Harper is in Kandahar

[Montgomery Burns]

For the people who question Canada being in Afghanistan:

KABUL (CP) - With military helicopters swirling overhead, Afghanistan's president told Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Tuesday he's willing to visit Canada to persuade Canadians their help is essential to his country's growing democracy. Hamid Karzai accepted the prime minister's invitation even before Harper could finish making it.

"I'll be there," the Afghan president said, interrupting Harper in mid-sentence as the prime minister explained why Canadians needed to hear from him. Karzai said he was willing to come to explain to Canadians why their presence is so important, a message he asked Harper to take home to a Canadian public grown somewhat skeptical of a mission that has taken the lives of 12 Canadians since 2002.

"Please convey to your people, to the people of Canada, the immense gratitude of the Afghan people for what your country, your people have done for us," he told Harper after an hour-long meeting.

What kind of message does this send to the Afghani people about Canada?

"I would urge the opposition parties not to play politics with that commitment but to get behind our troops and get behind our international commitment," he [Harper] said.

Me thinks he is talking about the wishy-washy Liberals (who never gave a damn about our military) and Jack "let's have a debaate" Layton--seen here with 2 of his "progressive" supporters.

While other foreign leaders have visited Afghanistan - U.S. President George W. Bush came for four hours earlier this month - Harper's trip was touted as unprecedented in its length and scope.

What kind of message does this send to the terrorists and Canada's allies? To the rest of the world?

That is my idea of 'Canadian values'.

Edited to add: August1991 nails it on his post at the bottom of page 3. Bolstering his point was a poll today on CTV; 55% of Canadians support the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. It's only a poll but I think August1991 is right; this mission resonates with your average Canadian. Some seem to forget that 24 Canadians died on 9-11.

[scribblet]

Its about time Canada has a leader with can be proud of, who is willing to put his a.s on the line to support our troops. S. Harper has distinguished himself.

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Introduction

Thank you for your warm welcome.

I want to begin by telling you how proud I am of the work you're doing.

You have put yourself on the line to:

a.. Defend our national interests;

a.. Protect Canada and the world from terror;

a.. Help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country.

I thank you.

Canadians thank you.

And I know that the Afghan people thank you.

[mcqueen625]

I agree with August 1991 about the unfortunate case of a PM visiting a country like Afghanistan in the train of officialdom and militarism. I suppose that someone with Harpers views over the last twenty years wouldn't have noticed the difference between what's happening there now compared to what was going on there 20 years ago. Even leaving off with the various positions of the military forces arrayed in the country, would he have noticed the difference in the infrastructure, or the socio-economic base?

I don't wish him harm, so I hope no one tries to take a shot at him, but I hope it sinks in in some other way that the country has little left to lose, because when you got nothing left to lose... how does that old saw go again?

I guess Harper took a page from the handbook of George W. Bush - When things get too hot to handle, go for the photo-op. You know he almost had me until he claimed that part of the mission was to enforce women's rights. He might as well have promised the Afghan people affordable daycare, same-sex marriage and publicly funded healthcare. It was all just blowing smoke.

Get a life! This has nothing to do with Bush but everything to do with supporting our troops, troops I might add that the Liberal government under Chretien sent there under the NATO banner and the corrupt United Nations. How can these scumbags now align themselves with the NDP and now ask for a debate in the House of Commons. What a bunch of hypocrits!

[scribblet]

I guess Harper took a page from the handbook of George W. Bush - When things get too hot to handle, go for the photo-op. You know he almost had me until he claimed that part of the mission was to enforce women's rights. He might as well have promised the Afghan people affordable daycare, same-sex marriage and publicly funded healthcare. It was all just blowing smoke.

Get a life! This has nothing to do with Bush but everything to do with supporting our troops, troops I might add that the Liberal government under Chretien sent there under the NATO banner and the corrupt United Nations. How can these scumbags now align themselves with the NDP and now ask for a debate in the House of Commons. What a bunch of hypocrits!

