this all, we are going to do this anyways. End of story.

I am having a hard time trying to figure out who the bad guy really is anymore. I say they are both terrorists.

[scribblet]

Well said Argus, how mindless to suggest that Martin sent in the troops to prop up a U.S. puppet, the liberals were no friends of Bush.

I don't recall too much critique of Martin when he sent our armed forces to Afghanistan without

parliamentary debate and approval, and maybe there should have been that debate. However, through no fault of its own, the present government has inherited this position. Maybe Harper should schedule time for Parliamentarians to express their encouragement and concerns but now is not the time to have such a debate . That time was BEFORE they were put in harms way, and that time has passed. The whole purpose to have a debate now is to allow the Libs and the Dippers to drag our new Conservative government through the mud, and by proxy, the troops with them. Not to mention getting a bit of Bush bashing in.

If Jumping Jack flash wanted a debate, he should have demanded one last year, but I guess he was too busy propping up the Librano$ regime for his 20 pieces of silver.

This is the time to fully, without reservation, support our troops and their mission. No second guessing, no buyers remorse. Give them what they need to do the job they have been tasked to do. To do otherwise only undercuts our troops moral, and give aid to our enemies.

We are there to simply prop up a puppet President put in place by the American government and a former oil consultant with connections to the Bushes. Not for much more as far as I can see. Particularly when you scrape away all the rhetoric coming from Hillier, MacKay and Harper. They are obviously singing from the same hymn book as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield......we will not cut and run; we don't want to harm morale by opposing the mission; we must support our troops; etc. Of course we support our troops but we don't have to support their mission.

This is just so terribly mindless, the kind of raving nonsense one finds among many left wing conspiracy theory sites, especially in the US.

Also, I didn't realize that the Afghan people were anxious for us to be there.

I'm sure the smarter ones, the ones who are tired of all the fighting and killing, who are tired of the extremist religion and the endless poverty, have hopes we can do something better for them.

But we're not, in the end, there to make Afghanistan into a great place to live. We're there to set up a strong enough government that crazies won't be able to set up shop at will.

[Nocrap]

What about just a debate Peter? Would that be anti-troop?

Man, just over a month in and they're already sounding like Bush/Cheney et al.

Don't even THINK about even DISCUSSING the Afghan mission or you're not supporting the troops!!

How long before political opponents are accused of supporting terrorists or giving aid & comfort to the enemy I wonder.

You all should read this post again.

Great post and I agree. The good news, however, for those of us who thought that Harper was bereft of human compassion; we can be assured that his only concern is the morale of the men and women of our armed forces stationed there. Nothing does more to boost the spirits of a battle weary soldier, than those three comforting words: 'Ten More Years"!!!

[geoffrey]

Great post and I agree. The good news, however, for those of us who thought that Harper was bereft of human compassion; we can be assured that his only concern is the morale of the men and women of our armed forces stationed there. Nothing does more to boost the spirits of a battle weary soldier, than those three comforting words: 'Ten More Years"!!!

It's horrible that you think so highly of Canada that we need not be involved in international aid or peace missions. I suggest you go move to Switzerland or Sweden if you believe so strongly in the 'we don't give a shit about the rest of the world' line of thought.

The soliders are all in extremely good spirits seeing that Harper is behind them, as is clear from the excitment in the news. All the soliders want to be there, they know their work is making a clear difference in the lives of millions. They know they are protecting our security at home by maintaining a democratically elected government in a country that would love to be taken hostage by al-Qaeda and the Taliban once again.

It's too bad we have idiots in this country that would rather us curl up in a ball and ignore what happens in the rest of the world. It's people like them that nearly cost us our freedom in the second world war.

"It won't happen to us, just let Osama be and we will all have peace in our time."

Too bad it doesn't work that way.

[Wilber]

"It's too bad we have idiots in this country that would rather us curl up in a ball and ignore what happens in the rest of the world. It's people like them that nearly cost us our freedom in the second world war."

Usually the same idiots who criticize the US for being isolationist at the beginning of the two world wars.

[yorkman]

What's this got to do with WWII? Where are the similarities? Where is the mighty army threatening our shores? The deck is stacked in our favour and we're now the occupiers and invaders. Such bravery! We talk about the barbarianism of axe wielding 16-year olds but see nothing wrong with planes dropping bombs on villages or Canadian/British/American soldiers bashing down the doors of homes, etc., etc., terrorizing children who are likely to grow up despising westerners of all stripes. They don't differentiate even if we would like to think our guys and girls are only doing good. That's a nice fantasy but nothing more.

[Wilber]

What's this got to do with WWII? Where are the similarities? Where is the mighty army threatening our shores? The deck is stacked in our favour and we're now the occupiers and invaders. Such bravery! We talk about the barbarianism of axe wielding 16-year olds but see nothing wrong with planes dropping bombs on villages or Canadian/British/American soldiers bashing down the doors of homes, etc., etc., terrorizing children who are likely to grow up despising westerners of all stripes. They don't differentiate even if we would like to think our guys and girls are only doing good. That's a nice fantasy but nothing more.

