Military families speak out on Afghanistan

Argus · October 25, 2006

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.

He clearly wanted to get it done before the Liberals elected someone like Bob Rae, who would try to block having the mission extended. Smart move, imho.

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.

So you're saying you think he should cry a little?

One of Harper's problems with the public is that he doesn't get all phoney like they're used to from the likes of Chretien, Martin, Goodale and Layton.

gerryhatrick · October 25, 2006

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?

So then support for the troops is not dependent on support for the mission, an idea Harper has consistently tried to push.

As you can see, the question has a great deal of value in this regard.

And in case you're not aware of this despicable behaviour by Harper I direct you to this topic, which has his actual quotes:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6620

Canadian Blue · October 25, 2006

I believe that some do believe morale is being hit hard when people back home say the mission is a lost cause, and Canadian's are dying for nothing. Because many soldiers over there obviously don't think thats the case.

Biblio Bibuli · October 25, 2006

I believe that some do believe morale is being hit hard when people back home say the mission is a lost cause, and Canadian's are dying for nothing. Because many soldiers over there obviously don't think thats the case.

I wonder how much of the braveness arises from the fact that while on a mission they are pocketing $96,000 instead of their regular take home pay of only about $42,000 or so.

killjoy · October 26, 2006

I wonder how much of the braveness arises from the fact that while on a mission they are pocketing $96,000 instead of their regular take home pay of only about $42,000 or so.

lol. :blink:

Unbelievable. Spoken like someone with zero life experience.

Everyone here always trying to sound like they're so serious about something they know they know nothing about, and probably couldn't say with a straight face, when face to face. The sheer level of delusion on this board is enough to scare the crap out of anyone with some real world wide knowledge and experience in the world.

.

killjoy · October 26, 2006

So then support for the troops is not dependent on support for the mission, an idea Harper has consistently tried to push.
As you can see, the question has a great deal of value in this regard.

Whatever gerry, you sit there with your semantic games like it isn't transparent you have nothing but the simplest of sheer anti-Harper motivation invested here. You twisted his words with your own 'translation' with zero regard to the context of it in Parliament. When the lies and the rhetoric of the "Mission Changing" were used to try and bring debate on the mission the Liberals began, that's when the "using the troops and the mission for political gain" began. You sit there and act like you don't know what everyone knows: that the political issue of the mission in Afghanistan is for the OPPOSITION to use against the current government.Don't believe me? When was there ever a combat mission that didn't see some measure or another of resistance from the parties not leading? It's a hot potato for the ruling party, not the opposition.

This is the rub, gerry, the nutshell that anyone can see:

They put us there, now the opposition uses us the same way you do: as an angle of attack on Harper. Simple as that. No twisting of words required. You wouldn't give a damn about Afghanistan (and you don't so long as it's not on TV) if it was during the reign of whatever tribe it is you swear your partisan allegiance to.

Your semantic games and your grotesque level of dishonesty is practically pornographic. You scream and yell when someone accuses you of simply hating Harper or having an incredible bias against him and then post the most trivial and perpetually twisted "attack Harper" threads every single day. I mean I don't even really like Harper but you kinda make him look good.

.

gerryhatrick · October 26, 2006

So then support for the troops is not dependent on support for the mission, an idea Harper has consistently tried to push.
As you can see, the question has a great deal of value in this regard.

And in case you're not aware of this despicable behaviour by Harper I direct you to this topic, which has his actual quotes:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6620

Whatever gerry, you sit there with your semantic games like it isn't transparent you have nothing but the simplest of sheer anti-Harper motivation invested here.

I will be anti-anyone who uses the troops in that fashion. The troops perform the mission they are ordered to perform. That is their job, always, and the vast majority of Canadians will ALWAYS support them no matter what.

To pretend that the mission and the troops are one and the same for the purpose of generating support for the mission is despicable, and it would not matter who does it I will condemn it.

Maybe you should show a little concern for how the troops are being used.

killjoy · October 26, 2006

Since you ignore the capital 'T' truth of it gerry:

This is the rub, gerry, the nutshell that anyone can see:
They put us there, now the opposition uses us the same way you do: as an angle of attack on Harper. Simple as that. No twisting of words required. You wouldn't give a damn about Afghanistan (and you don't so long as it's not on TV) if it was during the reign of whatever tribe it is you swear your partisan allegiance to.

The only one 'using the troops' is you and the opposition for which you spend all your time 'grass-rooting' for and spamming propaganda for.

