So now Harper thinks Canada doesn't support the troops?

[fixer1]

In short Canada was supportive of the attack in afghanistan to oust the Taliban and the terrorists. We then have an obligation to help with the rebuilding and stabilizing the country. We have been asked through Nato for our presence to be there in a two fold scope. One Peace Keeping and secondly battle, and fighting duties. It is well within our governments rights to go about this and since it was the Liberals who last agreed to do it. Then why should they even debate it. It is not up to the MP's to have a say in our military, beyond the inital orders to participate in the actions.

All of this is just political posturing that does show derespectfor our troops being there. We do not have to aggree in all things but while our troops are out there doing a job that is so very dangerous, we do not need this kind of talk here at home. This kind of talk is what gives terrorists the idea that what they are doing does change things etc. I do not like war, I do not think the war in Iraq was justified and therefore illegal. I do though think that this action in Afghanistan is valid and does serve a greater purpose. You are welcome to disagree with me, but you should not let our disagreements get to the level of our government, because the nest time terrorists want to sway a government they will know Canada as a soft country and will think an attack here will get the attantion they want and need.

[Mimas]

Well Layton is viciously against it, and would love to disgrace our troops in a Commons debate if he got the chance. He doesn't think Canadians should have to be in an offensive role ever.

At least the Liberals and CPC are behind our troops and the mission. Thank God we don't have socialists running the show.

Ok are you just dumb or simply brainwashed? Whether you go to war or not has absolutely nothing to do with supporting our troops! In fact, not getting your troops killed in stupid "wars" IS supporting the troops. Why would anyone, including Layton, want to disgrace our troops? Are you nuts or just stupid for making such a rediculous comment?

Or you neo-cons now figure that the way to defend your stupid decisions to fight stupid wars is to accuse those who oppose them of being unpatriotic and of disgracing our troops? This may have worked in the US well, but don't bet on it working in Canada!

[Mimas]

Although I am in agreement with Harper, I would say that blindy accepting things without at least pondering them is not a sound plan. That being said, it seems we all at least agree that there really is no issue here.

As for that RCMP comment, even if they are there, that has nothing to do with military action, as they aren't a part of the Armed Forces. But the same being said, just because a group of men is designated a police force (MP's for example) does not mean they are not an invasion force. The US army used MP regiments as front line combat soldiers in Iraq.

"There is no issue here." Say what? The fact that we are sending more and more of our troops to a country that the Soviets could not put in order even in 20 years? It took them 20 years and several thousand casualties to realize that Afganistan is a hopeless case. How long, how many casualties and how many billions of $$ will it take us to realize the same? And that's no issue? So there is no point in even discussing it? That's a rather strange thing coming from a con, who claims to support the troops and the fiscally responsible.

[geoffrey]

Well Layton is viciously against it, and would love to disgrace our troops in a Commons debate if he got the chance. He doesn't think Canadians should have to be in an offensive role ever.

At least the Liberals and CPC are behind our troops and the mission. Thank God we don't have socialists running the show.

Ok are you just dumb or simply brainwashed? Whether you go to war or not has absolutely nothing to do with supporting our troops! In fact, not getting your troops killed in stupid "wars" IS supporting the troops. Why would anyone, including Layton, want to disgrace our troops? Are you nuts or just stupid for making such a rediculous comment?

Or you neo-cons now figure that the way to defend your stupid decisions to fight stupid wars is to accuse those who oppose them of being unpatriotic and of disgracing our troops? This may have worked in the US well, but don't bet on it working in Canada!

Theres that word again, neo-con. I love being one, considering I've never held a neo-con view, and I don't support Bush... Right on, you show your knowledge on the subject clearly Mimas.

Anyways, off in my 'neo-con' world, I definitely think our work in Afghanistan is a great thing for Canada, we've been given the chance to show the world that we actually stand up for things.

