Stephen Harper using the troops AGAIN.

[gerryhatrick]

Stephen Harper did it first in the House last May during the pre-vote debate on the Afghanistan mission:

"We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward." he said then. The threat: if you don't vote for this mission the troops won't have the support of Parliament.

Then he did it again in August during a speech to his caucus when he said the Liberals were "divided" on "whether or not to support our troops".

Quote obviously this is a reference to the May vote....so AGAIN he equates a vote against the mission as a vote against supporting the troops.

The last example (I know of) was just this last Friday, during a Parliament Hill rally for Canadians to show support for the troops. While speaking there Harper said:

"You cannot say you are for our military and then not stand behind the things they do".

So again, you must support the mission as Harper defines it, or you are not supporting the troops.

Given the venue, this last time is the most DESPICABLE. The occasion was intended specifically to support Canada's troops and recognize that they defend our freedoms when called to do so....Harper used it as an opportunity to again spread his lie that support for our troops is dependent upon support for the missions that civilian leadership dictates.

Mr. Harper, our troops have the UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT of the vast majority of Canadians, and that is NEVER dependent upon agreement or disagreement on any particular mission. You need to learn that, and stop treating the troops like an election club you can swing around at will. They deserve better.

EDIT NOVEMBER27 - THIS NONSENSE CONTINUES:

Here was Harper in the House yesterday:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, average Americans sent a very strong message to George Bush indicating that they thought his war in Iraq was wrong. Every day we see more and more Canadians speaking out with their concerns about the Liberal-Conservative mission in Kandahar.

The Liberals and the Prime Minister do not have the support of average Canadians when it comes to the mission in Afghanistan.

Will the Prime Minister finally rethink this unbalanced and ill-defined mission before he meets the same fate as his southern cousin?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern the leader of the NDP has for my fate.

That said, regardless of what happens in the United States, our role here is to support our Canadian men and women in uniform. I understand that is what the leader of the NDP in Nova Scotia did yesterday in supporting an all party resolution. Darrell Dexter said, “Our job here in this province is to support our soldiers and our military personnel”. That is the job of Canadians in every province and in every party.

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there are reasons why more and more Canadians are opposed to the war in Afghanistan. The mission is unbalanced, there is no exit strategy and there is no measure of success. It is a mission that just is not working. Ordinary Americans have sent the Republicans the message that they do not support the war in Iraq.

Will the Prime Minister finally change the direction of the Afghanistan mission and rethink it, as needs to be done?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Afghanistan mission is a United Nations mission, and is supported by almost all of the countries in the world. It is supported by the government and people of Afghanistan. It is important that we always support our soldiers.

Before Remembrance Day, when we remember our veterans, I have to say that it is important to support our troops when they are in the armed forces as they are at present.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...nsard&Ses=1

The day before remembrance day he not only utilizes his old "support the troops" trick in relation to the mission, he even INVOKES the sacred day in doing so.

Despicable.

[Durgan]

The propaganda the last two days has been unrelenting 22 and 23 September 2006.

Harper will separate support for the troops from support for the mission. He is pandering to the lowest denominator of the Canadian public. I suspect the CBC got the message also the Globe and Mail. Mansbridge, the bugle caller, automatically falls in line. Manbridge interviewed Kazai from a prepared list of questions prepared by the PMO. It is time this lap dog retired.

I muse about who is going to get the CBC Chairman position. Goebbels is dead but Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Minister of Information (currently on administrative leave) is available. He was the Minister in charge of the Iraqi propaganda during the Bush Families second war in Iraq. I hope the appointment isn't a lap dog.

Everyone in Canada supports the troops that is a given. Most people do not support the NATO Mission, in fact, most of NATO does not support this mission. The proof is the limited contribution of troops from NATO countries. It is sparce to say the least.

Harper is leading Canadians down the garden path to disaster, fortunately he has a minority government and hopefully will fail soon.

Durgan

[B. Max]

Our troops have the UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT of the vast majority of Canadians, and that is NEVER dependent upon agreement or disagreement on any particular mission. Mr. Harper needs to learn that, and stop treating the troops like an election club he can swing around at will. They deserve better.

Harper is right. To not support the mission is to under mine it, there by undermining the troops are doing the fighting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Harper is right. To not support the mission is to under mine it, there by undermining the troops are doing the fighting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Supporting the troops is the right thing to do. The NDP have been attempting to take political advantage of it. shame on them...

[geoffrey]

Opposition is acceptable, but dangerous to the troops. The Taliban wants us out, so they can return to their terrorist harbouring, ruthless oppression of civilians ways. As soon as they hear that killing Canadian troops makes Canadians want to leave, they escalate their violence in order to get us out faster.

The more you say the body count doesn't justify the mission, the more the Taliban sees how to win.