.

Canadian Blue · October 26, 2006

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Oct 25 2006, 02:53 PM)
I believe that some do believe morale is being hit hard when people back home say the mission is a lost cause, and Canadian's are dying for nothing. Because many soldiers over there obviously don't think thats the case.

I wonder how much of the braveness arises from the fact that while on a mission they are pocketing $96,000 instead of their regular take home pay of only about $42,000 or so.

I'm not sure how much the 96,000$ are benefiting those dead Canadian soldiers right now. Not to mention the countless others who have lost limbs, and suffer severe PTSD afterwards. As well, I think that the soldiers on tour deserve every cent. Consider this they gave up four years of their lives to be treated like shit, get sent overseas and put in dangerous situations, as well as being seperated from their families for 6 to 9 months. Not to mention being seperated from their families for a large portion of their first contract due to training requirments.

I don't think you quite understand the risks that our soldiers our taking. I was working yesterday and saw a soldier wearing his combats, yet confined to a wheelchair since both legs were gone. While your out drinking in bar, talking to family members, working a regular 9 to 5 job, and even walking, think about that soldier who lost both of his legs. I'd suggest you withdraw that comment.

GH, I think its statements like the one that I qouted which gives ammunition to people who say they are opposed to the war are also not supportive of the troops.

gerryhatrick · October 26, 2006

Since you ignore the capital 'T' truth of it gerry:

Yes, I ignore what is not relavent to the topic.

You ignored the point about Harpers attempts to make support for the troops dependant on support of the mission, which IS relavent to the topic.

Here it is again for you:

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.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6620

Why don't you address the issue rather than spend all your precious time attacking me? Do you believe support for the troops is dependant on support for the mission as Harper is promoting, yes or no?

KrustyKidd · October 26, 2006

Why don't you address the issue rather than spend all your precious time attacking me? Do you believe support for the troops is dependant on support for the mission as Harper is promoting, yes or no?

Gerry, I always (well couple times no) disagree with you but here, you are right. Approval for the mission is not necessary to support the troops.

What is necessary is to tell the troops they are doing right and doing it well all the way. Just like their government and people are expecting them to do. Then, shut the hell up until the next election, outside of party politics.

So, a counter question; is Gerry doing the service guys proud by telling them he is proud of them but their mission is bullshit? I think not. Therefore, Gerry is not supporting the troops, rather, lowering their morale.

As a counter, Gerry might say - "Guys, get them Taliban dudes, they are scum! Keep on getting them butt heads until I can get you all back!"

Nope. Just sidewinding questions and trival discussion about right and wrong while our men and women fight a horrid enemy in a faraway place needing every ounce of morale support we can give. Your support is in the form of 'wrong mission but I support you poor saps by saying your enemy is too strong and you don't belong there as you won't ever change anything.'

You rock. :lol:

Biblio Bibuli · October 26, 2006

Not to mention the countless others who suffer severe PTSD afterwards.

You can bet your patootie that there are going to be hordes of them.

killjoy · October 26, 2006

Gerry

You ignored the point about Harpers attempts to make support for the troops dependant on support of the mission, which IS relavent to the topic.

No, you ignore that you using the troops to attack Harper. You use anything to attack Harper. That's all there is to it and anyone with a sincere bone in their body and who has been here for 1 month can see it.

Why don't you address the issue rather than spend all your precious time attacking me? Do you believe support for the troops is dependant on support for the mission as Harper is promoting, yes or no?

You do not make up the issue and then dictate what it is. Sorry. The real issue is the fact that you don't care one way or another about the missions. To you it's simply an angle of attack on Harper. That is the real issue. Your quote from Harper is plain and pedestrian and a weak argument without your 'translation'. Your obvious all-evil-stems-from-Harper rampage you are continually on is the issue. Your dishonesty is the issue. The 'issue' you present is non-existent. It's a smokescreen.

.

gerryhatrick · October 26, 2006

Why don't you address the issue rather than spend all your precious time attacking me? Do you believe support for the troops is dependant on support for the mission as Harper is promoting, yes or no?

Gerry, I always (well couple times no) disagree with you but here, you are right. Approval for the mission is not necessary to support the troops.

What is necessary is to tell the troops they are doing right and doing it well all the way. Just like their government and people are expecting them to do. Then, shut the hell up until the next election, outside of party politics.

