Military families speak out on Afghanistan

[gerryhatrick]

Stephen Harper and some posters here have decided that support for the mission and the troops are the same thing. According to them if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops.

So my question is....are the families detailed in this story not supporting the troops?

Military families speak out

Say they are against Afghan mission

CanWest News Service

Monday, October 23, 2006

OTTAWA - Families of some Canadian soldiers say the escalating body count in Afghanistan, and lack of success the international community has had bringing security to the Afghan people, has convinced them the Harper government should pull Canadian troops out of the war-torn country.

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/st...f3-54ae2598c426

[watching&waiting]

It was one family and the soldier from that family can always claims conscienious objections and he can and will be dimissed from having to go. Now why would this be a news worthy story? We had 1000's of these same types during the second world war. Many of them from the french public of Quebec, but even with that many more french did enlist and fight for Canada.

This is just so much a non event.

[gerryhatrick]

It was one family and the soldier from that family can always claims conscienious objections and he can and will be dimissed from having to go. Now why would this be a news worthy story? We had 1000's of these same types during the second world war. Many of them from the french public of Quebec, but even with that many more french did enlist and fight for Canada.

This is just so much a non event.

Actually there's three families in the story, and we don't know how many they interviewed that they didn't include quotes for. The story repeats the word "families" several times.

Why shouldn't this be worthy news, I wonder?

[Canadian Blue]

Check out the forums at army.ca and you'll see were many members of the CF stand on Afganistan.

GH then the story would imply that the majority of families are against the Afgan mission which they probable are not. Even in the CF their are people on both sides of the issue, but for the most part the CF is conservative and so far supports what we are doing over there.

[watching&waiting]

The reason it is not news worthy is for one thing, it does not have a large following and for another there are already ways and means that any soldier can take so as not to be sent to Afghanistan. Such as the The conscienious objecter, ability. Yes they would then pretty much be looked down upon by there pears, but then again if you have issues of going to fight for Canada, then you shoudl not be in the army in the forst place.

Since this would only be a small number and they can find their way to get out of serving, why should the rest which is the vast majority even care about them.

[gerryhatrick]

The reason it is not news worthy is for one thing, it does not have a large following and for another there are already ways and means that any soldier can take so as not to be sent to Afghanistan.

What relavence is it that there's ways and means for a soldier to not go to Afghanistan? That has zero relavence to the story, really.

[cybercoma]

There has been no success bringing security, so we should abandon the mission leaving the innocent Afghanis to fend for themselves?

[watching&waiting]

The realevence is that since any soldier can if he or she wishes, not to go to Aghanistan, they have the means to do so and if you look at what the families have said, the reasosn for their biefs are do to the fact taht they have loved ones that may soon be going. I would never think that any family would want their children to go to war, at any time. If they truly do not believe in the war, then do not go. it is that simple. But we already have heard from those over there that the vast majority of them are there because they want to be there. Some are even signing up for second tours of duty. So how is a story about a few people who are not of the same mind as the majority, a news item. Other then political fodder.

[gerryhatrick]

The realevence is that since any soldier can if he or she wishes, not to go to Aghanistan, they have the means to do so and if you look at what the families have said, the reasosn for their biefs are do to the fact taht they have loved ones that may soon be going.

Good grief man, the topic is about military families voicing opposition to the mission. What you bring up is irrelevant.

[Canadian Blue]

Soldiers aren't suppose to take sides on political issues, same goes with their families. The reason why is in the end it doesn't matter who is in government, soldiers go where the government decides to send them. As well people in the CF support this mission, and other's don't. However so far I've seen more support for what were doing over there then opposition.

GH, whether families oppose or support the mission really isn't important. The CF is like the rest of Canadian society, it shouldn't be newsworthy. Of course some families will be opposed to the mission in Afganistan. No different then the rest of Canadian society.

[gerryhatrick]

Soldiers aren't suppose to take sides on political issues, same goes with their families.

Unless they're supporting Harper of course, then it's no problem.