Get a life is right - just more knee jerk anti Americanism.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2006...488976-sun.html

SORROW AND SUPPORT

Since Paul Davis' death, his father has felt the sorrow and support of countless Canadians -- including four new immigrants. At a service for Paul, a family, who recently emigrated from Afghanistan, approached to shake his hand.

"I was so (dazed), I'm not sure they spoke English, but I know the message was clear -- it was thanks," he recalls.

"We can't turn and run. If our enemies see (dissension) about the mission here in Canada, it will make it even more dangerous for our troops.

"We are at war."

[margrace]

How long has Afghanistan been at war? How many actual years have they had anything remotely resembling democracy? Here we are debating giving up our freedoms because we are afraid of being attacked so what kind of example do we set?

I see Harper on the TV and I see just a clone of George Bush, self centred, uneducated to world situations, just one of the Me generation.

These men have no idea of what it is like not to live in a society where their freedoms are questioned.

[scribblet]

How long has Afghanistan been at war? How many actual years have they had anything remotely resembling democracy? Here we are debating giving up our freedoms because we are afraid of being attacked so what kind of example do we set?

I see Harper on the TV and I see just a clone of George Bush, self centred, uneducated to world situations, just one of the Me generation.

These men have no idea of what it is like not to live in a society where their freedoms are questioned.

I doubt that you do either. If all you see is another 'clone of George Bush' then you need new glasses. Or another explanation is that you too are suffering from Harper Derangement Syndrome and Bush Derangement Syndrome. Both cloud the vision, which is usually tunnel vision at best.

[Nocrap]

How long has Afghanistan been at war? How many actual years have they had anything remotely resembling democracy? Here we are debating giving up our freedoms because we are afraid of being attacked so what kind of example do we set?

I see Harper on the TV and I see just a clone of George Bush, self centred, uneducated to world situations, just one of the Me generation.

These men have no idea of what it is like not to live in a society where their freedoms are questioned.

I doubt that you do either. If all you see is another 'clone of George Bush' then you need new glasses. Or another explanation is that you too are suffering from Harper Derangement Syndrome and Bush Derangement Syndrome. Both cloud the vision, which is usually tunnel vision at best.

I guess I am also suffering from HDS, because even with my glasses, I don't see Harper as the next Mesiah.

Fortunately, it is not terminal and I am being treated with an MG (Minority Government).

[Argus]

How long has Afghanistan been at war? How many actual years have they had anything remotely resembling democracy? Here we are debating giving up our freedoms because we are afraid of being attacked so what kind of example do we set?

What freedoms are we debating giving up, and where is this debate being held?

[scribblet]

How long has Afghanistan been at war? How many actual years have they had anything remotely resembling democracy? Here we are debating giving up our freedoms because we are afraid of being attacked so what kind of example do we set?

I see Harper on the TV and I see just a clone of George Bush, self centred, uneducated to world situations, just one of the Me generation.

These men have no idea of what it is like not to live in a society where their freedoms are questioned.

I doubt that you do either. If all you see is another 'clone of George Bush' then you need new glasses. Or another explanation is that you too are suffering from Harper Derangement Syndrome and Bush Derangement Syndrome. Both cloud the vision, which is usually tunnel vision at best.

I guess I am also suffering from HDS, because even with my glasses, I don't see Harper as the next Mesiah.

Fortunately, it is not terminal and I am being treated with an MG (Minority Government).

Neither do I, but because you or others hate Bush, and project those hates onto Harper who wants to improve relations with the U.S. , doesn't mean he's a clone of anything.

So please, let us hear exactly what Canadian rights are being taken away and when was or when is the debate on this. Is this before the Supreme Court now or what. Will parliament be debating this when it resumes. Lets stick to facts and actual issues.

[Black Dog]

If I hear one more dishonest, brain-dead, knee-jerk comment about "supporting the troops", I'm gonna flip out. The troops are not even in the equation. The discussion is about the policy. The troops are the instruments of the policy, not the policy itself. It's not complicated, people.