So yes, I would stand behind the asertion that Jack Layton and now some Liberals calling for withdrawl is a leading factor in the deaths of many of our troops in Afghanistan, it gives justifcation to the Talibans actions.

[jdobbin]

The more you say the body count doesn't justify the mission, the more the Taliban sees how to win.

So in the interest of the troops, there should be no mention of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan? And those that do are guilty of killing them?

[Higgly]

Supporting the troops is the right thing to do.

Supporting the troops is not the same thing as supporting the mission. I support the troops fully. I am distressed that young Canadians are being killed on foreign soil.

The mission is a political issue. That has nothing to do with supporting the troops.

It's like the difference between supporting Firefighters and supporting firebugs.

[geoffrey]

The more you say the body count doesn't justify the mission, the more the Taliban sees how to win.

So in the interest of the troops, there should be no mention of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan? And those that do are guilty of killing them?

I'll take the bait. I've got no problem with the media constantly relying the names, face, ect., gives us a sense of the reality of the situation and how heroic our people are overseas.

But when our elected officals, leaders of major parties, are saying we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, we need to leave right away... you tell me, what message does that send to the Taliban?

Of course, you might support the Taliban returning to power, and then by all means protest the mission. That is the only possible result if we leave Kandahar.

[Ricki Bobbi]

It's like the difference between supporting Firefighters and supporting firebugs.

Do explain that analogy?

The troops in general are firefighters but the troops in Afghanistan are criminals, i.e. firebugs, for participating in a mission?

[gerryhatrick]

Our troops have the UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT of the vast majority of Canadians, and that is NEVER dependent upon agreement or disagreement on any particular mission. Mr. Harper needs to learn that, and stop treating the troops like an election club he can swing around at will. They deserve better.

Harper is right. To not support the mission is to under mine it, there by undermining the troops are doing the fighting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That is nonsense, and it is despicable nonsense.

[Ricki Bobbi]

That is nonsense, and it is despicable nonsense.

Continually attacking our mission in Afghanistan is far more despicable as it cheapens the memory of the victory of the 9/11 attacks and our valiant soldiers who have given their lives int hsi admirable cause.

[geoffrey]

That is nonsense, and it is despicable nonsense.

Continually attacking our mission in Afghanistan is far more despicable as it cheapens the memory of the victory of the 9/11 attacks and our valiant soldiers who have given their lives int hsi admirable cause.

Both of you are ridiculous.

The simple reality is that the Taliban wants us out, having Canadians essientially telling the Taliban to kill more so the public votes a anti-Afghanistan government into power is counter-productive. Hardline withdrawl advocates are a component of the factors involved in the increasing violence. That's reality, the rhetoric of freedom of speech, supporting the troops, 9/11, emotion, ect. ect. doesn't count.

The facts, Layton and those types continue to run their mouths, more troops will die. Withdrawl simply isn't a moral option, but it's an option. An anti-war party gets elected, we pull out (after sustaining a critical number of casulties to encourage such a move), and everyday Afghans go back to suffering and we lose our moral advantage.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Both of you are ridiculous.

The simple reality is that the Taliban wants us out, having Canadians essientially telling the Taliban to kill more so the public votes a anti-Afghanistan government into power is counter-productive. Hardline withdrawl advocates are a component of the factors involved in the increasing violence. That's reality, the rhetoric of freedom of speech, supporting the troops, 9/11, emotion, ect. ect. doesn't count.

The facts, Layton and those types continue to run their mouths, more troops will die. Withdrawl simply isn't a moral option, but it's an option. An anti-war party gets elected, we pull out (after sustaining a critical number of casulties to encourage such a move), and everyday Afghans go back to suffering and we lose our moral advantage.

Was that first point really necessary?

Do you honestly think the Taliban are monitoring Canadian domestic politics and specifically attacking Candian troops in an attempt to weaken the resolve here at home?

We do have a moral obligation to stay, and probably will.

The only way we leave is *IF* somebody other than Iggy wins the Libeeral leadership *and* the Liberals win the next election.

[B. Max]

Our troops have the UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT of the vast majority of Canadians, and that is NEVER dependent upon agreement or disagreement on any particular mission. Mr. Harper needs to learn that, and stop treating the troops like an election club he can swing around at will. They deserve better.

Harper is right. To not support the mission is to under mine it, there by undermining the troops are doing the fighting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That is nonsense, and it is despicable nonsense.

It is not nonsense. Not only did years of leftist appeasement give us 911 they aid and abet the enemy by trying to undermining the war on Islamic terrorists hell bent on world conquest. Harper and Bush should have long ago called it what it is.

[geoffrey]

Do you honestly think the Taliban are monitoring Canadian domestic politics and specifically attacking Candian troops in an attempt to weaken the resolve here at home?

Absolutely. It doesn't cost much to get a Globe and Mail. I'm sure they have a few that can read English.