It's our actions, not our words that count. Canada is known as the nation that condemns everyone for not helping, but then doesn't act. Think Rwanda, Sudan, Kyoto, ect. ect. Now we are acting. Go Canada.

[yorkman]

It's all for nothing. Those guys and gals are dying for nothing. That's very hard to face when it's your child. But it is reality. So you have to make up something to explain why they died. Ah yes ----- for freedom; for our way of life; for the preservation of America's and the West's wealth and pre-eminence; and all the other rhetoric. But in the end it's for nothing....... unless someone comes up with some better answers rather than empty rhetoric.

[geoffrey]

It's all for nothing. Those guys and gals are dying for nothing. That's very hard to face when it's your child. But it is reality. So you have to make up something to explain why they died. Ah yes ----- for freedom; for our way of life; for the preservation of America's and the West's wealth and pre-eminence; and all the other rhetoric. But in the end it's for nothing....... unless someone comes up with some better answers rather than empty rhetoric.

The protection of a democratically elected government in Afghanistan? The protection of the right for little girls to get to go to school like the boys? The protection of women that would otherwise be stoned in the streets? The attempt to at least aid in their hunger concerns?

We have an obligation to those lesser off then us, for once I'm proud of what our country is doing to help!

[gerryhatrick]

This is typical Canadian fare.

wake up. what the west needs is more troops in the middle east. period.

Typical neo-con Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush fare.

Tell us again how much of a success Iraq has been. Gather 'round children, daddy's going to tell his Iraq story again.

[gerryhatrick]

We all realize that we will meet all our obligations, so why are you spouting off about that?

That settles it then...there's no need to waste time debating the issue since we're all in agreement. Better to spend the time discussing things that matter.

Unless of course you want to have a debate because some people don't agree with the mission...

Who decides what seek and destroy missions Canadians deploy on?

What happens to detainees? Will they be turned over to the Americans in some cases? If so, with what assurances?

See, there are things that need to be discussed. None of the old "trust me", no thanks. Not after what we've witnessed from the Bush administration.

Harper thinks Canadians are idiots. He thinks he can throw out the old "support the troops" to imply that any discussion about Afghanistan is then by definition NOT supporting the troops.

He should tell Karl Rove thanks but no thanks for the advice and start playing straight with Canada on this.

[wellandboy]

We all realize that we will meet all our obligations, so why are you spouting off about that?

That settles it then...there's no need to waste time debating the issue since we're all in agreement. Better to spend the time discussing things that matter.

Unless of course you want to have a debate because some people don't agree with the mission...

Who decides what seek and destroy missions Canadians deploy on?

What happens to detainees? Will they be turned over to the Americans in some cases? If so, with what assurances?

See, there are things that need to be discussed. None of the old "trust me", no thanks. Not after what we've witnessed from the Bush administration.

Harper thinks Canadians are idiots. He thinks he can throw out the old "support the troops" to imply that any discussion about Afghanistan is then by definition NOT supporting the troops.

He should tell Karl Rove thanks but no thanks for the advice and start playing straight with Canada on this.

Where does Karl Rove come into this? Can you provide a connection or is this more imagination and speculation.

[Spike22]

We all realize that we will meet all our obligations, so why are you spouting off about that?

That settles it then...there's no need to waste time debating the issue since we're all in agreement. Better to spend the time discussing things that matter.

Unless of course you want to have a debate because some people don't agree with the mission...

Who decides what seek and destroy missions Canadians deploy on?

What happens to detainees? Will they be turned over to the Americans in some cases? If so, with what assurances?

See, there are things that need to be discussed. None of the old "trust me", no thanks. Not after what we've witnessed from the Bush administration.

Harper thinks Canadians are idiots. He thinks he can throw out the old "support the troops" to imply that any discussion about Afghanistan is then by definition NOT supporting the troops.

He should tell Karl Rove thanks but no thanks for the advice and start playing straight with Canada on this.