[fixer1]

I see that all the whining is out in full force and all the unhappy people are again findingtheir right to voice opinions even though it has little affect. People need to get over the fact that Harper as the Prime Minister has the full right to make decisions without parliaments debating each ancd everyone of them. It is the law and it has been around since Canada has been.

Layton says "that sooner or later a debate will happen", of course it will but you have no say in this and so you need to understand that what you feel you must say is of little or no importantance, on the military actions in Afghanistan. He is just trying to find a crack some where, so he can say next election "see I made a difference ". It is just so pathetic.

The Block is not for any of this, as it has nothing to do with Quebec and the money spent there, will never help quebec at all. But we all know this, because he said this same thing over and over during his last election attempt, that he will only vote in favour of things that are in Quebec's best interests.

The liberals were the ones who put these troops ther in the first place, so I doo not see there to be any need for debate, or even discussion, as it will not change anything, other then showing just how much opposition we have her at home to this action. I personally hope that it is like I expect, and that it is only the whiners and those who can not think of anything beyond themselves. I do know that they are in the minority though, and it is just a waste of time to give them much of a stage to vent their themes.

One one the things promised in the last election was a increased size of trained Cannadian military. Also more funding to equip them with the necessary tools to use incase of a conflict. The fact that Canada does not have much in the way of troop deployment in the far north to protect our soverignty, is still some thing that amazes me. The natural resources of our northern territories are far greater then what we have in the now populated areas of our country. These we are pretty much putting in a position to be up for grabs, everyday we think it better to spend money else where. So yes we must show support for our northn and we must protect it or lose it. Having a larger and better equipped army is just one of those things. The trouble is that once you have built and trained these personal, they need experience in war zones and even in peace keeping duties. You get that by sending them to areas like Afghangistan, and that is where all our training will be tested. When they come back they will be better trained then they were when they left . Yes we will lose some and the fact that they are fighting what I would call the good fight, then these lost mmen and women will have died for a cause that was worthy of their effort. I am asamed of those who can only cry foul and scream for debate on this, as you are the enemies of a true democracy. You only know the word "ME" when it comes to things to have attention paid to them.

The laws and the rules as they now sit allow for the Prime Minister to go ahead with the actions in Afghanistan, without any further debate, as time for debate was back when the Liberals made the decision to send the troops, not now. The time has come for all to put aside all the pety bickering and say that we will support our troops. If any of you want to have a debate on this, then when the terms of the engagement are chnged by any large degree, is the time to debate it. Not now!

[Wilber]

If I hear one more dishonest, brain-dead, knee-jerk comment about "supporting the troops", I'm gonna flip out. The troops are not even in the equation. The discussion is about the policy. The troops are the instruments of the policy, not the policy itself. It's not complicated, people.

You don't think we should support the people who carry out this country's policies?

[stignasty]

If I hear one more dishonest, brain-dead, knee-jerk comment about "supporting the troops", I'm gonna flip out. The troops are not even in the equation. The discussion is about the policy. The troops are the instruments of the policy, not the policy itself. It's not complicated, people.

You don't think we should support the people who carry out this country's policies?

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. I'll assume you aren't.

He's saying that questioning the policy does not indicate support or lack of support for the troops. He didn't say that we shouldn't support our soldiers or that he doesn't support them. He's saying that there is a difference between supporting them and questioning the policies that affect them.

[Black Dog]

He's saying that questioning the policy does not indicate support or lack of support for the troops. He didn't say that we shouldn't support our soldiers or that he doesn't support them. He's saying that there is a difference between supporting them and questioning the policies that affect them.

Pretty much. The troops, as far as I'm concerned, don't even enter into it. In fact, I think dragging the troops into the debate over the policy is logically unsound. First the term "support the troops" is so bloody subjective and ambiguous as to be essentially meaningless. Also, I have a hard time believing anyone oppossed to the policy actively wants to undermine the work of the people carrying out said policy or worse, actively wishing harm upon them. At its core, the "support the troops" argument is a false dilemma.

