Stephen Harper using the troops AGAIN.

[betsy]

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.

What discussion is that?

And especially, what discussion "so critical to our democracy?"

Please explain.

[PolyNewbie]

It may be important to examine why the war is on rather than just blindly supporting the idea of sending troops to war because the oligarchy says we should.

So why are we there, does anyone know ?

Steven Harper says its because of 911 but 911 was an inside job.

[betsy]

Steven Harper says its because of 911 but 911 was an inside job.

Can you support this allegation?

[scribblet]

It may be important to examine why the war is on rather than just blindly supporting the idea of sending troops to war because the oligarchy says we should.

So why are we there, does anyone know ?

Steven Harper says its because of 911 but 911 was an inside job.

We are there as part of a UN sactioned NATO mission and you know that. As for 9/11 being an inside job - poppycock and thats putting it mildly.

Please don't divert threads into conspiracy theories.

As for the original allegation, debate is not being stifled and personally I was proud to be Canadian when Harper spoke at the U.N. he is doing Canada proud !

[betsy]

Steven Harper says its because of 911 but 911 was an inside job.

And anyway, if you do have any irrefutable proof that it was indeed an "inside job"....I urge you to contact CBC pronto.

They just did a special segment on conspiracy theories in remembrance of 9/11.....and nothing came out of it. And remember that this is the CBC...who seem to thoroughly enjoy the sport of bashing the USA.

[Topaz]

My question to those who support the war, why are we there? How is it in the interest of Canada to be there? Harper had a US PR person come up and see him and by the way the Con are talking in paraliament, they are working the spin! Everytime they get to their feet, they sometimes they answer the question, but before sitting down they remind the country of what a "few bad apples" of the Lib membership did concerning the scam. Baird is totally out of control on this! The country knows what happen and the country voted Harper a minority govt, so why not get on with what they said they do for the country! As far as Harper and the troops go... I think all Canadians support the troops and I believe some Canadians don't support the government who is keeping them there! Yeas the Libs put them there BUT Harper is keeping them thre and their welfare is on Harpers shoulders and the rest of the alliance/ cons!

[betsy]

Just only last week, our troops and Afghanistan had been USED (again), as the focus of debate among the Liberal leadership contenders in Quebec.....simply because of wanting to gain grounds and votes in Quebec.

Once again, our troops had been reduced to nothing more than "political props" by the very party that sent them to Afghanistan in the first place.

Gerry, with your excessive pre-occupation with our boy, it's beginning to look like you made an understandable faux pas....and misprinted the title of your post. To be more credible and appropriate, shouldn't it say, "LIBERALS using troops again?"

[B. Max]

Steven Harper says its because of 911 but 911 was an inside job.

An idea that only exists inside the heads of those who would use it for political gain and endanger our troops. Other than that it is twice removed from reality.

[watching&waiting]

My question to those who support the war, why are we there? How is it in the interest of Canada to be there? Harper had a US PR person come up and see him and by the way the Con are talking in paraliament, they are working the spin! Everytime they get to their feet, they sometimes they answer the question, but before sitting down they remind the country of what a "few bad apples" of the Lib membership did concerning the scam. Baird is totally out of control on this! The country knows what happen and the country voted Harper a minority govt, so why not get on with what they said they do for the country! As far as Harper and the troops go... I think all Canadians support the troops and I believe some Canadians don't support the government who is keeping them there! Yeas the Libs put them there BUT Harper is keeping them thre and their welfare is on Harpers shoulders and the rest of the alliance/ cons!

We are there in afghanistan at the behest of the United Nations. We are a contributing member of this body and yes we also are part of NATO, which is who The UN made the request to. Also we are there to liberate the innocent Afghani people from the Taliban and from the drug warlords that were terrorising the south of that country. The very way of life that we stand for here in Canada would be reason enough for the taliban to torture and kill you. Does anyone think that is a good way to live? We have in the past fought against Communism and played peacekeeper in many areas. We should be proud of our tradition of fighting the good fight. Yes there will always be casualties and this was fact even in peace keeping missions. Harper actually is following my feelings on this issue and I am glad he is. I will say though that he is not a very effective speaker when it comes to explaining this to Canadians, and maybe he should find someone better able to get the points out to the public.