So, a counter question; is Gerry doing the service guys proud by telling them he is proud of them but their mission is bullshit? I think not. Therefore, Gerry is not supporting the troops, rather, lowering their morale.

I applaud you for recognizing that mission approval is not needed to support the troops.

However, you go on to accuse me of calling the misison bullshit (which I have not). That's Ok, I'm used to being accused of nonsense around here. Worse though is that you contradict yourself in the next sentence. If I was calling the mission bullshit, that would be non-support for the mission which is not connected to support for the troops, as you recognized initially.

There is no evidence that troop morale goes up or down depending on domestic agreement with the mission.

Army Guy · October 26, 2006

gerryhatrick:

applaud you for recognizing that mission approval is not needed to support the troops.

I'd like to know what message it is that you think your sending the troops,by saying we support the troops but not the mission ?

I'd like to know how Canadians, can explain to Canadian soldiers who have returned or serving in Afgan, that we like you guys but your mission... we fucked up ,wrong one sorry about that....we don't support it any more.

When it is "we" the Soldiers who have been saying it almost every interview that we agree and whole heartily support this mission, we think it is an honourable one and worth "our" sacrafice. So while Canadians are dancing around the issue be it for polictics or selling papers, or just plain not knowing all the facts, we Canadian soldiers are spilling our blood sweat and tears....Why? Because we answered your call, because we as a nation had decided that AFGAN was a mission for Canada, because we could help, because that is what Canada has always done, Helped those in need.

So let me tell you how this Canadian soldier feels about those that do not support "OUR" mission. Betrayed, comes to mind, stabbed in the back, and why is that, you say in shock. Nothing has changed since we came over here in day one, when more than a majority of Canadians readily agreed to send us over here...Nothing...

After the military told the government and the people it was not a good idea, that we would have major problems ...nobody even flinched, "send them was the cry across the land" ...And off we went..because that is what we do, we serve...and we did so proudly, as we had the backing of our nation, how could we not accomplish the mission...

Fast forward the mission to today, DND has let the people of Canada down, we have not produced results in world record time, even after history and the military told them it is going to take time...guess you have to spell that out because no reads history books, or even gives our military history a second look...

And now the Canadian people are looking at "our" sacrafice in horror and saying the price is to high..We change our mind we don't like this mission...To them i say "to fucking Bad", It's to late to be changing your minds...Suck it up like we've been told so many times.

Sound harsh, perhaps, but when you tried to stuff the guts back into a 19 year old kid, who even after his painful experiances still wants to come back and serve because he believes that this mission is worth his life, his suffering, everything he has to offer. But maybe only soldiers see that.

So to those that did not support the mission from the start "that is your opinion and your entitled to it, to those that have since changed thier minds, i say to bad, the only ones that deserve the right to change thier minds are those families that have suffer losses, or have had to watch thier loves recup in hospitals spread out across the country. Your decissions have consquences and we are paying for them, atleast give us the respect and listen to us.

You asked us to serve and sacrafice, and we did, atleast have the balls to keep the faith and fully support us as you did when we left, mission and all..

cybercoma · October 26, 2006

Thank you, Army Guy. And thank you to everyone else in our military. That's all I have to say.

gerryhatrick · October 26, 2006

gerryhatrick:
applaud you for recognizing that mission approval is not needed to support the troops.

I'd like to know what message it is that you think your sending the troops,by saying we support the troops but not the mission ?

I'd like to know how Canadians, can explain to Canadian soldiers who have returned or serving in Afgan, that we like you guys but your mission... we fucked up ,wrong one sorry about that....we don't support it any more.

If the reality of the situation changes that requires a withdrawal or a redeployment or a change in tactics, then that's got to happen.

What are you suggesting, that the mission cannot be changed or redirected or cut short without making all the soldiers sad?

And you're framing the question in a way that suggests the only option for people who don't support the mission now is that the mission was wrong from the start. Obviously that's not accurate.

The situation in Afghanistan is fluid, and if the situation morphs to a point where the mission needs to change then I'd like leadership capable of making that change without fear of making the troops cry, as you seem to think they would.

Canadian Blue · October 26, 2006

GH, I've read all the reports coming in from Afganistan, and we are making progress. However people here back at home are completely ignorant about it, and the common argument I hear is that we shouldn't be advancing Bush's imperial motives. I'm not sure when Afganistan is going to become the 51st state, but we are there for good reasons.

What are you suggesting, that the mission cannot be changed or redirected or cut short without making all the soldiers sad?

