Stephen Harper using the troops AGAIN.

[killjoy]

Ricki

Please don't PM me. Attacking me like you continue to do on the threads is one thing. But PMing is reserved for people you wish to communicate privately with. I have no desire to communicate privately with you. Ever. Thank you.

He has a bad habit of that doesn't he? Especially when he's trapped by his own dishonesty. He tries so desperately and pretentiously to act all intellectual and high and mighty out here and then has his temper tantrums over PM. Then he seems to think he's caught you at something when you mention it in public, a vain attempt at disguising his incredible juvenility from the rest. The bottom line is he has all the courage of a crank caller.

Allow me to light a candle rather than curse yer darkness: if you look on the left there is an ignore feature for Private Messages, one where you can simply add his name and be rid of his particular brand cretinality.

.

[geoffrey]

I tend to agree with both sides to an extent here.

I agree with gerry, the troops shouldn't be used as a political tool in gaining support for the mission.

Being said, asking for withdrawl of the troops definitely puts them in greater danger as it shows the Taliban that we are ready to leave, and if they push harder, set off more bombs, they will win. The only response to terrorism is the complete destruction of the terrorists.

What you misunderstand gerry, and others that are in this camp, is that these terrorists are so idealogically driven that they can never be changed. They will always hate democracy, the West and want to kill us all at every chance. Leaving Afghanistan only sets up firstly the oppression of women again (they hate women's rights) and secondly a threat to our safety as all this militant Islamic freaks start plotting against us outside Afghanistan.

Fighting the Taliban there prevents the Taliban from supporting terrorist groups abroad in their missions against us in Canada. We are on Osama's list, the only one that hasn't been attacked. We are lucky so far, and vigilent, we caught a bunch of looney al-Qaedas that wanted to kill people in Canada only recently. Letting the Taliban prosper again only means more money and aid to al-Qaeda and their conquests against the Western 'infidels'.

[gerryhatrick]

Ricki

Please don't PM me. Attacking me like you continue to do on the threads is one thing. But PMing is reserved for people you wish to communicate privately with. I have no desire to communicate privately with you. Ever. Thank you.

He has a bad habit of that doesn't he? Especially when he's trapped by his own dishonesty.

Good grief. Another big baby polluting the forum with his crying.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Ha ha! I knew you'd piss your pants if I PM'd you.

All I said was that reposting a thread you got locked with all your trolling wouldn't be breaking the rules.

I would have put it in the topic, but you edited you post after I'd responded to it.

And I'll PM you anytime I wish to communicate privately with you, thanks. I do it to spare the board my response to any of your posts that are particularily inane.

If you don't have anything to say about the topic Ricki why not just stop bumping it?

EDIT: you imply I attacked you in my PM with your comment "attacking me....on the threads is one thing". I did not. Keep things honest Ricki, please.

Nope, no attack there.

Thanks to killjoy no more PMs from you. Guess you can't PM me anytime you wish.

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

[gerryhatrick]

I agree with gerry, the troops shouldn't be used as a political tool in gaining support for the mission.

You mean to tell me that you can see that in Harpers words quoted in the topic post? Careful, you will be accusing you of hating Harper.

Being said, asking for withdrawl of the troops definitely puts them in greater danger as it shows the Taliban that we are ready to leave, and if they push harder, set off more bombs, they will win. The only response to terrorism is the complete destruction of the terrorists.

I fully accept that the Taliban need to be fought and I don't want withdrawl of the troops.

What you misunderstand gerry, and others that are in this camp, is that these terrorists are so idealogically driven that they can never be changed.

No, I understand that perfectly well. What some (not necessarily you) don't understand is that it's very possible we're not just fighting terrorists or even just Taliban in Afghanistan. Just as the USA has a battle in Iraq with mostly a home-grown non-terrorist insurgency, that may be the case in Afghanistan.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Answer the question Gerry:

What would you have said if Harper had extended the mission *without* going to Parliament?

[MightyAC]

You're either with us or against us. God bless Canada.

Sounds familiar...

[Ricki Bobbi]

You're either with us or against us. God bless Canada.

Sounds familiar...

What are you saying?

That Harper shouldn't have extended the mission? Or he was wrong to put the extension to a vote in Parliament?

[killjoy]

Good grief. Another big baby polluting the forum with his crying.

"The bottom line is he has all the courage of a crank caller."

.

[gerryhatrick]

You're either with us or against us. God bless Canada.

Sounds familiar...

What are you saying?

That Harper shouldn't have extended the mission? Or he was wrong to put the extension to a vote in Parliament?

I think he's saying that Harper shouldn't be making the assertion that you either support the mission or you aren't supporting the troops, as he has been doing.

You know, the topic.

[killjoy]

I think he's saying that Harper shouldn't be making the assertion that you either support the mission or you aren't supporting the troops, as he has been doing.

But what would that have to do with "You're either with us or against us" in relation to the context of that quote.

No closer to the truth it was a shallow attempt to draw a comparison between something Harper didn't say and something Bush did say.

