Stephen Harper using the troops AGAIN.

[Ricki Bobbi]

How does extending the mission re-affirm our support for the troops? You seem a little lost on that one.

Answering a question with a question again Gerry?

You answer the question than I'll deal with yours.

[killjoy]

How does extending the mission re-affirm our support for the troops?

Of course the question is completely stupid and if the asker had an honest bone in their body they'd know the answer already. It supports the troops because it supports the mission they've been fighting for by giving them a realistic amount of time to complete what is a daunting and risky proposition under any circumstances instead of yanking them out just when the fight begins, but after they’ve already sacrificed lives. Really pretty easy answer there if you're honest about it.

I dunno. maybe Canadians thought Tora Bora would be it; we'd be done. If they did they weren't being realistic.

.

[bradco]

Last time I checked we still lived in a democracy. It is absolutly necessary to question our government on everything. The opposition parties and the media have a duty to question all policies and whether they are the right course of action. Questioning whether we should be at war has nothing to do with not supporting our troops. Questioning whether they should be off dieing somewhere has nothing to do with not supporting them. That being said this questioning should be done in the house. Layton especially is using this issue through the media as a tool to gain political support. At the same time though I believe he is doing this because of what he believes is the best policy for our government and our troops and I can respect his right to believe this (while disagreeing with him). Anyone who wants to shutdown debate ought to pack up and head off to some facist country for awhile. Not having debate is weakening our democracy and surrendering to the terrorists we are fighting.

To come home now and to allow Afghanistan to fall back to its old ways would be a huge insult to the men who have given their lifes to secure peace for Afghanis and for us as well (by crushing a government that supported terrorists who had attacked our ally and closest trading partner). This war is morally justified and it is necessary for our country to come to the aid of our allies when they are attacked.

For the record, the legal justification for being in Afghanistan is no longer that it was a UN authorized mission. The legal argument as put forth by the Canadian government is that we are there at the request of the democratically elected government in Afghanistan. Intervention at the request of governments is allowed for under international law.

[Borg]

He 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 "diviced" 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.

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.

Interesting comments GH.

I personally agree with Harper - and it seems you do not.

Fortunately there were many troops who created the world we live in - here of course - not in other parts of the world - and therefore you can safely publicly state your opinion.

Happily there were few who attempted to hold back the troops during some of our past wars.

Are you a Harper hater? Or are you one who has never managed to be on the front lines?

I wonder if you would like to visit the boys and girs on the front and ask them their opinion?

Wanna' a ticket - or perhaps you would simply like to travel with me?

Borg

[gerryhatrick]

How does extending the mission re-affirm our support for the troops? You seem a little lost on that one.

Answering a question with a question again Gerry?

You answer the question than I'll deal with yours.

Sorry, I don't answer questions based upon a falsehood. Except to point out the falsehood, which I believe I've done.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Sorry, I don't answer questions based upon a falsehood. Except to point out the falsehood, which I believe I've done.

Here is the original question.

So by asking Parliament to re-affirm our support for the troops by extending the mission he threatened the troops with the loss of our support?

Where is the falsehood Gerry?

[Remiel]

A few posts back it was noted that a Republican came up to Canada to lecture the Conservatives on how to advertise and spin. That, is truly despicable. Remember, the Republicans, the same people who accused a certain US politician who lost THREE LIMBS for his country of being UNPATRIOTIC. Its not like the right in Canada were new to dirty politics either. During the '93 election, the PCs were responsible for the most sickening and disgusting election ad ever in Canadian politics. I wouldn't be surprised if at some level, that helped Chretiens popularity all the way up to the end.

[gerryhatrick]

Sorry, I don't answer questions based upon a falsehood. Except to point out the falsehood, which I believe I've done.

Here is the original question.

So by asking Parliament to re-affirm our support for the troops by extending the mission he threatened the troops with the loss of our support?

Where is the falsehood Gerry?

The falsehood was plainly identified for you. Do not play dumb.

Extending the misison does not re-affirm our support for the troops. The troops have our unconditional support regardless of a mission getting Parliamentary approval or not.

How dare you threaten the troops with a loss of support.

