Harper is in Kandahar

[Argus]

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.

Maybe it wouldn't irk you, personally, to be known by others as a gutless, snivelling coward. Maybe it wouldn't bother you that others around you snicker and roll their eyes whenever you make a promise - knowiing you, as they do, and that you'll only keep agreements you feel like keeping.

It matters to most of us. Most of us feel the need to follow through on promises we make. And most of us see no need to panic and run at the first sign of hostility

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?

I think various Muslims created the war on terror. Bush simply fought back.

[Black Dog]

Maybe it wouldn't irk you, personally, to be known by others as a gutless, snivelling coward. Maybe it wouldn't bother you that others around you snicker and roll their eyes whenever you make a promise - knowiing you, as they do, and that you'll only keep agreements you feel like keeping.

It matters to most of us. Most of us feel the need to follow through on promises we make. And most of us see no need to panic and run at the first sign of hostility

Well, see, I'm able to separate my country from my person. Countries don't "snicker and roll their eyes". Countries operate acording to their self-interets. And if the self-interst conflicts with the demands, the former should win out regardless of how bad it hurts the feelings of those who'se sense of self is bound up in abstract nationalist sentiment. (within reason, of course. I'm not suggessting Canada abandon its deployment. See the next 18 months through, and tehn reevaluate)

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?

How is it not? In other words: how does questioning the policy (which of course requires acknowledging the consequenses of the policy) endanger or undermine the work of those carrying out the policy? It seems to be a given that it does: but I've seen precious little evidence to show it.