[Argus]

It may be important to examine why the war is on rather than just blindly supporting the idea of sending troops to war because the oligarchy says we should.

So why are we there, does anyone know ?

Steven Harper says its because of 911 but 911 was an inside job.

Elvis did it, right?

[Argus]

My question to those who support the war, why are we there? How is it in the interest of Canada to be there?

Why were we in Yugoslavia? Why did we spent thirty years in Cyprus? Why do we send people on international missions with countries which really don't personally affect us?

I suppose the thinking is that the world is a small place now, and that letting various parts of it collapse into anarchy is rarely a good thing. It might not seem terrible that a crack house opens several blocks from your house, but it depresses values in that neighborhood. The neighborhood begins to fall apart, and more bad elements move in. But it's several blocks away, right? Well, yeah - now. But what happens to the area next to it, you know, between you and the bad things? That can start to go downhill too.

The preference here, is to not have a dozen or two collapsed, failed, broken states scattered around the world which are full of misery, starvation and violence, whose people flee to provide a huge economic burden on their neighbors - and on the West, which has to help support them.

How many millions of refugees did the Afghani mess produce? Where did they go? Who had to pay for them? Partly us, through international aid and charity.

Then, too, there's the problem that Afghanistan became a welcome haven for international terrorists. Bin laden's base there had ten thousand people. Imagine that! We don't really need a place like Afghanistan to become an open training centre for terorrists and guerrilas as it was, where nut jobs can go and get training, then return home to help instigate more instability. Some of those people returned "home" to Canada, you know. And there's no saying the next big attack might not be in Canada.

I think all Canadians support the troops and I believe some Canadians don't support the government who is keeping them there! Yeas the Libs put them there BUT Harper is keeping them thre and their welfare is on Harpers shoulders and the rest of the alliance/ cons!

Silliness. Did you think Harper was going to squeal like a little girl at the first casualties, reneg on our agreements with our allies (agreements made by Martin), and order Canadian troops to run away? We're not Spaniards, you know!

[Wilber]

Speaking of using, ever notice that NDP'ers are quick to run to the Middle East and "observe" when it comes to anything involving Israel, meeting with the PLO etc, so quick to point the finger when in comes to so called "disproportionate" responses to terrorist acts but when it comes to visiting Canadian troops who are fighting and dieing in a real war, in their country's name, they are nowhere to be seen.

They don't have the guts to look them in the face and say the same things to them as they do to the media at home.

[sharkman]

The original decision to send troops to Afghanistan was made under Martin. So to be blaming Harper now, while convenient for Harper haters, is like blaming the driver you hit while running a stop sign. You've got the wrong guy.

[gerryhatrick]

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

So you think it's obvious that support for the troops hinges on supporting the mission decisions of the civilian leadership?

I think perhaps people are confused about the idea of supporting the mission. We are supporting the mission, everyone. Even Jack Layton. If we're not, then Stephen Harper and his Defense Minister should be hanged.

Questioning the mission, wanting a change in the mission, or wanting the mission ended has NOTHING to do with support or non-support of the mission. Supporting the mission means making sure they have everything they need to carry out the mission.

If some want to argue that the Conservative Government is not handling the mission properly or taking it in the direction it should go, that is their right and it's also critical to our democracy that they exercise it (there's your answer to a subsequant question). In no way does that worthy exercise threaten our troops.

[gerryhatrick]

Just only last week, our troops and Afghanistan had been USED (again), as the focus of debate among the Liberal leadership contenders in Quebec.....simply because of wanting to gain grounds and votes in Quebec.

Once again, our troops had been reduced to nothing more than "political props" by the very party that sent them to Afghanistan in the first place.

Gerry, with your excessive pre-occupation with our boy, it's beginning to look like you made an understandable faux pas....and misprinted the title of your post. To be more credible and appropriate, shouldn't it say, "LIBERALS using troops again?"

Well, betsy, you're welcome to explain what you're talking about. Notice in the topic post for all three of the examples of Harper threatening the troops with non-support I provided quotes.

Provide some examples of how the Liberal leadership contenders used the troops. Keep in mind there's NOTHING wrong with talking about the troops, if that was your big idea. The problem arises when the specter of the troops losing our support is threatened, as is what Harper did.