Karl Rove what the ?!?- on the smack again hey GHT? Well once you come off yer buzz we would turn prisoners over to the Americans because we haven't a clue what to do with them after our preliminary interorgation [that is if we even catch anyone]. I wholehearedly trust the US, they are not playing ring around the roses over there and know how to effectively deal with the situations we are currently just starting to experience there. Now GHT you sound like a nice soya milk drinking liberal that does not want to ever stand up for anything and have never done so in their life. Ever been in the situation where folks are shooting at you? I doubt it, so until you sign on the dotted line and have yer arse exposed to flying lead leave the fighting to real men [and women, wouldn't want to affend them] and assist them in protecting your democratic freedom you enjoy as you reply to these posts.

[Montgomery Burns]

Some Canadians are going wobbly after 10 Canadian deaths. What do our forefathers think of that? What happened to the days of our grandparents/great grandparents when worldwide, Canada was highly respected as someone you would like to have on your side in a barroom brawl?

Please Gerry, spare us your attempt at righteous indignation.

Although many on the left support the troops, there are also many leftists who detest the military and its volunteers. We saw the 'proggressives from the reality-based community' protesting against the Afghanistan war; they didn't want the Taliban toppled. The progressive women sure as hell don't give a damn about their Afghani sisters who were treated worse than a goat. We all saw the progressives protesting against Saddam being toppled despite Iraq sponsoring terrorism, harboring numerous terrorists, and being in being in breach of numerous conditions for 12 years straight. The progressives didn't want Saddam toppled. They didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people; over a half million who had lost their lives due to Saddam. Instead they protested against Bush...likening him to Hitler, and of course they protested against their eternal boogeyman - those rascally jooos in Israel. Indeed, American progressive icon Michael Moore called Saddam's thugs "freedom fighters" and "Minute Men". That means he is hoping for them to win. UK progressive icon George Galloway admitted in an interview that the Islamists and the progressives are on the same side. Hillary Clinton told the troops in Iraq that "some people back home are wondering why you are here". Anyone who denies that doesn't hurt morale when in a strange land, knows nothing about motivation. These people do not support the military. Their new "dissent is patriotic" meme is bullsh*t and insulting.

The "not getting your troops killed in stupid "wars" IS supporting the troops" claim just shows how morally bankrupt some people are. How can you not morally support the prevention of the Taliban and Al Qaeda returning?

The "USSR couldn't beat them in 20 yrs, so we can't either" claim doesn't fly in the face of reality. The USA (and a few other countries) covertly assissted the Afghani people against the USSR. The Taliban and Al Qaeda don't have a superpower backing them. Look at how easily the US and its coalition turned the Taliban into the Talibunnies.

The reason why the left gave months and months of attention to Abu Ghraib is because it made the troops look bad. Why do you think the liberal media recentely released more Abu Ghraib photos from 3 years ago? To smear the troops.

Why do you think campuses and highschools (overwhelmingly liberal) try to ban military recruiters from talking to potential volunteers? Why do activists dump 5 gallons of fake blood on the doorstep of recruiting centers? Because they detest the military.

Why air a report claiming that the US military descretated a Koran, when your only source is a former female terrorist suspect--a terrorist suuspect who claimed she had been raped every night by 6 US soldiers? Do you think that unsubstantiated allegations like this would be aired if the liberals at NBC's Today Show supported the troops?

Numerous times the media has claimed that the US military is deliberately targetting and killing journalists. You have to have a very low opinion of the troops if you really think that.

If you detest conservatives and think they're evil people, how can you support the troops who are overwhelmingly conservative? If you see no difference between a soldier accidentally killing a civilian and a terrorist deliberately killing a civilian - and many leftists don't - then why wouldn't you feel the same way about the soldier as the terrorist? If you think Bush is Hitler, if you think Harper is "scary", what does that make the troops carrying out his orders?

Think about it.

[GostHacked]

The "not getting your troops killed in stupid "wars" IS supporting the troops" claim just shows how morally bankrupt some people are. How can you not morally support the prevention of the Taliban and Al Qaeda returning?