I'm sure Canadian's aren't used to combat deaths, but even during the reign of Paul Martin, the CDS warned Canadian's that their would be deaths and to brace themselves for it. As far as I'm concerned, if were making progress why would we want to pullout. The problem right now is getting other NATO members to help in the southern region of Afganistan were the Taliban are most active.

Army Guy · October 26, 2006

gerryhatrick :

If the reality of the situation changes that requires a withdrawal or a redeployment or a change in tactics, then that's got to happen

I agree with you, so show me what has changed to warrent the change of hearts and minds in Canada.

What are you suggesting, that the mission cannot be changed or redirected or cut short without making all the soldiers sad?

That is not what i'm saying, in fact re read my posts again...I'm saying that the Canadian people have already made a decission on this matter, they were warned of it's consquences, including it's price. Now that our Military has invested a huge investment in lives and wounded, Canada can not simply change it's mind on a whim. Those that have changed thier mind owe it to them (the military) a better explaination, than those we are getting now...After all it is them that is paying for this with thier lifes and blood..

But you have simply brushed all that aside, along with their opinons, and feed back.

And you're framing the question in a way that suggests the only option for people who don't support the mission now is that the mission was wrong from the start. Obviously that's not accurate.

Well if nothing has changed our mission is the same, the enemy the same, our objectives the same today as they were on day one, what has changed. What makes the mission wrong today?

And if nothing has changed which it has'nt then one can only assume that the wrong decission was taken on day one...feel free to correct me here, by providing examples on how the mission has changed, and why it is wrong today...And to save face they want us back home...

But thats not what 42 of our brave soldiers have paid the ulitimate price for...and over 234 wounded, we believe this mission is worth our sacrafice, in fact many of us will volunteer to come back...as many times as the mission calls for....because we have faith in us, in our training, and the Afgan people and most of the Canadian people.

So when you say you support the mission you do support the soldier, because the soldier is the mission.

because we believe in and support this mission with our lifes.

The situation in Afghanistan is fluid, and if the situation morphs to a point where the mission needs to change then I'd like leadership capable of making that change without fear of making the troops cry, as you seem to think they would

No, you want leadership that agrees with your opinion, not doing the right thing because right now our leadership is saying that they support the mission, that they believe it still is a honorable cause. Our current leadership is doing the right thing, and there not worried about making the little army guys cry...The only ones that seem to be doing all the crying are the NDP, and Liberals, and lets not forget the Bloc as well...and only because it will bring in votes, not because it is the wrong mission, but rather it is deemed an american mission, and being unamerican is fashionable and gets votes.

killjoy · October 26, 2006

The only ones that seem to be doing all the crying are the NDP, and Liberals, and lets not forget the Bloc as well...and only because it will bring in votes, not because it is the wrong mission, but rather it is deemed an american mission, and being unamerican is fashionable and gets votes.

Yyyyyep.

.

gerryhatrick · October 27, 2006

gerryhatrick :
If the reality of the situation changes that requires a withdrawal or a redeployment or a change in tactics, then that's got to happen

I agree with you, so show me what has changed to warrent the change of hearts and minds in Canada.

It has nothing to do with hearts and minds in Canada, it has to do with the reality of the situation. The public has injested a stream of news from a variety of sources saying things like the fight may be widening beyond just Taliban, perhaps becoming a more nationalistic and/or tribal response to the foreign presence.

Perhaps that has moved polls one way or the other, but is that really the important thing? Is not keeping a realistic eye on the mission realities and being willing to adopt (and not afraid to talk about) changes?

That is not what i'm saying, in fact re read my posts again...I'm saying that the Canadian people have already made a decission on this matter, they were warned of it's consquences, including it's price. Now that our Military has invested a huge investment in lives and wounded, Canada can not simply change it's mind on a whim.

Who has changed their mind on a whim? The leadership in Canada has every right to change it's mind, although I would be surprised if it was done on a whim. The fact that an investment has been made cannot factor into lucid examination and decision making regarding the mission, even if that means ending it.

Those that have changed thier mind owe it to them (the military) a better explaination, than those we are getting now...After all it is them that is paying for this with thier lifes and blood..
But you have simply brushed all that aside, along with their opinons, and feed back.

Will the explanation ever be good enough for you? You are clearly of the opinion that the mission must continue as is. Stay the course is your position, and you have propped it up with dead soldiers.