We do have a moral obligation to stay, and probably will.

Depends on who's the Liberal leader in a couple months.

The only way we leave is *IF* somebody other than Iggy wins the Libeeral leadership *and* the Liberals win the next election.

Not that unlikely. The odds are pretty close in lot of combinations IMO.

[killjoy]

It is not ridiculous to say that undermining the mission is dangerous to the troops.

That doesn't mean we can't talk/debate about it. The bottom line as I feel I've managed to prove is that popular perception of the mission is created by the media and the media is inherently over pessimistic and in many cases is spreading outright disinformation. Armed conflict, including this one with the Taliban is lost only ever by one of 2 paths. Loss because of inferior firepower or tactics and loss because of political will. This is the ONLY way the Taliban will win against us and they know it. Subsequently the media is their harshest weapon.

To have an army of self-centered, self-serving journalistic Nabobs and self-proclaimed 'experts' inundate us with hand-wringing and empty rhetorical opinions, logical fallacies and tripe that the sky is always falling is, unfortunately, one of the Talibans only weapons. In fact the biggest weapon terrorism has is the media. A car bomb goes off half-way around the world and you will still hear about it even if it has nothing to do with you. When the IRA was employing terroristic/guerilla tactics they only solidified their enemy against them, but it got the rest of the world thinking they were simple misunderstood freedom fighters. Blatant one-sided pandering pessimistic propaganda most certainly is helping the Taliban and terrorists everywhere. It works especially well on Westerners who percieve themselves as 'worldy' or 'educated' when they're not. They appeal to the readers sense of ego.

Is it not unreasonable to debate the current state of affairs and whether or not we should go, stay, stay until this date or change what we're doing. I don't believe that has a thing to do with 'supporting the troops'.

Is it unreasonable to ask those who are pessimistic to give it an honest chance, including giving it a realistic amount of time and resources to realistically be able to achieve the goal without standing up and shouting that we're doomed, the mission is doomed, everything is doomed every time we receive casualties? Every time a car bomb goes off? It is understood by any reasonable and educated adult that a mission like this needs a reasonable amount of time and there are undoubtedly going to be car bombs, friendly fire and casualties. This is a given. It's disingenuous for people to say, "See? I told you it was a bad idea" every time they read a blurb.

.

[watching&waiting]

We, Canada, are at war with the Taliban and torrorist insurgents in Afghanistan. That means our Prime Minister is the one who has full authority to use the troops and he also has the responsibility for ordering them into danger. So the title of this thread is almost as stupid as the thread its self. Layton and his NDP are the biggest idiots when it comes to anything to do with government, and in the village of Parliament he would be the village idiot, but mind you there is a close race for that position. Layton is a traitor to Canada and if he were in the front lines and repeated what he has here he would be shot for such. This is war, and yes Canada is in it, like it or not. We have to support our troops 100% and anyone who does not, should be expelled from Canada.

There are places for arguments about our soldiers and it is not in the middle of the media. There may come a time in the not so distant future, where war will break out on our own soil, and it again will be a terrorist war much like what we see in Afghanistan. Canada has been very lucky to not have had war on its soil since 1812. We must see that it can and will come here one day, are you ready for that time? I think not, as we have become lazy little cry babies and expect everything to be done for us, by others never by ourselves. I am proud to be a Canadian, and I am proud of our troops in Afghanistan and for what they stand for and what they are doing. You have a right to think different that that, just keep it to yourself and out of the media, as it harms our troops and reduces their moral.

I for one would like to see the drafting of guys like Gerryhatrick, he would make a good bayonet dumby during training, and maybe we could sent him over the front lines to see if he can talk to the Taliban. All this guy seems to do here is try to raise a stink about any and everything, and he really has not proof of most of what he says. He admits he uses a arab minded think tank for his way of thinking and to me that is just waving the flag infront of the bull. To me he is a traitor to the country and to the troops abroad, but Iam sure he will deny it.

[Argus]

Do you honestly think the Taliban are monitoring Canadian domestic politics and specifically attacking Candian troops in an attempt to weaken the resolve here at home?

There are a lot of Afghanis who have fled to Canada over the years, and they remain in touch with relatives and friends back home. Without a doubt, Canada's contribution to the efforts there, and how the news of casualties is being received is part of that communication. Also without a doubt, there are some of those Afghanis who sympathise with the Taliban. The message they could well be sending is "You should see the panic and horror the Canadians show every time you kill one of them! Without question, if you can kill some more the government will fall and the opposition will bring their soldiers home! It will be a major blow to the morale of the infidels supporting Karzai!

[Argus]

Harper is right. To not support the mission is to under mine it, there by undermining the troops are doing the fighting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That is nonsense, and it is despicable nonsense.

