Military families speak out on Afghanistan

gerryhatrick · 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.

No I don't know it. You're prattling in a paranoid fashion.

When did the mission move from the relatively peaceful North to the much more deadly South?

You decide to lie no because you know I'm not about to go accumulating stories to show you the before and after when you'll simply ignore it.

I'm not lying at all. You're claim that the media based it's coverage on who was in government is just bizarre. The idea that the stories changed for any reason other than the news emitting from Afghanistan changed is bleeding ridiculous. Take a breath and do a little research.

killjoy · October 27, 2006

No I don't know it.

Yeah. You do. But you would never admit something like that because unlike a lot of people on this forum you can never admit it when someone has a point unless it's a simple mimic of your own. Why? Because you're a liar. When I, ArmyGuy or Argus admit that just because a couple of families want to bring the troops home that it doesn't mean they're not supporting the troops (which we've all done on this thread) and you can't even admit an obvious historical ubiquitous truism such as the F A C T that it is the opposing parties that use the troops as a form of attacking the whichever party is in office when the mission is on - that it is a hot potatoe for the ruling party not the opposition then you're a liar.

Take a breath and do a little research.

:lol:

Hilarious. Listen to yourself pontificate about research and honestly as though you could manage either.

When did the mission move from the relatively peaceful North to the much more deadly South?

Prescisely when it was supposed to. Take your own advice and do a little research. That the Liberals or the media didn't tell you that was the plan for a long time isn't my fault.

You're claim that the media based it's coverage on who was in government is just bizarre.

Yeah. That's such a bizarre claim and one I'm sure you've never made :rolleyes:

.

gerryhatrick · October 27, 2006

Again I forgot you were on my ignore list. Hard to remember little decisions like that made months back, but you do a good job of reminding me with your ignorant and insulting behavior. Thanks.

killjoy · October 27, 2006

No I don't know it.
Yeah. You do. But you would never admit something like that because unlike a lot of people on this forum you can never admit it when someone has a point unless it's a simple mimic of your own. Why? Because you're a liar. When I, ArmyGuy or Argus admit that just because a couple of families want to bring the troops home that it doesn't mean they're not supporting the troops (which we've all done on this thread) and you can't even admit an obvious historical ubiquitous truism such as the F A C T that it is the opposing parties that use the troops as a form of attacking the whichever party is in office when the mission is on - that it is a hot potatoe for the ruling party not the opposition then you're a liar.

.

Canadian Blue · October 27, 2006

Again I forgot you were on my ignore list. Hard to remember little decisions like that made months back, but you do a good job of reminding me with your ignorant and insulting behavior. Thanks.

If he was on your ignore list then why did you respond to him???

No offense GH, but since I've been here whenever I see one of your post it just seems like a Liberal spin doctor is posting.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/canada.html

GH, how would you suggest we do the mission in Afghanistan? What have we been doing that has led to no progress?

gerryhatrick · October 27, 2006

Again I forgot you were on my ignore list. Hard to remember little decisions like that made months back, but you do a good job of reminding me with your ignorant and insulting behavior. Thanks.

If he was on your ignore list then why did you respond to him???

Again I forgot you were on my ignore list.

You get the prize for dumb question of the day.

jdobbin · October 27, 2006

GH, how would you suggest we do the mission in Afghanistan? What have we been doing that has led to no progress?

One thing that probably can't be dealt with militarily is the drug problem. Whenever NATO is involved in burning or cutting the crop down, they lose support from locals. Worse, if they leave the crop like the Americans did, the Taliban use the profits to buy weapons and fighters.

There has to be a drug policy for Afghanistan. There is none now and this could continue the ongoing war.

killjoy · October 27, 2006

jdobbin is a prime example of the opposite of gerry: a sincere poster/debater who can admit it when someone else has a point but holds opposite views from me (most often).

S'like I don't even have the heart to argue with him/her any longer...he's just too reasonable.

.

jdobbin · October 27, 2006

jdobbin is a prime example of the opposite of gerry: a sincere poster/debater who can admit it when someone else has a point but holds opposite views from me (most often).
S'like I don't even have the heart to argue with him/her any longer...he's just too reasonable.

.

lol I was worried that an incomplete policy would bring down the Canadian government. The Liberals fell of their own accord but now the Conservatives have the same problems of how to address an incomplete policy that can undermine security for Afghanistan and Canada itself.