[August1991]

If I hear one more dishonest, brain-dead, knee-jerk comment about "supporting the troops", I'm gonna flip out.

I agree. "Support the troops" is at best a mindless, hackneyed phrase and at worst, it's a shibboleth to decide who's a member of the club. Well, a civilized human being can decide not to support the troops, as long as it's clear what that means.

Stephen Harper’s visit to Afghanistan was significant on many levels -- as a gesture of support to the troops, a signal of Canadian commitment, a teaching moment for the public on Canada’s interests in that fight, and in the broader struggle against international terrorism. It was also, needless to say, a masterpiece of political theatre, showcasing both Mr. Harper’s well-known determination and a subtler sense of tone that many doubted he possessed.

Andrew Coyne

I'll repeat it again. When the Left attempts to say that Harper is a mouthpiece or twin of Bush, or the Left criticizes this Afghan mission, the Left demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of ordinary Canadians. The Left (the NDP, the Liberals during an election, Sheila Copps, Tim Murphy, David Herle) harps on about "social democracy" and defending the interests of "ordinary, working Canadians" when it appears they really don't know Canadians at all.

[Black Dog]

When the Left attempts to say that Harper is a mouthpiece or twin of Bush, or the Left criticizes this Afghan mission, the Left demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of ordinary Canadians.

I'll say this, though: when Harper is using lines ripped straight out of the Gee Dubya phrasebook, he opens himself up to such comparisons. And you can't tell me that choices of phrase like "cut and run" and "support our troops" are not calculated. Harper's handlers can't be so obtuse as to be unaware of just who those terms conjure up.

The Left (the NDP, the Liberals during an election, Sheila Copps, Tim Murphy, David Herle) harps on about "social democracy" and defending the interests of "ordinary, working Canadians" when it appears they really don't know Canadians at all.

Care to elaborate? It seesm to me that this Afghan mission doesn't do much for ordinary working Canadians: certainly no one in favour of the deployment has stressed what benefits we get out of this other than warm fuzzies at the sight of little Afghan girls going to school and the hope that maybe the cool kids (U.S., U.K) will let us sit next to them in the cafeteria. Given Canadians' apparent unease over the mission (if not outright confusion), it doesn't seem like they are getting any answers. And for Harper's use of the old "support the troops" line shows the government isn't interested in selling this mission to Canadians; they just want Canadians to shut up and go along with it. After all, the government knows best (and here I thought the CPC was all about change....)

[Wilber]

If I hear one more dishonest, brain-dead, knee-jerk comment about "supporting the troops", I'm gonna flip out. The troops are not even in the equation. The discussion is about the policy. The troops are the instruments of the policy, not the policy itself. It's not complicated, people.

You don't think we should support the people who carry out this country's policies?

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not. I'll assume you aren't.

He's saying that questioning the policy does not indicate support or lack of support for the troops. He didn't say that we shouldn't support our soldiers or that he doesn't support them. He's saying that there is a difference between supporting them and questioning the policies that affect them.

And here I thought the title of this thread was "Harper is in Kandahar". Do you think he should be there supporting them on our behalf, or discussing policy with them?

[Black Dog]

And here I thought the title of this thread was "Harper is in Kandahar". Do you think he should be there supporting them on our behalf, or discussing policy with them?

Huh? What part of "the troops don't enter into it (that is: the policy debate)" don't you comprehend? Harper's in Afghanistan to photo op and drum up support for the policy. The troops are props in a political kabuki.

[fixer1]

When the Left attempts to say that Harper is a mouthpiece or twin of Bush, or the Left criticizes this Afghan mission, the Left demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of ordinary Canadians.

I'll say this, though: when Harper is using lines ripped straight out of the Gee Dubya phrasebook, he opens himself up to such comparisons. And you can't tell me that choices of phrase like "cut and run" and "support our troops" are not calculated. Harper's handlers can't be so obtuse as to be unaware of just who those terms conjure up.