Those people are over there risking their lives for something they believe will help the people there, at the behest of their government.

To have numerous public figures shouting repeatedly into every camera they can find that the mission is a waste of time, that is accomplishing nothing, and that we can never win, is hardly going to contribute to their sense of morale. Nor is it very comforting to the families of those who died to have old smiling Jack Layton pat them on the back and say "Sorry your boy died for nothing, wasting his life in a hopeless cause we don't believe in. But then again, he was probably acting like a terrorist over there anyway."

[gerryhatrick]

I've read all replies. Rather than reply to them individually here's something in response to them all.

The idea that the comments of Layton or others in Canada who want a troop withdrawl would give those attacking Canadian troops more motivation is akin to saying that George Bush yacking about terrorists all the time encourages people to become terrorists.

The topic focuses on the assertion that not agreeing with the mission in some way undermines the troops. The troops will be undermined if there is no debate between all Canadian parties...whether they want a withdrawl or just some adjustments to the mission.

What Harper is doing is dangerous because it's an attempt to stifle the discussion that is so critical to our democracy. He undermines the troops when he uses them in that fashion.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The idea that the comments of Layton or others in Canada who want a troop withdrawl would give those attacking Canadian troops more motivation is akin to saying that George Bush yacking about terrorists all the time encourages people to become terrorists.

What Harper is doing is dangerous because it's an attempt to stifle the discussion that is so critical to our democracy. He undermines the troops when he uses them in that fashion.

Why are the anaolgies presented always so weak and ill-conceived?

Harper undermines the troops by not allowing Jack Layton to set the terms of the debate?

*If* Layton becomes PM he can set the terms. As it is he is just embarrassing himself with his thoughtless pandering to his core constituency...

[gerryhatrick]

Harper undermines the troops by not allowing Jack Layton to set the terms of the debate?

*If* Layton becomes PM he can set the terms. As it is he is just embarrassing himself with his thoughtless pandering to his core constituency...

You give Harper too much credit, he does not control the terms of the debate. Niether does Layton. Layton said something, and now everyone wishes to debate it...especially Harper because he sees it as politically useful to him.

But I could care less about what Layton has to say.

The issue, again, is that Harper is attempting to stifle the discussion that is so critical to our democracy. He undermines the troops when he uses them in that fashion.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You give Harper too much credit, he does not control the terms of the debate. Niether does Layton. Layton said something, and now everyone wishes to debate it...especially Harper because he sees it as politically useful to him.

But I could care less about what Layton has to say.

The issue, again, is that Harper is attempting to stifle the discussion that is so critical to our democracy. He undermines the troops when he uses them in that fashion.

Guess you agree on how weak the analogies presented are.

Harper is trying to keep our troops as secure as possible by providing them with the level of support the deserve.

Critical to democracy? Hmmm, your attitude to anybody opposing your ideas is as undemocratic as it gets.

Harper is acting in the best interest of our troops. Their job is to fight for our country when called upon to do so. They accept the risks. Continual attacks on their role undermines troop morale.

Thankfully we have a PM who the troops know they can depend on to support them and provide them with proper equipment.

[KrustyKidd]

The issue, again, is that Harper is attempting to stifle the discussion that is so critical to our democracy. He undermines the troops when he uses them in that fashion.

I think that he is simply trying to present a unified country in order to show Taliban fighters that we won't falter no matter how much they terrorize. Layton on the other hand, instead of prsenting arguments in Parliament says crap like the following in public;

"Canada doesn't send its soldiers to the front lines just because our prime minister wants to remain in Washington's good graces."

The NDP leader said there is a time and place for Canadians to fight but Afghanistan is not that time or place.

"There is no plan for victory. There is no exit strategy. There is no sign that it is making the Taliban weaker or the world safer...," Layton said.

Saying it once or twice is ok but to continually harangue about this in public would give any insurgent or enemy momentum for their belief of beating us over the short or long term.

The last example (I know of) was just this last Friday, during a Parliament Hill rally for Canadians to show support for the troops. While speaking there Harper said:

"You cannot say you are for our military and then not stand behind the things they do".

Do you think that we ahould all present a front that is divided with one showing we fight for Afganistan and the other saying that we should get out because we are taking casulaties? Or, do you think that our politicians should simply make a statement as to their postiion then debate it in parliement with voters able to make their choices come election day?

[betsy]

Harper is just stating the obvious. He trying to emphasize and be clear about it.

At least he was not like the Liberals, trying to depict our troops as the 'boogey-men" standing on every street corner in Canada....and Harper is not like the NDP, who likened our troops with terrorists.

Harper is the only one who had shown a genuine support for our troops!

If there are any phonies trying to use the troops AGAIN....look to the Liberals and the NDP. Their craftiness in low-down exploitation knows no boundaries. They have no qualms in using grieving parents and grieving spouses as well!