Soldiers families are free to say what they want. Soldiers are also, although there might be consequences.

[KrustyKidd]

OTTAWA - Families of some Canadian soldiers say the escalating body count in Afghanistan, and lack of success the international community has had bringing security to the Afghan people, has convinced them the Harper government should pull Canadian troops out of the war-torn country.

Wondering, is their expertise limited to foreign policy or can they give some sound business and sports analysis as well?

[Canadian Blue]

Stephen Harper and some posters here have decided that support for the mission and the troops are the same thing. According to them if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops.

Thats true, but the difference is if you buy into the myth that all Canadian soldiers ever do is peacekeeping. Then its abit offensive since the CF has never really been into peacekeeping.

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Oct 23 2006, 09:38 PM)

Soldiers aren't suppose to take sides on political issues, same goes with their families.

Unless they're supporting Harper of course, then it's no problem.

Soldiers families are free to say what they want. Soldiers are also, although there might be consequences.

Members of the CF have a gag order on them, they are not allowed to write to newspapers showing support for the mission, or opposition. As for soldier's families, they are free to say what they want. Once again its not newsworthy, because the CF is just as diverse as Canadian society. Their are people who say the mission in Afganistan is a failure it isn't. The reason were losing troops is because we are in the southern region. As well we can't do much about reconstruction until the Taliban stops attacking us.

The problem with some of the people who oppose the mission is that they make members of the CF out to be the aggressor, even though that is not true. The worst comments I have heard so far is that members could be charged with war crimes which is complete BS. This mission has been approved by the UN, and we are making progress, unfortunately its going to take blood, sweat, and tears.

What Canada needs to do is push harder for other NATO nations to take a more active role in the south. Which the current government is doing right now.

[Argus]

Actually there's three families in the story, and we don't know how many they interviewed that they didn't include quotes for. The story repeats the word "families" several times.

Why shouldn't this be worthy news, I wonder?

Because it's an opinion piece, a made-up story masquerading as news.

You wonder how many families they interviewed? Probably many. And all they could find were three people, not three families, three people, none of whom, I'm guessing, volunteered and called them up. No, this is a reporter who went searching, interviewing probably dozens, scores, maybe hundreds of people before he could get a grand total of three, which I guess they figured was the minimum able to sustain the big scary headline. If there had been more than three you can be damned sure they'd have quoted them.

It's simply another example of the lack of professionalism and integrity in the Canadian media, and their left wing political agenda.

[Army Guy]

I'd like to know is why do we have to judge them, why do we have to slot them into any catagory ? What gives us the right to make any judgement on them...They have earned the right to speak out on these issues that concern thier loved ones..

I mean who in thier right mind would want to send thier sons and daughters, brothers or sisters to war, into harms way. Who would not do everything in thier power to keep thier children from harm. I will always said that serving my country has been the easist thing i've done in my life. It is my wife and kids, my parents who go thru hell and back everytime i deploy waiting has always been the hardest part. And it takes special people to do that time and time again, these people are the real hero's atleast to me. So if they want to talk let them they have atleast earned that and more...

This young Cpl has volunteered to go to Afgan, as there is no other way to get slated on tour, The CF has many checks and balances in place to ensure that nobody but volunteers get sent overseas. This is what he has signed up to do, it is what he has been trained for and he, like everyone else like him want to put that training to the test. regardless of cost to himself and to his family. He's not asking everyone to understand why it is so important to him, just to respect his decission.

His family may not be to crazy about his decission, but it is his to make nobody elses. Not his families, not his sisters, and certainly not ours. So he believes in the mission, so much he has volunteered, dispite of his family wishes. But i guess that is the untold story here, that being his side.

Thats what makes this a non starter, a non story because it only tells of half truths, half the story, because the whole story does not sell papers.

[gerryhatrick]

You wonder how many families they interviewed? Probably many. And all they could find were three people, not three families, three people, none of whom, I'm guessing, volunteered and called them up. No, this is a reporter who went searching, interviewing probably dozens, scores, maybe hundreds of people before he could get a grand total of three, which I guess they figured was the minimum able to sustain the big scary headline. If there had been more than three you can be damned sure they'd have quoted them.