But then again accuracy, truth or fair comparisons aren't what guys like you are about. You spin propaganda while accusing others and you're not even smart enough to recognize it.

.

[gerryhatrick]

I think he's saying that Harper shouldn't be making the assertion that you either support the mission or you aren't supporting the troops, as he has been doing.

But what would that have to do with "You're either with us or against us" in relation to the context of that quote.

His post was without reference, therefore it's a comment relative to the topic post rather than anyone elses particular post.

Given that, it is safe to say he recognizes and agrees with the issue raised in the topic post.

[killjoy]

Translating again are we?

Sorry, but what I said was true. It was a silly attempt to draw a comparrison between Bush and Harper by using something Bush did say and trying to connect it to something Harper never said.

.

[gerryhatrick]

Sorry, but what I said was true. It was a silly attempt to draw a comparrison between Bush and Harper by using something Bush did say and trying to draw a comparrison with something Harper never said.

Then why did he post that?

It's not rocket science killjoy. Most intelligent people should be able to figure it out, unless they're purposely being contrary.

The whole "you're either with us or against us" attitude is the same kind of doublespeak garbage as what Harper is exhibiting.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Ask the poster yourself what he meant, stop pestering and attacking/baiting me.

[killjoy]

Then why did he post that?

It's not rocket science killjoy. Most intelligent people should be able to figure it out, unless they're purposely being contrary.

Hilarious. "most intelligent people"....who do you think you're kidding? Frankly gerry most intelligent people aren't as quick as you are to claim they're so "obviously correct". Most intelligent people don't obsess like you do. Most intelligent people don't jump to conclusions and stay there like you do. Most intelligent people don't need to "translate" a simple sentance and obvious truism into something it's not.

Harper never said anything close to that and your feeble "translation" of what he said is precisely what you accuse others of: Being purposely contrary and purposely twisting his words to suit your 10-thread-a-week anti-Harper obsession. You guys are so transparent and weak in your desperate attempts to characterize him as Bush it's truly pathetic.

The whole "you're either with us or against us" attitude is the same kind of doublespeak garbage as what Harper is exhibiting.

No he's not.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Ask the poster yourself what he meant, stop pestering and attacking/baiting me.

Must really burn you that you can't Private Message insults about my mother, my dog, etc etc when you lose your temper, huh? No one's "baiting" you cry-baby. If you can't handle responses to your posts then don't make 'em.

.

[gerryhatrick]

You're either with us or against us. God bless Canada.

Sounds familiar...

MightyAC, could you please explain for other posters what you meant by this comment?

Specifically, are you referencing the topic post or some other posters post and regardless of which, what is the context of it.

thx.

[gerryhatrick]

Bump for Ricki.

Ricki, this is the dishonest equating of support for the troops with support for the mission I mentioned elsewhere which you asked about.

[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.

Was he or was he not attempting to connect support for the mission to support for the troops in these three examples?

[gerryhatrick]

Given that this is remembrance day, and that Stephen Harper just yesterday invoked this day in another example of his cynical usage of our troops, this topic deserves a kick.

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

It's time for PM Harper to defend and argue this mission WITHOUT dangling the support of our brave troops out like a poker chip.

[Canadian Blue]

Isn't their allready a topic on this.

[normanchateau]

It's time for PM Harper to defend and argue this mission WITHOUT dangling the support of our brave troops out like a poker chip.

That would be a difficult task. It's hard to argue that Canadians should die for an Islamic fundamentalist conservative theocracy in which human rights cannot "be contrary to Islam". That's clearly stated in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and gives the corrupt Karzai regime and its mullahs the right to imprison blasphemers and execute those who convert to Christianity.

We all support our brave troops. But it's difficult to rationalize support for a corrupt theocracy whose parliament includes drug smugglers, warlords, convicted criminals, human rights violators and Islamic fanatics.

[scribblet]

Isn't their allready a topic on this.

Probably, we seem to have a proliferation of threads on identical topics.

[gerryhatrick]

Isn't their allready a topic on this.

Probably, we seem to have a proliferation of threads on identical topics.

If either of you beleive there's a topic on this already do point it out to myself in PM or the mod. Otherwise, stay on topic. thx.

[jbg]

Isn't their allready a topic on this.

Probably, we seem to have a proliferation of threads on identical topics.

A hat trick = a three-peat. No pun intended.

[Canadian Blue]

That would be a difficult task. It's hard to argue that Canadians should die for an Islamic fundamentalist conservative theocracy in which human rights cannot "be contrary to Islam". That's clearly stated in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and gives the corrupt Karzai regime and its mullahs the right to imprison blasphemers and execute those who convert to Christianity.

Yeah, whatever happened to those Taliban guys, Afghanistan was such a better place until we got there. Listen Norman, Canadian's routinely go into countries with corrupt governments to help out. As well the fact that women can actually vote and sit in legislatures is a pretty big step forward.

The constitution might not be perfect, but its a huge leap from what was their before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Afghanistan