Stephen Harper using the troops AGAIN.

Canuck E Stan · November 25, 2006

You've clearly let your emotions run away with your brain.

Not really. Read your post again.

I think that's a specious argument.
The mission and it's continuation must always be judged by the present reality.

Holding up dead soldiers as a reason to continue a particular course of action does a disservice to their memory if anything.

This was in response to:

If anybody watched Global yesterday a report showed troops in the field talking about the mission. One of the points they made was if they were pulled out then their fellow soldiers would have died for nothing.

It was the troops opinions that you were calling specious and doing a disservice to the memory of their dead comrades, not the Globes opinions and not mine. I think my comments are more than justified and I would like to watch you say it to the face of one of those people.

Disagreeing with their opinions is one thing, belittling their opinions and their feelings toward their friends who have died is quite another. You may not agree with their logic but surely you must understand and respect it.

Surely Gerry will apologise for this awful,awful belittlement of the soldiers opinions towards their dead comrades.

You will express your error on this one won't you Gerry?

gerryhatrick · November 26, 2006

Disagreeing with their opinions is one thing, belittling their opinions and their feelings toward their friends who have died is quite another. You may not agree with their logic but surely you must understand and respect it.

How did I belittle their feelings toward their friends who have died?

I don't care who's making the argument, whether it's soldiers or not. To say that one of the reasons a course of action must be continued is because lives have already been lost is a specious argument.

Wilber · November 26, 2006

Disagreeing with their opinions is one thing, belittling their opinions and their feelings toward their friends who have died is quite another. You may not agree with their logic but surely you must understand and respect it.

How did I belittle their feelings toward their friends who have died?

I don't care who's making the argument, whether it's soldiers or not. To say that one of the reasons a course of action must be continued is because lives have already been lost is a specious argument.

Look up the word in the dictionary Gerry.

Websters

Apparently good or right though lacking real merit. Superficially pleasing.

Oxford

superficially plausible but actually wrong. Misleading in appearance.

You believe the opinions of our troops in Afghanistan regarding their mission and their dead friends lack merit, are superficial and misleading?

If not, perhaps you had better find a more appropriate choice of words.

normanchateau · November 26, 2006

So we write off a country because they don't choose to do things our way. We aren't there to build another little Canada, that would be futile. If they want to be a theocracy thats fine with me, the question is what they do with it.

If they want a theocracy, that's fine with me too. What's not so fine with me is Canadians dying for this theocracy. What's also not fine with me is billions of Canadian tax dollars being spent for years propping up this corrupt, fundamentalist Islamic theocracy. In March, 2006, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan sentenced to death a man who converted to Christianity. Sorry, but I do not support such a government. Fortunately, a majority of Canadians now oppose the military misadventure in Afghanistan. With time, that opposition will grow and Canada will ultimately support our courageous troops by bringing them back home.

Army Guy · November 27, 2006

Saturn:

The Soviets went into Afghanistan to help a government that was under attack by insurgents. Over 9 years, they had a constant presence of roughly 100,000 troops there in addition to the Afghan military. They lost 30,000 soldiers and achieved nothing as a result. The Afghan government was still ousted by the insurgents. If the Soviets had stayed there another 9 years, I doubt that they would have achieved anything different from losing another 30,000 soldiers and failing to succeed

I guess that would depend if you call a coup helping out the Afgan government. Soviet cas est are much lower est at under 15,000 killed and over 500,000 wia.

Soviets also installed a government to thier liking. There is no comparison to todays situation in Afgan to yester years.

What planet are you from? White minority in Afghanistan? Afghans ARE white! There are more whites in Afghanistan than there are in Canada.

Where did you get this info, could you provide a source. because Afgans are not white, not any more than Arabs.

As for raping Afghan women, I can't say it did not happen. The US forces tortured civilians in Iraq. Canadian forces tortured and raped civilians in Rwanda (and we didn't know it at the time). Torture and rape occurs in every conflict, even when forces from "civilized" countries are involved

Canadian armed forces tortured and raped civilians in Rwanda," NOT true", there has only been one case of Canadian soldiers torturing one boy and that was in somolia...And since then steps have been taken to ensure it does not happen again...

To you the Soviet invasion may be completely different from the NATO invasion but to the majority of Afghans it's just the same thing. It's mainly Christian foreigners occupying their lands trying to stuff foreign values down their throats.

Maybe you can give us an example of Christians stuffing values down anyones throat.

Army Guy · November 27, 2006

gerryhatrick:

I don't care who's making the argument, whether it's soldiers or not. To say that one of the reasons a course of action must be continued is because lives have already been lost is a specious argument.