The Left (the NDP, the Liberals during an election, Sheila Copps, Tim Murphy, David Herle) harps on about "social democracy" and defending the interests of "ordinary, working Canadians" when it appears they really don't know Canadians at all.

Care to elaborate? It seesm to me that this Afghan mission doesn't do much for ordinary working Canadians: certainly no one in favour of the deployment has stressed what benefits we get out of this other than warm fuzzies at the sight of little Afghan girls going to school and the hope that maybe the cool kids (U.S., U.K) will let us sit next to them in the cafeteria. Given Canadians' apparent unease over the mission (if not outright confusion), it doesn't seem like they are getting any answers. And for Harper's use of the old "support the troops" line shows the government isn't interested in selling this mission to Canadians; they just want Canadians to shut up and go along with it. After all, the government knows best (and here I thought the CPC was all about change....)

I am really now wanting to stop laughing at your "what is in it for us" type rant, but I guess the warm and fuzzies just tickle in to do so. The average Canadian does care what happens in Afghangistan, for many reasons, some have to do with bringing a more freedom based approach to the way woman are looked at in that country, but also to maybe bring some sense to rebuild in a way that will allow the people to further their own interests without having to grow poppies for the drug lords. Maybe it is just the fact that as Canadians we have a habit of making the placesw where we have served in, better places for our having been there. Where else do we train our troops, that have the real life factors. We will be increasing our military so just where and how do you train them to be efficient in the field. Yes there will be casualties and that is the sad part, but it is also part and parcel of just what we need to do in this world to help it grow and not just degrade into little fiefdoms where life and death have no value at all.

When these troops come home and they have experienced all that they will have, do you think they will better be able to protect Canada? Do you think Canada is seen as being higher in peoples minds or lower for the role they play here? O r are you like the rat in the disney movie Charlottes web that says "what is in it for me Charlotte"?

[August1991]

I'll say this, though: when Harper is using lines ripped straight out of the Gee Dubya phrasebook, he opens himself up to such comparisons. And you can't tell me that choices of phrase like "cut and run" and "support our troops" are not calculated. Harper's handlers can't be so obtuse as to be unaware of just who those terms conjure up.

I'm beyond tired of "support our troops" but I can suffer through a few more "cut and runs". No, I don't think Harper receives his speeches by e-mail from central office. I suspect Harper doesn't want full-blown rhetoric, and the expressions are apt if prosaic. [There is something poetic in the Left drawing conclusions about the real world from mere symbols such as a few phrases.]

I'll repeat: Harper's trip resonated with many ordinary Canadians and the Left is blind not to see it (despite the fact that the Left claims to understand ordinary, working Canadians better than the corporate fat cats).

It seesm to me that this Afghan mission doesn't do much for ordinary working Canadians: certainly no one in favour of the deployment has stressed what benefits we get out of this other than warm fuzzies at the sight of little Afghan girls going to school and the hope that maybe the cool kids (U.S., U.K) will let us sit next to them in the cafeteria.

BD, you may have put your finger on the North American Left's basic flaw: NDP supporters were the unfavoured children in large families. They always felt ignored and left out while Mom or Dad's favoured son or daughter could do no wrong.

IOW, the Left has raised "oppressed victimhood" to an ideology, or a world view or a political perspective or whatever the current vogue word is.

Most ordinary Canadians don't see themselves as victims and they don't see themselves as oppressed. They don't see the world as a high school cafeteria with cool kids and dorks. They don't feel left out or unwanted or put upon.

May be this explains the visceral hatred English Canada's Left has towards Bush and why they invariably mix Bush into an issue that is primarily about Canada, and its place in the world.

[Wilber]

And here I thought the title of this thread was "Harper is in Kandahar". Do you think he should be there supporting them on our behalf, or discussing policy with them?

Huh? What part of "the troops don't enter into it (that is: the policy debate)" don't you comprehend? Harper's in Afghanistan to photo op and drum up support for the policy. The troops are props in a political kabuki.