You are making a whole pile of assumptions there. You have zero knowledge of how the story was generated.

[Argus]

You wonder how many families they interviewed? Probably many. And all they could find were three people, not three families, three people, none of whom, I'm guessing, volunteered and called them up. No, this is a reporter who went searching, interviewing probably dozens, scores, maybe hundreds of people before he could get a grand total of three, which I guess they figured was the minimum able to sustain the big scary headline. If there had been more than three you can be damned sure they'd have quoted them.

You are making a whole pile of assumptions there. You have zero knowledge of how the story was generated.

I'm familar with human nature, though. I'm familar with the media. If there had been more than three they'd have used more than three. The story was very week with so few people, with no kind of organized group or even a collection of neighbours talking about their war fears ot such. And nowhere does it say these people wanted to express their anger over the war, that they've been making public speeches or contacting the media or anything like that. It would if they had. So how did the reporter hear about them? Because he went out looking for military families opposed to the war. These are assumptions, but they're pretty strongly based on general behaviour.

[watching&waiting]

Gerry I think that you ahve made many more assuptions with this story then the rest of us have. I guess that is because we are not seeking out such things. But twist it any way you want, it still is not news worthy.

[gerryhatrick]

Gerry I think that you ahve made many more assuptions with this story then the rest of us have. I guess that is because we are not seeking out such things. But twist it any way you want, it still is not news worthy.

Please name one assumption that I have made, thx.

And btw, if you think I have to "seek out" CanWest news stories, think again. CanWest is a prevalent part of my media, and I like to read the news.

But again, explain these assumption(s) and/or the twisting I've done.

[Topaz]

The problem with this war is the way Harper handled it. HE made the decision with only a minority government, to extend it without debate over it. To see him on "Question Period" it doesn't seem to bother him of the soldier coming back in caskets. Yeah, he says the right things but I don't find him very genuine. on this topic.

[killjoy]

"Support troops, families tell Moncton rally" Oct. 10 2006

SUPPORT FOR TROOPS

The London Military Family Resource Centre has launched several non-political initiatives for Southwestern Ontario residents to support their troops overseas.

link

Military families are finding it tough to cope with negative publicity surrounding Afghan mission

And btw, if you think I have to "seek out" CanWest news stories, think again. CanWest is a prevalent part of my media, and I like to read the news.

He didn't say you had to seek out a CanWest story and you know it. Your juvenile level of dishonesty is transparent.

From your link:

The survey suggested public support has an expiry date, with 51 per cent of respondents saying Canada should withdraw its troops when the current military commitment ends in 2009,

Neat how the media tries it's best to make supporting the mission till 2009 sound somehow like a lack of support. Gerry you should be in journalism, your ethics match it.

.

[Canadian Blue]

The major paper in Winnipeg had a headline saying "Military Families Want Troops Back Home". Even though it was only a few people, not all military families in general. But then again I doubt a headline that reads something like "A few military families want troops back home", wouldn't really sell on the newstand.

[geoffrey]

May I ask, what family wouldn't want their loved ones at home? Let's be realistic here, I'm sure every military family wants their husband/wife/father/sister home. They support the work they do though, and don't politicise it or encourage the Taliban to take more lives.

[gerryhatrick]

The most interesting thing about this thread:

Nobody tried to answer the question. Do these families not support the troops?

I've since seen another article referencing different families as well. Still, it's a small minority that are represented in these stories. I'm a believer in the "where there's smoke there's fire" rule, and agree with army guy that these opinions should be respected.

[killjoy]

Nobody tried to answer the question. Do these families not support the troops?

That's because it's a juvenile meaningless loaded question. Yes they support the troops, so what?

Nothing interesting about it at all gerry, just another typical insincere smokescreen from the forum's resident liar and Liberal party propagandist.

.