[gerryhatrick]

A few posts back it was noted that a Republican came up to Canada to lecture the Conservatives on how to advertise and spin. That, is truly despicable. Remember, the Republicans, the same people who accused a certain US politician who lost THREE LIMBS for his country of being UNPATRIOTIC.

Indeed, and we have a similar pack of rightwingers at work here in Canada, apparently.

This despicable game of accusing others of not supporting the troops if they don't support Conservative policy is all too familiar. Bush Republicans have been doing it for years.

[M.Dancer]

A few posts back it was noted that a Republican came up to Canada to lecture the Conservatives on how to advertise and spin. That, is truly despicable. Remember, the Republicans, the same people who accused a certain US politician who lost THREE LIMBS for his country of being UNPATRIOTIC.

Indeed, and we have a similar pack of rightwingers at work here in Canada, apparently.

This despicable game of accusing others of not supporting the troops if they don't support Conservative policy is all too familiar. Bush Republicans have been doing it for years.

Yes it is despicable....unless of course it's the NDP and then it's part of the democratic process to say that our troops are engaged in terrorism or that we should be negotiating with terrorists.

[Argus]

Extending the misison does not re-affirm our support for the troops. The troops have our unconditional support regardless of a mission getting Parliamentary approval or not.

Does that include those NDP members who think our troops are terrorists?

[scribblet]

name=

This despicable game of accusing others of not supporting the troops if they don't support Conservative policy is all too familiar. Bush Republicans have been doing it for years.

Yes it is despicable....unless of course it's the NDP and then it's part of the democratic process to say that our troops are engaged in terrorism or that we should be negotiating with terrorists.

TOUCHE !!

[gerryhatrick]

Extending the misison does not re-affirm our support for the troops. The troops have our unconditional support regardless of a mission getting Parliamentary approval or not.

Does that include those NDP members who think our troops are terrorists?

If there are NDP members who think our troops are terrorists then obviously it would not include them. I have not heard or heard it reported that any members do.

Perhaps you could provide some quotes or a link or something?

In any case, extending the mission does not re-affirm our support for the troops. That is a dirty little lie being spread by Harper, as evidenced in the quotes I provided in the topic post.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The falsehood was plainly identified for you. Do not play dumb.

Extending the misison does not re-affirm our support for the troops. The troops have our unconditional support regardless of a mission getting Parliamentary approval or not.

How dare you threaten the troops with a loss of support.

The Government didn't threaten the troops with a loss of support. Every government member voted to extend the mission....

[gerryhatrick]

The Government didn't threaten the troops with a loss of support. Every government member voted to extend the mission....

Read the quote from the May debate. In fact, here it is:

Harper: "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward."

Translation: if this mission extension doesn't get a passing vote the troops might not be supported.

It's despicable. The next time you see your boss be sure to tell him that.

[watching&waiting]

Gerry

You just do not get it do you. Your hate for everything Harper is going to drive you insane, if it has not already. You should be more concerned with the libs and what is left of their pathetic leadership voting. The only thing that Canadians need to catch on to is that the libs are once again showing that this next batch of leadership hopefuls are just as corrupt and and devious as the last batch. Hell Harper just has to stay his course and he will be sure to get re-elected. The libs will have to prove that they do not deserve to be reduced to the likes of the NDP. It is coming Gerry and I can hardly wait.

[gerryhatrick]

Your hate for everything Harper is going to drive you insane, if it has not already.

I take exception to being characterized as hating Harper. I don't know the man personally, I'm sure he's very nice. I do not like many things about how he is governing, obviously.

Your hate for anyone critisizing Harper is going to drive YOU insane!

[Ricki Bobbi]

Harper: "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward."

Translation: if this mission extension doesn't get a passing vote the troops might not be supported.

It's despicable. The next time you see your boss be sure to tell him that.

And if Harper hadn't put extending the mission to a vote in Parliament you would have started threads over and over and over again about he was being despicably undemocratic.

We get your point Gerry. You don't like the Prime Minister. You just spread lies about him. Interpret everything he does as negatively as possible. Always change the topic of every thread to an attack on the man.

If you don't hate him I hate to see how you treat somebody you do hate!