That would depend on whom you where talking to, and in what context it was said in...In regards to soldiers comments it does make sense " every time you leave the wire and security of the camp, every soldier needs an excuse to pump himself up, to get his mind into the game as we say...And one of those reasons is in memory of a fallen comrad, it is a key motivating factor, into convincing ones mind into going into danger or facing death.

You have to take out any polictical meaning or statement, and put your self in his boots, and in his world which consists of only his section or platoon, anything else does not mean squat..

It is hard to put into words the bond that developes between soldiers, it is deeper than anything i've experiance in my life, stronger than bonds that develope between brother and sister, wife and husband, , in fact i'd put it on equal footing as bonds with your children... These bonds are for life..and it is what drives a soldier to do the things we do in and out of combat. And it is in that context that his comments should be taken.

As for it being a reason to stay when the situation is hopless then your right it is not an excuse that would hold water...But and i've said this a thousands times it has not gotten to that hopless piont yet...and when it does the soldiers will be the first to tell the world...

Army Guy · November 27, 2006

normanchateau:

If they want a theocracy, that's fine with me too. What's not so fine with me is Canadians dying for this theocracy.

Are you stating that unless a country decides to choose a Canadian look alike democracy they are not worthy of our assistance. That would sure thin out the list would it not.

What's also not fine with me is billions of Canadian tax dollars being spent for years propping up this corrupt, fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.

With power comes corruption, in fact i do not know of one government in the entire world that is absolutely free of curruption, as for the fundamentalist Islamic theocracy , how many Islamic countries do not follow this path, How many nations in the world does not allow religion to reflect in some decisions, laws, etc etc.

In March, 2006, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan sentenced to death a man who converted to Christianity.

This man was never excuted, in fact where is he now norm.

Sorry, but I do not support such a government. Fortunately, a majority of Canadians now oppose the military misadventure in Afghanistan. With time, that opposition will grow and Canada will ultimately support our courageous troops by bringing them back home.

And if we started to use all your conditions before we decided to launch another mission , we would never get out of the country. In fact how many hotspots in the world right now fit into your catagories?

cybercoma · November 27, 2006

normanchateau:
If they want a theocracy, that's fine with me too. What's not so fine with me is Canadians dying for this theocracy.

Are you stating that unless a country decides to choose a Canadian look alike democracy they are not worthy of our assistance. That would sure thin out the list would it not.

What's also not fine with me is billions of Canadian tax dollars being spent for years propping up this corrupt, fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.

With power comes corruption, in fact i do not know of one government in the entire world that is absolutely free of curruption, as for the fundamentalist Islamic theocracy , how many Islamic countries do not follow this path, How many nations in the world does not allow religion to reflect in some decisions, laws, etc etc.

In March, 2006, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan sentenced to death a man who converted to Christianity.

This man was never excuted, in fact where is he now norm.

Sorry, but I do not support such a government. Fortunately, a majority of Canadians now oppose the military misadventure in Afghanistan. With time, that opposition will grow and Canada will ultimately support our courageous troops by bringing them back home.

And if we started to use all your conditions before we decided to launch another mission , we would never get out of the country. In fact how many hotspots in the world right now fit into your catagories?

You keep pointing out that by his logic we'd never fight another mission again as if that tears apart his argument, when in fact that's exactly what normanchateau wants. He wants Canada to sit on its hands and never help another nation again. War is bad, there is never a good reason to go to war and he'll fight against the missions we get involved in, no matter the reasons.

jbg · November 28, 2006

The only way to rectify the situation in Afghanistan is through financial help. You can't beat people to change their ways as the Soviet occupation of its eastern european satellites proved.

The Soviets went into Afghanistan to help a government that was under attack by insurgents. Over 9 years, they had a constant presence of roughly 100,000 troops there in addition to the Afghan military. They lost 30,000 soldiers and achieved nothing as a result. The Afghan government was still ousted by the insurgents. If the Soviets had stayed there another 9 years, I doubt that they would have achieved anything different from losing another 30,000 soldiers and failing to succeed.
I can hardly see a difference between what they did and what we are doing now. We are just another foreign force supporting another Afghan government, which is under attack by insurgents. With a small military presence of under 50,000 and little financial support, we will achieve nothing different - just thousands of our young people will be killed there. We either have to take it seriously, put a force 200,000 strong and spend some BIG money in building the country, or we should get out and not have our soldiers killed there. So there are only two real choices - do the real thing or get out. Nothing in between makes sense. Currently we are doing what the Soviets did - achieving nothing at a huge cost of lives.