Did the Libs do that?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Provide some examples of how the Liberal leadership contenders used the troops. Keep in mind there's NOTHING wrong with talking about the troops, if that was your big idea. The problem arises when the specter of the troops losing our support is threatened, as is what Harper did.

Did the Libs do that?

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? Not making any sense...

[Higgly]

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?

No the troops are firefighters and the firebugs are the politicians.

Nobody has pointed out that it was in fact CHretien who first put Canadian troops in Afghanistan and Martin who first sent them to Kandahar. Harper got into it because he extended the mission, something the Liberals did a number of times as well.

I doubt that there are many, if any, people in Canada who do not support the troops. The mission is another matter. In a democratic society, debate about political decisions is not only inevitable, but essential to the proper functioning of the democracy. Any attempt by a leader to suppress that debate has to be viewed with some suspicion.

[Ricki Bobbi]

In a democratic society, debate about political decisions is not only inevitable, but essential to the proper functioning of the democracy. Any attempt by a leader to suppress that debate has to be viewed with some suspicion.

There has never been any evidence put forth for the Government trying to suppress debate.

The OP, a notorious Harper hater, called it despicable that the PM said if you don't support the mission you don't support the troops.

It's pretty easy to say you support the troops. But if you are opposed to them doing the job they have been trained to do in support of a safer world, well ... How much are you really supporting them?

[betsy]

Keep in mind there's NOTHING wrong with talking about the troops, if that was your big idea.

Well, if you think that there's nothing wrong with the shady sleazy tactics of the Liberals during the past election when they insisted on playing that military ad in Quebec...that portrayed our troops like the rotten troops you hear about in coup happening in some banana countries just showed how the Liberals will think nothing of sullying our troops just to gain votes...well, you're entitled to your own personal opinion.

My views however found that wrong.

And my opinion supports that talking about the deaths...counting body bags....using the grief and loss of families who'd lost a son/daughter fighting the war....using them as TALKING POINTS to WIN VOTES in Quebec, whom everyone knows is anti-war.....incessantly linking Bush with this war, even though it had been explained that this is with NATO (because we all know Quebec is not too fond of Bush).... in my view (especially when I see it coming from the very same party who used our troops in a very insulting way only 10 months ago), there is definitely something gravely wrong with that!

[betsy]

The Liberals had likened our troops alongside scary militarymen who backs up dictators in sleazy banana republics.

And the NDP had likened our troops to terrorists!

Gee I'm so deeply touched seeing how these two parties think so highly of our men and women dying in Afghanistan.

[Higgly]

There has never been any evidence put forth for the Government trying to suppress debate.

Harper's comments about supporting the troops are basically intended to make it clear he wants everybody to shut up and salute. He is trying to suppress debate.

[jdobbin]

And my opinion supports that talking about the deaths...counting body bags....using the grief and loss of families who'd lost a son/daughter fighting the war....using them as TALKING POINTS to WIN VOTES in Quebec, whom everyone knows is anti-war.....incessantly linking Bush with this war, even though it had been explained that this is with NATO (because we all know Quebec is not too fond of Bush).... in my view (especially when I see it coming from the very same party who used our troops in a very insulting way only 10 months ago), there is definitely something gravely wrong with that!

And yet even military families have problems with no flags flown on Parliament Hill or news about when soldier's bodies returning home being supressed.

[Argus]

There has never been any evidence put forth for the Government trying to suppress debate.

Harper's comments about supporting the troops are basically intended to make it clear he wants everybody to shut up and salute. He is trying to suppress debate.

No, when Chretien and Martin said anyone questioning them on Quebec was unpatriotic and unCanadian THAT was trying to supress debate.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Harper's comments about supporting the troops are basically intended to make it clear he wants everybody to shut up and salute. He is trying to suppress debate.

You can't actually provide evidence that Harper is trying to suppress debate. Thankfully you have the ability to gauge Harper's intentions.

And those intentions you can magiaclly divine happen to match with your negative view of the man in general. Very interesting.

[gerryhatrick]

Provide some examples of how the Liberal leadership contenders used the troops. Keep in mind there's NOTHING wrong with talking about the troops, if that was your big idea. The problem arises when the specter of the troops losing our support is threatened, as is what Harper did.

Did the Libs do that?

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? Not making any sense...

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