tml12 Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 Yes France has a lot to do with this catchme in that if we pulled out of Afghanistan, as the left would have us do, we would be emulating France. Again with "the left" comments. "The Left" are the ones that sent our troops to Afghanistan in the first place. Do you not think there is support among people who vote "left", and people who are "left" MP's, to remain and finish the job? Yes I do but I also happen to know mass opposition to the war comes from the left and not from the right. That being said, I acknowledge that there are intelligent people on the opposite side of the spectrum too that recognize we need to stay there. And there are also "right wing" supporters who do not support the war. So don't you think you are doing your own arguments a dis-service by making blanket statements about "the left" being the only detractors of the war in Afghanistan? I think it is clear that most of the anti-war people are left-wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 I think it is clear that most of the anti-war people are left-wing. So? That still doesn't even mean most "left-wingers" are anti-war. Whatever, it is your own arguments that your blanket statements undermine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 I think the military's approval of O'Conner is huge. He is the first Defense Minister in a long time to actually put the people he is responsible for first. You can't underestimate how important that is for the people who depend on him to look after their interests. Everyone wants to work for a person like that. I just don't agree with him on this one issue. I would think you would disagree about untendered contracts for "national security" reasons as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 I think it is clear that most of the anti-war people are left-wing. Ergo, it is clear that most of the right wing is pro-war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 I think it is clear that most of the anti-war people are left-wing. Ergo, it is clear that most of the right wing is pro-war? No actually that is an incorrect assumtion. What it should be is: It is clear that most pro-war people are Right-wing. Small change but it makes a world of difference to the meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 If you guys want to get caught up in the linguistics of it, that is fine. I think it is pretty clear that the left is, for the most part, anti-war and the right pro-war. The Liberals are not necessarily left-wing because they straddle the centre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 The Left is anti-war? Tell that to the Russians and the Chinese... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 I would think you would disagree about untendered contracts for "national security" reasons as well. What particular contracts do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 28, 2007 Report Share Posted January 28, 2007 The Left is anti-war? Tell that to the Russians and the Chinese... Communism in practice has resembled fascism more than Marxism. This is not complicated political science stuff here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 If it is so dangerous why was Tim Horton's allowed on base before a committee? Why was Rick Mercer allowed on base? They wouldn't let the committee go until it became apparent that every country such as the Netherlands, Britain, Germany and the U.S. had sent committees to do their work and report back to their elected bodies. Canada stood alone saying it was too dangerous I think one has to draw a line in the sand some where, one would have to agree that a dead tim hortons employee or god forbid a Canadian icon such as Rick Mercer would not carry the same leverage as one dead Committee member. and the countless dead soldiers that died protecting them. One would also have to ask what exactly would they be reporting on that has not already been reported...Whats next an eviromental committee, what about the mayors from all the soldiers home towns, where do we draw the line...at what piont do we say enough is enough... Are they going to report on something new ? or is it just a photo op ? what possiable facts could they possiable find that have not already been uncovered by the governments of the day. Lib, PC, or cons. I think O Conner made the right choice, why give the enemy a chance at victory, the risks are not worth the rewards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Are they going to report on something new ? or is it just a photo op ? what possiable facts could they possiable find that have not already been uncovered by the governments of the day. Lib, PC, or cons.I think O Conner made the right choice, why give the enemy a chance at victory, the risks are not worth the rewards. If security is the case, why was Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional committee from the U.S. off base there yesterday? Why the Dutch the week before that? The Germans in the weeks before that? The British and other NATO countries before Christmas? I suppose we could even have the minister stay in Canada. Security is too big a risk and the military will be able to tell him the details on development, diplomacy and defence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 If security is the case, why was Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional committee from the U.S. off base there yesterday? Why the Dutch the week before that? The Germans in the weeks before that? The British and other NATO countries before Christmas? Security is an issue yes, but you failed to answer my question, is it a fact finding mission, or photo op, and would it be worth the cost of lifes. I know i'm a soldier and it's my job to serve my country, but dying for a photo op is not worth the cost. I suppose we could even have the minister stay in Canada. Security is too big a risk and the military will be able to tell him the details on development, diplomacy and defence The minister has a post to fullfil, and coming here is all part of the job, what info is this committee going to uncover that could not be uncovered by those who's job it is to be here. PS there is a diplomatic corp in place here with the PRT and the Afgan government do we not trust them for this info ? Is that what we are suggesting, where do we draw the line, do we start flying over every citizen that holds a elected post to cover all the angles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Security is an issue yes, but you failed to answer my question, is it a fact finding mission, or photo op, and would it be worth the cost of lifes. I know i'm a soldier and it's my job to serve my country, but dying for a photo op is not worth the cost. The minister has a post to fullfil, and coming here is all part of the job, what info is this committee going to uncover that could not be uncovered by those who's job it is to be here. PS there is a diplomatic corp in place here with the PRT and the Afgan government do we not trust them for this info ? Is that what we are suggesting, where do we draw the line, do we start flying over every citizen that holds a elected post to cover all the angles. The Defence committee has a job to