I think it is worthy of debate. I think the Liberals should be critiquing the government where there is some legitimacy on the Afghanistan issue. I think the extension could have been criticized on the basis of overextending Canada's military. Given some of what Hillier and O'Connor have been saying about Canada needing help from NATO, I think it is a legit issue. Another is on tours of duty. I don't understand it. Canada needs experienced people in a combat zone. They talk about extending tours and limiting them to one tour. I'm not at all clear about what that means. Many military analysts are confused as well.

Pakistan. I think I have said it many times before but it is a huge issue. Afghanistan can't have security if elements of Pakistan's government support the Taliban.

And finally, drugs. The military can't defeat the drug trade. It is going to require a separate policy. I don't know what that is yet but I don't know that we can dismiss the Senlis Council about buying the crop.

I still think Afghanistan can bring down a Canadian government. Quebec is extremely reticent according to polls. Lose some seats there, lose a few more elsewhere and you have a defeated government.

I think Canada's forces when they are stacked up against it can do an amazing job. But Afghanistan has other aspects to it that need a better plan of attack by those wishing to see the country take care of itself.

Canadian Blue · October 27, 2006

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Oct 26 2006, 06:27 PM)
QUOTE

Again I forgot you were on my ignore list. Hard to remember little decisions like that made months back, but you do a good job of reminding me with your ignorant and insulting behavior. Thanks.

If he was on your ignore list then why did you respond to him???

QUOTE

Again I forgot you were on my ignore list.

You get the prize for dumb question of the day.

Isn't their an ignore list on here bud??? I think I can go to your profile and select ignore use. If you did that, then you wouldn't see that users post, especially if he was supposedly on your ignore list.

Go to a profile and select profile options.

Anyways, I don't really care about getting the dumb prize today since you seem to get it every other day of the week. Other then the insult, aren't you going to answer the question I posed to your or not???

Three cheers for jdobbin

killjoy · October 27, 2006

I wasn't being sarcastic jdobbin.

.

gerryhatrick · October 27, 2006

Isn't their an ignore list on here bud?

I prefer to use my brain, bud.

jdobbin · October 27, 2006

I wasn't being sarcastic jdobbin.

I know. And I think you know that my concern for Afghanistan isn't just anti-Conservatism or pacificism. I'm legitimately worried about it becoming a problem without solutions.

killjoy · October 27, 2006

I'm legitimately worried about it becoming a problem without solutions.

Yep. And how can anyone argue that? It's a reasonable position. There are no guarantees.

.

Canadian Blue · October 27, 2006

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Oct 26 2006, 07:08 PM)
Isn't their an ignore list on here bud?

I prefer to use my brain, bud.

It obviously isn't working then is it?

If you wanna ignore him then use the ignore feature, thats what its for.

gerryhatrick · October 27, 2006

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Oct 26 2006, 07:08 PM)
Isn't their an ignore list on here bud?

I prefer to use my brain, bud.

It obviously isn't working then is it?

If you wanna ignore him then use the ignore feature, thats what its for.

It's pretty obvious that I made a choice to ignore that poster myself free of any online aids. Yes I forgot about my decision so I suppose my brain didn't work in that regard.

I realize there is an ignore feature, thanks.

What else would you like to talk about? The sky is blue, yes. Unless it's cloudy, uh huh.

Canadian Blue · October 27, 2006

How about answering the question I posed earlier about how you would change what we are doing in Afghanistan?

Just wanted to let you know about the ignore feature, I never knew people used their mental ignore features on a forum instead of the ignore icon in the member profile.

killjoy · October 27, 2006

It's pretty obvious that I made a choice to ignore that poster myself free of any online aids. Yes I forgot about my decision so I suppose my brain didn't work in that regard.
I realize there is an ignore feature, thanks.

What else would you like to talk about? The sky is blue, yes. Unless it's cloudy, uh huh.

Seems ignore or not gerry can't stop flaming. He started this ^^ round right here:

Again I forgot you were on my ignore list. Hard to remember little decisions like that made months back, but you do a good job of reminding me with your ignorant and insulting behavior. Thanks.

If he was on your ignore list then why did you respond to him???

Again I forgot you were on my ignore list.

You get the prize for dumb question of the day.

.

Argus · October 27, 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.

If the Liberals get elected all your concern about Afghanistan will disappear almost instantly. You'll move on to something else, like why those evil Conservatives are stalling parliament over the animal marriage bill.

Army Guy · October 27, 2006

gerryhatrick:

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.