One of the problems may well be the amount of financial aid the government is getting. If it were not for aid, being rulers in a country like Afghanistan would be of interest only to people interested in making the country a better place to live for the people. Rulership in most of these non-viable, Third World countries is interesting because Western booty goes straight to the rulers' Swiss Bank accounts. There would be no "insurgencies" were it not for the financial attraction of being rulers.

Foreign aid should be "in kind", either in the form of infrastructure construction, education and the like. Even disaster assistance is a stretch, since that money seems to disappear with alarming regularity. Defense needs should be handled by Western troops, or locals operating under our guidance. There is no reason to give money to these regimes. None.

gerryhatrick · November 28, 2006

Take note that the original topic post has been updated with more information

jbg · November 28, 2006

Take note that the original topic post has been updated with more information

I guess you figure this thread needs new life. Normally, I'd suggest a new thread but that seems to come naturally.

gerryhatrick · November 28, 2006

Take note that the original topic post has been updated with more information

I guess you figure this thread needs new life. Normally, I'd suggest a new thread but that seems to come naturally.

At the time of my post the thread was at the top. Don't polute the forum with your sour grapes please.

Everything I've posted is reality. If you're a Harper supporter and resent it, then address his words not me.

normanchateau · November 28, 2006

when in fact that's exactly what normanchateau wants. He wants Canada to sit on its hands and never help another nation again. War is bad, there is never a good reason to go to war and he'll fight against the missions we get involved in, no matter the reasons.

I've never ever said that "there is never a good reason to go to war" nor have I ever said that Canada should "never help another nation again". It's the Afghanistan mission I oppose. I'm proud of what Canadian forces accomplished in World War I and II. But in those wars, we weren't fighting to prop up a corrupt Islamic theocracy.

normanchateau · November 28, 2006

In March, 2006, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan sentenced to death a man who converted to Christianity.

This man was never excuted, in fact where is he now norm.

I've never said he was executed. What I said is that he was sentenced to death. In response to intense international pressure, including pressure from Bush and Harper, the Karzai government exiled him to Italy in order to avoid the execution that the mullahs were demanding. A country which sentences a man to death then exiles him from his own country for converting to Christianity is not the kind of "democracy" I support. And judging by the fact that a majority of Canadians do not support this miltary misadventure, apparently I'm not alone.

gerryhatrick · December 1, 2006

when in fact that's exactly what normanchateau wants. He wants Canada to sit on its hands and never help another nation again. War is bad, there is never a good reason to go to war and he'll fight against the missions we get involved in, no matter the reasons.

I've never ever said that "there is never a good reason to go to war" nor have I ever said that Canada should "never help another nation again". It's the Afghanistan mission I oppose. I'm proud of what Canadian forces accomplished in World War I and II. But in those wars, we weren't fighting to prop up a corrupt Islamic theocracy.

It's too bad you have to defend yourself against such slander.

The reality is that Stephen Harper, in all his wisdom, has decided to link support for the troops with support for the mission.

So now support for our troops is conditional?

No Steve, I don't think so.

lovejays · December 1, 2006

I may be a just a kid, but this discussion seems really funny to me. You do realize most of you people sound exactly like Americans fighting about the war in Iraq. Sadly, the only way I know this is because I'm on the MLB message boards a lot and they don't always talk baseball. The thing is, you guys will be arguing forever. In the States the GOPers tell the Dems that because they think the troops should be withdrawn from Iraq; they are not supporting troops and are therefore un-american. The Dems then go and argue that the GOPers are listening to the BS flowing from George Bush's mouth and therefore the GOPers cannot think for themselves. It's a really stupid arguement, and no one is going to agree. I think it's unfair to tell someone that because they think troops should be removed they do not support troops. How can you not support someone if you don't want them to be killed? It is also unfair to tell people who think that it is important to leave the troops where they are that they can't think for themselves. I dislike seeing this kind of discussion, there are reasons why our troops are there and there are reasons why they should be pulled out, but that isn't why this discussion was started. It was started because someone questioned if Harper was trying to put people in the trap of "If you don't agree with me that the troops are meant to be where they are than you obviously don't support our troops and doing them a diservice." I don't like that approach and I don't like the approach of "If you think our troops should stay there then you are an idiot." Sorry if i repeated myself i just hate when these type of discussions are turned into black and white subjects because they aren't, it's just a whole lot of grey.

Canadian Blue · December 1, 2006

I've never said he was executed. What I said is that he was sentenced to death. In response to intense international pressure, including pressure from Bush and Harper, the Karzai government exiled him to Italy in order to avoid the execution that the mullahs were demanding. A country which sentences a man to death then exiles him from his own country for converting to Christianity is not the kind of "democracy" I support. And judging by the fact that a majority of Canadians do not support this miltary misadventure, apparently I'm not alone.