The "USSR couldn't beat them in 20 yrs, so we can't either" claim doesn't fly in the face of reality. The USA (and a few other countries) covertly assissted the Afghani people against the USSR. The Taliban and Al Qaeda don't have a superpower backing them. Look at how easily the US and its coalition turned the Taliban into the Talibunnies.

Easy to take out the Taliban when you are the major supplier of arms to those people. That is the reason why they managed to drag out the war for 20 years. Otherwise the Russians would have bowled them over quite easily.

Harper visits Afghanistan.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

The prime minister recently blasted critics who demanded a vote on the issue in Parliament, saying it's not acceptable to send troops into danger, then question that decision.

This looks like the same stunt GWB pulled on a Thanksgiving day in Iraq. Same damn rhetoric too.

[Montgomery Burns]

Gosthacked:

This looks like the same stunt GWB pulled on a Thanksgiving day in Iraq. Same damn rhetoric too.

Hee hee.

A leader showing resolve against radical Islam. I knew that would get under the skin of progressive liberals. Let the seething begin.

[GostHacked]

Gosthacked:

This looks like the same stunt GWB pulled on a Thanksgiving day in Iraq. Same damn rhetoric too.

Hee hee.

A leader showing resolve against radical Islam. I knew that would get under the skin of progressive liberals. Let the seething begin.

No where did I mention Islam. Maybe you missed it, I am really getting at the same old rhetoric of supporting the troops. I do support them. I have 2 close friends that have done 2 tours each there. One of them has done a tour in Bosnia as well. My uncle is a retired paratrooper. Now if one of these good friends of mine dies in vain, and all for naught, should I support that?

And first you call me a conservative democrat, and now I am a progressive liberal. Let me tell you I consider myself a centralist socialist. Just so you get it right in the future.

[Nocrap]

Who the f#$k said anything about not supporting the troops?

And oh yeah, who the f#$K said anything about "cut and run"?

Or not fulfilling our "obligations"?

This guy is kidding himself.

This is the same bullsh$t we've seen in the USA. Karl Rove must be inspiring this idiotic talk.

Earth to Stephen Harper.....the idea that was suggested was to have a debate. Nobody is cutting and running and everyone supports the troops. We all realize that we will meet all our obligations, so why are you spouting off about that?

This is bizarre.

It's exactly the kind of BS double-talk that everyone was fear-mongering about.

I think Stephen Harper and George Bush have the same speech writer. On November 17, 2003; after scrapping plans to deliver a speech to the British Parliament because he feared being heckled by anti-war MPs, George W. Bush told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost show, that they would not "cut and run" from Iraq.

Then more recently, at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland (November 2005), discussing the fact that the Democrats wanted a timeline for withdrawl of troops: "Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends."

This is more than a little unsettling. I know they share the same PR firm, but couldn't he come up with something original? I know..."We'll smoke 'em out of their holes"..nah...that's been done too.

[geoffrey]

I think Stephen Harper and George Bush have the same speech writer. On November 17, 2003; after scrapping plans to deliver a speech to the British Parliament because he feared being heckled by anti-war MPs, George W. Bush told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost show, that they would not "cut and run" from Iraq.

Then more recently, at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland (November 2005), discussing the fact that the Democrats wanted a timeline for withdrawl of troops: "Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends."

This is more than a little unsettling. I know they share the same PR firm, but couldn't he come up with something original? I know..."We'll smoke 'em out of their holes"..nah...that's been done too.

You know they share the same PR firm? Any evidence?

Cut and run is a saying thats been used prior to George W. Bush. It's hardly an original saying. I'd rather something like "stop feeding the appeasement alligator" but then again, thats been done already too.

Someone is grasping at straws when 3 words in speeches is the definition of our PM.

[Wilber]

Cut and Run

Meaning

To depart quickly.

Origin

A naval reference, originally meaning cutting the cable and running before the wind.