Let me just say that politicians are heavily swayed by public opinion, so it does have everything to do with hearst and minds of the Canadian public. The media is a major problem in the total confusion of Canada's public, we as Canadians put to much faith in what is printed or reported today. And they have lead the public down the wrong path...Operation mudusa for example had ZERO reporters covering the event, nobody from the media was on the same ground as we where, seeing everything as we did...they took there reports from nightly news briefs given by DND...and even then could not get it right...every news media source was given the same report, and the next morning you'd be hard pressed to find 2 stories the same, in fact what ever story sold more papers the rest would reprint thier verision to match...Thats not news...

So when Canadians say yes i'm educated about the Afgan situation, i read all the different news sources i'm well informed..thats a crock of shit...they know nothing...of what goes on here...

How can you explain the massive difference in opinion on the mission between the Military and the Canadians back home? Why are Canadians so eager to believe the media, and why are they so eager to dismiss what thier own soldiers have to say. We don't sell papers, we get no royalities for promoting anything, all we get is the small bonuses our gov't gives us...(Just a minute on bonuses)and i'm not sure whom reported that bonus we recieved are around 95,000 cdn dollars In your dreams an avg soldier will be lucky to see a 1/3 of that...and thats after his tax break...

We have nothing to gain by telling you the lies...

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

Our current gov't has already decided we are here until 2009..and nobody is going to change that, not you, not the peaceniks, not the military...nobody it is already set in stone...and here is the tricky part are you listening If there has been no changes to the mission, the situation WTF do we need to discuss?

And when the situation or mission does change i'd say yes lets get them all in there fill the room up with everyone of those vote grabing dickheads, and lock them in there until they can all decide on the next step...

But until then they see above mention to dickheads they will try to artifically create the change needed for them to get back to the tables....

Who has changed their mind on a whim?

the Canadian public has changed thier mind on a whim , you did say you were following the topic right,

The leadership in Canada has every right to change it's mind, although I would be surprised if it was done on a whim.

Again we are not talking about our current gov't in power because they are holding the course regardless if it's popular or not, but because it is the right thing to do...., and yes the other parties have changed thier minds and it was done on a whim, And when asked why ? they have made all kinds of lies and decieved the Canadian public whom has proven many times in the past that they are gulable, have extremily short memories....

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.

Again that is not what i said or meant, if the mission changed and we could not meet our commitments then yes i would say regardless of military deaths it was time to pull out...But todate that has not happened, nothing has changed here. and if your going to pull us out because "your" tired of hearing about Afgan, or it's an american mission, or for votes ...then you should be prepared to look them in the eyes and tell them why...and you should be prepared to do the next mission by yourself...

Will the explanation ever be good enough for you?

Not if your going to end all "OUR" hard work and sacrafice over something stupid, as the excuses being used today...not only would it not be good enough but it would mean me and many others turning in our uniforms and perhaps letting them take up the struggle.

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.

No, i don't prop it up with just dead soldiers, but all of our soldiers efforts todate, that have made a huge difference in Afgans lives...but then again you already know that..the media tells you so.

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

you have brushed aside every story told by a soldier, every story told by military commanders first hand. and you and many others have brushed it all aside"WTF" there just grunts, with guns....because if you did not brush them aside and take thier opinions seriously then we would not be having this discussion as you would support the mission and every thing about it as much as we do......and we would be talking about the next aid pkg we could send them...not how much air time can the NDP get out of this issue...

As for your last piece of advice I live with the dead and living every day and every night, I live with the fact that these soldiers have given thier lives freely for this mission, and the people of Afgan. I also live with the fact that there are groups in Canada that do not honour them, that want to throw away thier sacrafices and give up on the afgan people for no other reason that they are afraid we are creating for terrorists, or the mission is american, or the believe the mission is hopless, but want to commit us to another one of thier liking...Canada has a mission, and it's in Afgan, get on board or get off the bus...

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

then why would you be constantly bringing up the "you can support the troops but not the mission"...

If it's not the mission that is wrong then what is it you don't like about it......Do you support the mission?

then i will ask you again what about this mission has changed to warrent our quiting or withdrawing...

I thought the mission was originally begun by the Liberals?

My piont exactly, if nothing has changed about the mission, then why the sudden swicth in tactics, why has the liberals gone from a total support of the mission to it is now the wrong mission for Canada...did they make a mistake in sending us over, and this is thier way of saying we f*cked up, or is it all just a ploy to capture badly needed votes...

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.

Another piont i'm trying to make, you don't have an opinion...you push liberal policies...even they don't know what they are or where they stand....first you push the statement "you can support the troops but not the mission" (liberal and NDP policy) then you state You did not say there was anything wrong with the mission, and leave it up to the reader to decide on what your postion is....then get all pissed off when they attack you about it...