Well thats the same rational that the US used, no one has attacked us therefore it's not our fight. Just because our ally was attacked by people based in this country and we have a mutual defense treaty through an organization called NATO, that says an attack against one is an attack against all, doesn't mean we should actually honor it, does it. It wonder what the chances would be of the US coming to our aid if we were attacked by terrorists. Somewhat better I think.

[yorkman]

They would come to our aid only if it was in their interests to do so. I would suggest. If the oil fields of Alberta were threatened they would be there in a flash for sure. Or the electricity grid was threatened or sabotaged. And they would never leave you that is certain. I still see no correlation with WWI or II. However, it makes for good rhetoric to justify the invasion of Iraq and the continuing occupation of Afghanistan.

And by the way, we DID come to the US' aid after the WTC attack.....big time I recall. But when we didn't agree with their invasion of Iraq which we all now know was based on lies, the conservatives here seethed because we didn't join that adventure. As long as we keep saying yessir, how high sir, they will love us and the new Conservatives will be happy with our good relations. And we can all be happy with our war economies.

Lots of opportunities now for Canadians to encourage their kids to join the forces and go to Afghan.

[Wilber]

They would come to our aid only if it was in their interests to do so. I would suggest. If the oil fields of Alberta were threatened they would be there in a flash for sure. Or the electricity grid was threatened or sabotaged. And they would never leave you that is certain. I still see no correlation with WWI or II. However, it makes for good rhetoric to justify the invasion of Iraq and the continuing occupation of Afghanistan.

And by the way, we DID come to the US' aid after the WTC attack.....big time I recall. But when we didn't agree with their invasion of Iraq which we all now know was based on lies, the conservatives here seethed because we didn't join that adventure. As long as we keep saying yessir, how high sir, they will love us and the new Conservatives will be happy with our good relations. And we can all be happy with our war economies.

Lots of opportunities now for Canadians to encourage their kids to join the forces and go to Afghan.

I am not trying to justify the invasion of Iraq. For about the tenth time I will repeat, We Are Not In Iraq. The US was attacked by a group based in Afghanistan and supported by its government. That's good enough for me, regardless of what party is in power in Washington or whether I like them or not. They are our allies. They have every right to elect the government they chose and my approval of that government they has nothing to do with keeping our treaty commitments.

I find it strange that you don't see supporting your neighbor who shares most of the same values, language, and law as you and is a free democratic society, as being in your interest. Supporting such a country that has been attacked, where it's citizens are free to chose the government of their choice regardless of whether I approve of it, is in my interest. Particularly if that country happens to be my next door neighbor.

But what the hey, if Americans get attacked, it must be their own fault right.

[yorkman]

I don't share the Bushian values.

[scribblet]

They would come to our aid only if it was in their interests to do so. I would suggest. If the oil fields of Alberta were threatened they would be there in a flash for sure. Or the electricity grid was threatened or sabotaged. And they would never leave you that is certain. I still see no correlation with WWI or II. However, it makes for good rhetoric to justify the invasion of Iraq and the continuing occupation of Afghanistan.

And by the way, we DID come to the US' aid after the WTC attack.....big time I recall. But when we didn't agree with their invasion of Iraq which we all now know was based on lies, the conservatives here seethed because we didn't join that adventure. As long as we keep saying yessir, how high sir, they will love us and the new Conservatives will be happy with our good relations. And we can all be happy with our war economies.

Lots of opportunities now for Canadians to encourage their kids to join the forces and go to Afghan.

I am not trying to justify the invasion of Iraq. For about the tenth time I will repeat, We Are Not In Iraq. The US was attacked by a group based in Afghanistan and supported by its government. That's good enough for me, regardless of what party is in power in Washington or whether I like them or not. They are our allies. They have every right to elect the government they chose and my approval of that government they has nothing to do with keeping our treaty commitments.

I find it strange that you don't see supporting your neighbor who shares most of the same values, language, and law as you and is a free democratic society, as being in your interest. Supporting such a country that has been attacked, where it's citizens are free to chose the government of their choice regardless of whether I approve of it, is in my interest. Particularly if that country happens to be my next door neighbor.

But what the hey, if Americans get attacked, it must be their own fault right.

Good post, we do share the same values for the most part, except I think for the right to bear arms. Sometimes BDS gets in the way of reason (Bush derangement syndrome)

[Wilber]

I don't share the Bushian values.

Too bad you can't separate a country from its ruling party. Bush is no more the US than Harper or Martin is Canada. I don't support Bush. I don't support the invasion of Iraq. I do support my neighbor when comes to fighting those who attacked him.