So unlike heads of governments of other countries, Canadian heads of government should not be allowed to visit Canadian troops in war zones. Your nose is out of joint because no Liberal PM has ever taken the time or thought enough of them to do so.

I said at the beginning of this thread that this sort of behavior by our politicians is so un Canadian that some would have trouble with it.

I'm dam glad one of them finally got off his ass and went somewhere to tell them they are appreciated. It's their job.

There may be some political gain from this but it doesn't change the fact he did the right thing by going there. He obviously made no points with you or those like you but I guess it doesn't matter because in your eyes he can do nothing right. On the other hand I have also heard some people say he made them proud to be a Canadian. Harper made someone proud to be a Canadian. What a swine.

Got to go for a few days. See ya.

[Black Dog]

The average Canadian does care what happens in Afghangistan,

Really? Then why do most Canadians opposse our involvement there? Methinks they care in same way they care about starving children in Africa: "Oh dear, that's terrible. Change the channel, Canadian Idol is on!"

When these troops come home and they have experienced all that they will have, do you think they will better be able to protect Canada? Do you think Canada is seen as being higher in peoples minds or lower for the role they play here?

I don't believe peopl are looking at this as a training ground. And really, there surely are better ways for us to feel good about ourselves that don't involve millions of dollars and an indeterminate number of lives.

I'm beyond tired of "support our troops" but I can suffer through a few more "cut and runs". No, I don't think Harper receives his speeches by e-mail from central office. I suspect Harper doesn't want full-blown rhetoric, and the expressions are apt if prosaic. [There is something poetic in the Left drawing conclusions about the real world from mere symbols such as a few phrases.]

"The Left confuses symbols for reality!"

I'll repeat: Harper's trip resonated with many ordinary Canadians and the Left is blind not to see it (despite the fact that the Left claims to understand ordinary, working Canadians better than the corporate fat cats).

And this proves...what? Emotional photo ops, with the PM decked out in a flak jacket, rubbing shoulders with dusty grunts resonates with the average Joe? Knock me dover wih a feather.

BD, you may have put your finger on the North American Left's basic flaw: NDP supporters were the unfavoured children in large families. They always felt ignored and left out while Mom or Dad's favoured son or daughter could do no wrong.

What....the...hell??

IOW, the Left has raised "oppressed victimhood" to an ideology, or a world view or a political perspective or whatever the current vogue word is.

Most ordinary Canadians don't see themselves as victims and they don't see themselves as oppressed. They don't see the world as a high school cafeteria with cool kids and dorks. They don't feel left out or unwanted or put upon.

Interesting because what I'm seeing is people saying we can't leave becasuse of the damage to our international reputation. That's a sophmoric view of the world grounded in thinking straight out of junior high. So yeah, some Canadians do feel left out, and I'll wager they all voted CPC.

May be this explains the visceral hatred English Canada's Left has towards Bush and why they invariably mix Bush into an issue that is primarily a Canadian question.

How do you separate Afghanistan from the War on Terror, a Bush creation?

[August1991]

There may be some political gain from this but it doesn't change the fact he did the right thing by going there.

That's the key point, and most Canadians know it, and were impressed by the way he did it too.

Let's wait and see some more but it may well be that we haven't had a PM like this since Mike Pearson.

[scribblet]

After years of wilful neglect of the military Harper's decision to devote his first international trip as prime minister to showing solidarity with our troops was a powerful statement. And it was no quick photo-op he was there overnight and a full day. The prevous gov't should also be given credit for increasing the committment to Afghanistan.

[Argus]

If I hear one more dishonest, brain-dead, knee-jerk comment about "supporting the troops", I'm gonna flip out. The troops are not even in the equation. The discussion is about the policy. The troops are the instruments of the policy, not the policy itself. It's not complicated, people.

Perhaps true. But we sent them over there where they're in daily danger. It isn't exactly "supporting the troops" to start shouting in Parliament that the mission is a waste of time, will accomplish nothing, violates international law, shames Canada, will lead to the slaughter of innocents and the countless wasteful, useless deaths of Canadian troops.

Now is it?