Don't kid yourself, its about 50/50. As for corrupt governments, Canada has helped out corrupt governments for the past 50 years since they were the "lesser of two evils".

It's too bad you have to defend yourself against such slander.
The reality is that Stephen Harper, in all his wisdom, has decided to link support for the troops with support for the mission.

So now support for our troops is conditional?

No Steve, I don't think so.

So far regular American civilian's have supported our troops more than Canadian's. A friend of mine was at a Tim Horton's and an American saw him in uniform and thanked him for what we were doing to support our country. Later a Canadian was simply making the same rant that Norman does about Afghanistan to my friend.

Canadian's have never really supported our troops, some do, but not all. Look at the Airborne Regiment, Canadian's obviously didn't mind kicking those guys around. Hell governments have gotten a few extra points for promising budget cuts to the CF.

I've never ever said that "there is never a good reason to go to war" nor have I ever said that Canada should "never help another nation again". It's the Afghanistan mission I oppose. I'm proud of what Canadian forces accomplished in World War I and II. But in those wars, we weren't fighting to prop up a corrupt Islamic theocracy.

But the Afghan's can't have our help because a mullah made some stupid decision.

Does anybody on here think that the transition from theocracy to democracy is easy? Honestly, look at Afghanistan now, their are more women in parliament, reconstruction projects going on, democratic elections. I don't get why Liberal's don't support any of this.

What I find hypocritical is that I as well as many coursemates were told that alot of soldiers would be dying in Afghanistan in September of 2005. Now alot of the same Liberal's are going against the mission they originally supported, and who fully knew that their would be deaths in Afghanistan. That's what pisses me off is they knew what was going to happen, and now are using it for political gain since they were kicked out of office.

watching&waiting · December 1, 2006

Liberals doe the most part are against the mission because they believe they can make political hay out of it. Lets face the facts about what they really have to run on. Does anyone believe that the liberals should try and run on their past records? I think that what the liberals need to do is some how try to make everyone forget about their past records, and try to sell the idea of this is a brand new liberal party and it is all new ideas. As if they can not sell that, then it will be the opposition roles for the party for quite some time.

After this weekend we will see who they pick as leader and then we will see the time where they try to unite the party, and come up with new missions etc. The trouble is the old party still has many of the old guards still in there, and these guys while lying low this time out, are trying to tie string to the new leaders so they can be their puppets. I can only imagine just how this will work out, but if it comes out to the public before the next election, it will devastate the party right from the get go.

I even can already see that the liberals are not getting as much press for this convention as they did for others and I am not so sure if that was by design or just being snubbed. Either way the back stabbing starts later tonight and I guess it will go thru the weekend. On Monday we will see who the prize winner is and who is elected leader.

uOttawaMan · December 2, 2006

Well only thing to do now is join the CF.

Canadian Blue · December 2, 2006

Well only thing to do now is join the CF.

What, I'm confused??? :blink:

normanchateau · December 3, 2006

But the Afghan's can't have our help because a mullah made some stupid decision.

Not only did hundreds of mullahs demand the execution of the Afghan man who converted to Christianity, thousands of ordinary Afghan citizens marched in the streets to demand his execution.

Here's one of many stories on this issue:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HC25Df02.html

Here's more on the reaction of Afghan clerics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_...#Muslim_clerics

Look CB, I know you support the mission and I don't but even you can't deny that the people of Afghanistan, even those who are anti-Taliban, have no problem with killing Muslims who convert to Christianity. There are thousands of Christian converts in Afghanistan who must keep their conversion a secret or face the death penalty. Canadian forces are far too valuable to sacrifice for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

stignasty · December 3, 2006

Liberals doe the most part are against the mission because they believe they can make political hay out of it.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

geoffrey · December 3, 2006

Liberals doe the most part are against the mission because they believe they can make political hay out of it.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

That they all supported it not so long ago, until it became a political tool.

stignasty · December 3, 2006

Liberals doe the most part are against the mission because they believe they can make political hay out of it.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement?

That they all supported it not so long ago, until it became a political tool.

They all supported it, but now they all oppose it? Please be more specific. Was a study done that I'm not aware of?

normanchateau · December 3, 2006

Liberals doe the most part are against the mission because they believe they can make political hay out of it.

Some Liberals support the mission and some oppose it. However, a majority of Canadians now oppose the mission, and most of them strongly oppose the mission. Here's the link:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Ipsos_Reid:_Po..._Afghan_mission

As indicated in the link, Alberta is now the only province in Canada where a majority support the mission. Then again, isn't Alberta the only province in Canada to elect only CPC MPs?