SO for the record where do you stand in regards to the mission ? again'st it or for it ?

and if you are just making a statement to start debate perhaps you should clarify that in your opening remarks....You used to be a leveled headed debater but that has changed in the last couple of months...

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.

Again you've brushed everything any soldier has quoted aside...The mission has not changed to any degree that would require us to debate it all over again, lossing more valuable time and effort that could be spent on actually solving this problem...

And in this case Mission does equal soldiers as they have made it "thier" mission...when the soldiers do no longer believe any more then you can say the mission support and soldier support are not the same...And it does play a role in decission factor when politics are involved...

gerryhatrick · October 28, 2006

gerryhatrick:
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.

Again that is not what i said or meant,

Maybe that's not exactly what you said:

Now that our Military has invested a huge investment in lives and wounded, Canada can not simply change it's mind on a whim.

But my answer is justified.

I have said that our leadership must be willing, ready, and able to make changes to the mission if neccessary. Your reponse was to point out that the mission is until 2009 and asked me "WTF do we need to discuss"

(watch out, profanity even in acromym form REALLY upsets a couple of posters here)

I fail to understand why you would not want leadership that is flexible and able to adjust as new mission realities present.

Canadian Blue · October 28, 2006

I fail to understand why you would not want leadership that is flexible and able to adjust as new mission realities present.

Because that often means leadership who care more about how many votes they can win instead of taking a principled stand. As we have seen the Liberal leadership candidates and Jack Layton are trying to win votes by saying the mission is a "lost cause" despite evidence to the contrary. Their hope is to capitalize on Canadian's ignorance towards the Afghan mission. Most Canadian's are completely ignorant about what were doing in that area of the world.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?board=22.0

killjoy · October 28, 2006

I have said that our leadership must be willing, ready, and able to make changes to the mission if neccessary. Your reponse was to point out that the mission is until 2009 and asked me "WTF do we need to discuss"
(watch out, profanity even in acromym form REALLY upsets a couple of posters here)

I fail to understand why you would not want leadership that is flexible and able to adjust as new mission realities present.

He never really answers, "I have said that our leadership must be willing, ready, and able to make changes to the mission if necessary ", doesn't say the slightest thing. He doesn't say why Harper is unable or failing to do this. He does not explain why it would be necessary to make changes, what those changes should be and refuses to acknowledge the changes and adjustments made given the changing scenarios already, both tactically and diplomatically.. Harper just as any other leader will be willing to change. The point gerry ALWAYS avoids is actually coming out and explaining what changes?

This is a great example right here:

I fail to understand why you would not want leadership that is flexible and able to adjust as new mission realities present.

That statement says nothing and is irrelevant entirely. Army Guy never suggested anything of the sort but gerry needs to try and pen in the debate to make illusion that he had. It's a nothing statement. Flexible leadership is not the issue. The issue is Afghanistan and what to do about it. There is no issue, nor is there any evidence of an issue that the current leadership is any more or less flexible than any other.

What, gerry, are the "new mission realities present"? You seem woefully slim on any idea of what the mission constitutes.

What translation of ArmyGuys (or anyone) thoughts leads you to conclude that he does not believe leadership should be; can be; is or isn't, "flexible and able to adjust"? That they do not jump every time the media get's their load on doesn't mean they're not flexible.

Should there be a change? What should be changed? That's the issue. This is where we see proof positive that you're only here to denounce Harper and lift up someone else. Even now, when the question about Afghanistan finally actually focuses on Afghanistan, you cannot speak to the issues that require 'flexibility', you do not speak directly to the issue of Afghanistan and it’s reality, but instead focus everything on Harper, and are only willing to spin the illusion that there is no ‘flexibility’ in the current leadership of Canada.

All roads lead to Harper. What a waste of time.

.

gerryhatrick · October 28, 2006

I fail to understand why you would not want leadership that is flexible and able to adjust as new mission realities present.

Because that often means leadership who care more about how many votes they can win instead of taking a principled stand.

There is no logical connection there.

The mission needs people looking at it with cool, lucid heads who are ready, willing, and able to make adjustments if needed.

The fact that people have already died cannot influence that.

The fact that people might want votes cannot influence that.

The only thing that should influence it is the reality on the ground. The worrying thing I've noticed on this board is when any information about on the ground realities is posted that doesn't fit the political narrative being given to us it's condemned and rejected for POLITICAL reasons. Obviously this board isn't making mission decisions, but I hope the same type of folks aren't.