My only boss is the one who signs my cheques.

Oh I get it, you have never worked so you don't understand what a boss really is.

[scribblet]

If there are NDP members who think our troops are terrorists then obviously it would not include them. I have not heard or heard it reported that any members do.

Perhaps you could provide some quotes or a link or something?

In any case, extending the mission does not re-affirm our support for the troops. That is a dirty little lie being spread by Harper, as evidenced in the quotes I provided in the topic post.

Guess you missed it, some NDPers seem to be morally challenged not to mention this was same riding that refused to allow the "support the troops" shirts to be sold. Ujjal Dosanjh agreed with Layton re negotiating with the Taliban.

The 'dirty little lies' being spread are not by Harper but keep spinning.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...b59&k=31590

OTTAWA - Canada's troops in Afghanistan have been "acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people", according to a resolution that will be voted on by New Democrats at the party's convention in Quebec City this weekend.

[gerryhatrick]

If there are NDP members who think our troops are terrorists then obviously it would not include them. I have not heard or heard it reported that any members do.

Perhaps you could provide some quotes or a link or something?

In any case, extending the mission does not re-affirm our support for the troops. That is a dirty little lie being spread by Harper, as evidenced in the quotes I provided in the topic post.

Guess you missed it, some NDPers seem to be morally challenged not to mention this was same riding that refused to allow the "support the troops" shirts to be sold. Ujjal Dosanjh agreed with Layton re negotiating with the Taliban.

The 'dirty little lies' being spread are not by Harper but keep spinning.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...b59&k=31590

OTTAWA - Canada's troops in Afghanistan have been "acting like terrorists, destroying communities, killing and maiming innocent people", according to a resolution that will be voted on by New Democrats at the party's convention in Quebec City this weekend.

Those don't appear to be NDP MP's, correct? It's a resolution from a riding association...one out of 104 proposals on international affairs from riding associations.

So...NDP members think our troops are terrorists? So what.

I frankly don't care about some NDP riding association proposal that accused our troops of acting like terrorists. How about I throw into your face what some idiot on VampireFreaks.com has to say about the troops with the implication that you're obviously supporting that somehow? Yeah.

It's confusing to me what people are trying to argue with me. Harper is using the troops in a way that undeniably leverages support for them. It's unmistakable.

[Argus]

So...NDP members think our troops are terrorists? So what.

I frankly don't care about some NDP riding association proposal that accused our troops of acting like terrorists. How about I throw into your face what some idiot on VampireFreaks.com has to say about the troops with the implication that you're obviously supporting that somehow? Yeah.

It's confusing to me what people are trying to argue with me. Harper is using the troops in a way that undeniably leverages support for them. It's unmistakable.

What Harper is trying to do is leverage support for the mission.

[M.Dancer]

The Government didn't threaten the troops with a loss of support. Every government member voted to extend the mission....

Read the quote from the May debate. In fact, here it is:

Harper: "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward."

Translation: if this mission extension doesn't get a passing vote the troops might not be supported.

It's despicable. The next time you see your boss be sure to tell him that.

Semantics are dispicable.........I don't care for Harper but don't fault him for bringing a deadly mission to the house for a vote. The house voted and therefore the motion got the support of parliament...just like any other motion.

[geoffrey]

Your hate for everything Harper is going to drive you insane, if it has not already.

I take exception to being characterized as hating Harper. I don't know the man personally, I'm sure he's very nice. I do not like many things about how he is governing, obviously.

He's actually not very nice in person.

Much prefer his governing.

[betsy]

Read the quote from the May debate. In fact, here it is:

Harper: "We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward."

Translation: if this mission extension doesn't get a passing vote the troops might not be supported.

It's despicable. The next time you see your boss be sure to tell him that.

And where did that "translation" come from?

By the way you're carrying on, that "translation" is official! Provide your source.

I hate to think that, now, we judge and condemn people by the way their statements are ....TRANSLATED!

[BubberMiley]

Does that include those NDP members who think our troops are terrorists?

Calling them members sort of implies member of parliament, and not some no-name party member. There are lots of wacko CPC members out there, and they probably represent the mainstream of the party a lot better.