I have brushed nothing asside. There is just no room in the decision making for factoring what has already been spent, only what will be spent. Live for the living. Honor our dead as they deserve, but do not use them as pawns for your political demands.

Would any man want his corpse used as an excuse for a bad decision that produces the wrong results which would include uneccessary death?

Well if nothing has changed our mission is the same, the enemy the same, our objectives the same today as they were on day one, what has changed. What makes the mission wrong today?

I am not saying that it is wrong today, but you are wrong. Everything is always changing.

I have read (and posted) reports that describe many things changing, including the enemy.

No, you want leadership that agrees with your opinion, not doing the right thing because right now our leadership is saying that they support the mission, that they believe it still is a honorable cause. Our current leadership is doing the right thing, and there not worried about making the little army guys cry...The only ones that seem to be doing all the crying are the NDP, and Liberals, and lets not forget the Bloc as well...and only because it will bring in votes, not because it is the wrong mission, but rather it is deemed an american mission, and being unamerican is fashionable and gets votes.

I thought the mission was originally begun by the Liberals?

And what exactly is my opinion? You claim to know, but you don't. I post information and from that you've decided to construe my opinion.

My opinion is the mission can change if it needs to. Dead soldiers and false connections (mission=troops) cannot be allowed to factor into decisions concerning the mission going forward.

killjoy · October 27, 2006

It has nothing to do with hearts and minds in Canada, it has to do with the reality of the situation.

More nonsense and denial of reality.

The F A C T is that within 2 days of Harper coming into office the media's portray of the mission in Afghanistan went from "Heroic Canadian Soldiers building peace and handing out candy" to "We're simply following the Bush take-over-the-world eeeevil empire". That you and many Canadians refuse to recognize this fact is testament to your inability to deal with the truth and make up your own instead.

And Canadians have been all to happy to lap it up. Canadian opinion changed with the media's story. the situation in Afghanistan has not changed. The same Taliban that were run out are the same Taliban who came back.

.

Canadian Blue · October 27, 2006

I like how every single attack against Harper always leads to Bush or the Republican's. As well isn't it a bit hypocritical for a Liberal MP to attack the political ad down in the US while at the same time attacking the RNC down in the states during a Senate and House election in the same argument. :rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with hearts and minds in Canada, it has to do with the reality of the situation. The public has injested a stream of news from a variety of sources saying things like the fight may be widening beyond just Taliban, perhaps becoming a more nationalistic and/or tribal response to the foreign presence.

I think its mostly confined to the south of the country, that is where the Taliban is the strongest. The only major change that is needed is for more NATO countries to step in and help in that region. As for using more soldiers for reconstruction and aid, we get killed for handing out candies and building roads.

I thought the mission was originally begun by the Liberals?

Yes it was, and I remember the Liberals were the ones who had gotten us into the south of the country. Yet after the Liberals decided to make that decision knowing full well what the costs would be they are now backtracking since the polls suggest they would get more voters if they went against it. Here's a response I keep on hearing, we need a more "humanitarian" role in Afganistan. How do we hand out food, build roads and schools while getting shot at and blown up by the Taliban.

I am not saying that it is wrong today, but you are wrong. Everything is always changing.

I doubt they are as good as the reports I have read which show their is progress in the region. Operation Medusa was a huge success. I think one large problem is the Pakistan border which basically allows the Taliban to hide away from the American's.

gerryhatrick · October 27, 2006

The F A C T is that within 2 days of Harper caming into office the media's portray of the mission in Afghanistan went from "Heroic Canadian Soldiers building peace and handing out candy" to "We're simply following the Bush take-over-the-world eeeevil empire". That you and many Canadians refuse to recognize this fact is testament to your inability to deal with the truth and make up your own instead.

I don't think I've met one person who has "refused to recognize" that fact, because I've never heard it claimed before.

Where did you get exposed to this "fact"?

killjoy · October 27, 2006

Whatever Gerry. You'll lie at the drop of a hat. You know full well that until Harper came into office the stories were vastly positive and as soon as he went in they turned vastly negative. You know it, I know it, most people with an aptitude for perception and an ability to debate without constantly lying know it too.

You decide to lie now because you know I'm not about to go accumulating stories to show you the before and after when you'll simply ignore it if I do.

While the Liberals were in office the stories were positive. When Harper got in they became negative and equally deceptive. This is why you have zero respect on this forum gerry from Liberals and Conservatives alike: You're transparently dishonest.

You're not a debater gerry, you're a shameless propagandist and amature spin-artist.

.