A well chosen phrase, methinks.

[gerryhatrick]

Where does Karl Rove come into this? Can you provide a connection or is this more imagination and speculation.

It's a reference to Harpers latest terminology and accusations.

For example, he's been accusing people (Canadians in general) of not "supporting the troops". This is based upon a late February poll that had a slim majority of Canadians not in favor of the Afghan deployment.

So, the lie is easily seen. Questioning - or even opposing - the mission has nothing to do with support for the troops. Yet, there he is repeatedly making the accusation.

It's a Rove tactic.

[AndrewL]

This is typical Canadian fare.

wake up. what the west needs is more troops in the middle east. period.

option b? USA, CANADA, BRITAIN et al pulls out and militant islam continues to fester. we a go back to sleep, IRAN develops nukes while we pretent that peace is inevitable....

I take it your a yank from this post. Is it typical american fare to think that sending the troops in is all that is required for success? Its a common america attitude to think that troops are a solution even though you have no clue what the problems are or how troops are a solution to anything. Afghanistan shows no signs of becoming a liberal democracy with secular government showing religious tolerance, but how is this possible... there are troops there?

Iraq is full of troops yet somehow the situation disintegrates even further on a daily basis... But how is this possible?.. there are troops there?

We need to realize that sometimes cheap american bravado and hubris, and now with Harper trying to emulate it (what a dumbass) is not a guaranteed solution to anything, it usually just creates more bitterness, more hatred, and more problems. We cannot expect a bunch of trigger happy adolescents to bring about freedom, secularism, and liberal democracy to religiously fundamentalist nations. Troops are for fighting clear and present military missions. This is an impossibility in a nation that has no military to speak of that can fight in a conventional manner.

Sadly, our troops will be there for a year maybe two in this combat role. They will kill some bad guys, probably kill some innocents in so called collateral damage, some of our troops will come home in body bags.

Nothing noteworthy of any political import will be accomplished, Afghanistan will still be dominated by religious nutcases (poeple who would be at home in Kansas or Southern Alberta) and Stephen Harper will try to spin it as a success.

Stephen Harper has no clue what is going on. He is an untravelled economist who is wasting our troops on a mission that is already a massive failure from any political or historical perspective.

Andrew

[JerrySeinfeld]

I think your accusation that this opinion held by Layton somehow means he's not "behind our troops" is ridiculous. Debating the nature of the mission is not going to somehow crush the spirit of the troops.

It's sickening to watch people use "the troops" as a political tool everytime a military mission is talked about, and that's what we're seeing from Harper and Mackay these days. If anything it's a bloody insult to them to suggest they can't handle seeing thier political leaders discuss the nature of thier mission.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist. The mission is simple.

Kick Taliban ass, protect the people from the vicious rule of the Taliban and provide the conditions for peace.

[Black Dog]

Doesn't take a rocket scientist. The mission is simple.

Kick Taliban ass, protect the people from the vicious rule of the Taliban and provide the conditions for peace.

Uh huh. And what about the social conditions of religious conservativism that allowed the Taliban to gain popular support and persists today? Or the precedence of tribal loyalty over national identity? Or the fact that the bigest chunk of Afghanistan's economy rests on the heroin trade? And that's just for starters.

Hmmm. Maybe this ain't so simple.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Doesn't take a rocket scientist. The mission is simple.

Kick Taliban ass, protect the people from the vicious rule of the Taliban and provide the conditions for peace.

Uh huh. And what about the social conditions of religious conservativism that allowed the Taliban to gain popular support and persists today? Or the precedence of tribal loyalty over national identity? Or the fact that the bigest chunk of Afghanistan's economy rests on the heroin trade? And that's just for starters.

Hmmm. Maybe this ain't so simple.

It's not going to be over next year. Expect responsible western countries to have a military presence in the middle east for the next decade. This will make the cold war look like nothing.

We need to keep the pressure on until they get it.