do as well. They need to get facts from as many sources as they can. They can't rely solely on the military brass, the diplomatic corps or the minister to tell them what is going on. It isn't just a photo op. It was the very first time that the committee has actually been in Afghanistan to actually get facts. It is a little hard to meet with village elders and hard working soldiers in a boardroom in Ottawa. You might think it is a photo op when an MP goes to a disaster site to survey the damage or a farmer's field to see how the crops are coming but it is their job. Let them do it and stop trying to prevent them from doing their work. Perhaps you'll find that procurement for something that you actually need is pushed to the top or that action is taken for something you think needs getting done. I think the real danger is when Parliament doesn't pay attention to where our troops are in combat. This is what happened in Iraq. Legislators didn't get a real picture of what was happening there and now it is a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaponeer Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Risking the life of soldiers so Dawn Black or Ujjwal can have a photo outside the wire is nonsense. If these parlimentariens really gave a damm about our troops, they would not ask that of them. Armyguy is correcft, I have been in theatre when every asshat who thinks they have a stake in things shows up, wanting to go here & there, getting their photos taken. They could care less about the troops. Dawn Black is the NDP defence critic, she does not even know anything about the military. Ujjwal, same. There are people there whose job it is to report back to Ottawa, there's no need for theses clowns...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Risking the life of soldiers so Dawn Black or Ujjwal can have a photo outside the wire is nonsense. If these parlimentariens really gave a damm about our troops, they would not ask that of them.Armyguy is correcft, I have been in theatre when every asshat who thinks they have a stake in things shows up, wanting to go here & there, getting their photos taken. They could care less about the troops. Dawn Black is the NDP defence critic, she does not even know anything about the military. Ujjwal, same. There are people there whose job it is to report back to Ottawa, there's no need for theses clowns...... I know some in the military hate the NDP and Liberals but I don't see how preventing them from doing their elected jobs is helpful at all. Canada stands alone in the lack of access in Afghanistan. I keep hearing from people here that if only people knew what was going on, the support for the mission would get higher support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaponeer Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 I would not say we "dislike" the libs, "not to happy with at times" would be more correct. The NDP, yeah, you figured it out. The prob here is these people are going to see what they want to see. Dawn Black is not going to come back to Canada and say, "Jack, we are wrong, they are doing a great job, we need to support this". ujjwal is going to say whatever Dion tells him to say, same with the CPC. This whole Afghan issue, people are only hearing what they want too hear. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/28/...objectives.html Here's a link to a good article that may shed light on things..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Risking the life of soldiers so Dawn Black or Ujjwal can have a photo outside the wire is nonsense. If these parlimentariens really gave a damm about our troops, they would not ask that of them.Armyguy is correcft, I have been in theatre when every asshat who thinks they have a stake in things shows up, wanting to go here & there, getting their photos taken. They could care less about the troops. Dawn Black is the NDP defence critic, she does not even know anything about the military. Ujjwal, same. There are people there whose job it is to report back to Ottawa, there's no need for theses clowns...... I agree, "NDP Defense Critic" Be careful over there and know that you and all the soldiers are in my thoughts and prayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 I would not say we "dislike" the libs, "not to happy with at times" would be more correct. The NDP, yeah, you figured it out.The prob here is these people are going to see what they want to see. Dawn Black is not going to come back to Canada and say, "Jack, we are wrong, they are doing a great job, we need to support this". ujjwal is going to say whatever Dion tells him to say, same with the CPC. This whole Afghan issue, people are only hearing what they want too hear. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/28/...objectives.html Here's a link to a good article that may shed light on things..... You have no idea what Dawn Black will say. The NDP were one of the parties that raised the issue of how soldiers lost their combat pay when they were injured and sent home. The Conservatives were embarrassed by the issue raised by the opposition. The reason the opposition knew this is because they had access to the soldiers. I am not an NDPer by any stretch but I would never think of barring them access because of politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaponeer Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 I truely have no idea what she would say, your right. I have heard what she has said so far about military issues. She is not at all military savie, she know very little about us, therefore her credibility is low in so far as military issues are concerned. Ujjwal has made some "bizarre" comments as well. Politics is involved here whether we like it or not. I believe I am right, that positions will not change, but maybe I am wrong. Sometimes it is nice to be proved wrong, this would be one of those times. I do agree that coverage of Afghanistan has been poor, it only seems to hit the headlines when there is combat, or Canadian deaths. Other thatn that, not much heard. No news is good news sometimes. War is a very hard thing to cover. What is success, what is a failure. It can all be subjective, depending on your politics. I do not think people in WW2 got the whole story, or from the Korean War, Vietnam, GW1 & 2 etc... The link I provided shows the CF goals. I have no doubt DND is striving to meet these goals ASAP. I simply have to trust that the CF senior officers have a plan, are following their plan, and will bring this to a sucssesful end some day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 The link I provided shows the CF goals. I have no doubt DND is striving to meet these goals ASAP. I simply have to trust that the CF senior officers have a plan, are following their plan, and will bring this to a sucssesful end some day. I hope that the Canadian Forces can secure southern Afghanistan. I continue to worry that Pakistan has let two of its provinces become training grounds for future al Qaeda and Taliban operations. Even if NATO and Afghan forces shut down the border, they can't sustain that force indefinitely. If the source of many of the problems is not dealt with, future attacks are what may lay in the future. I think that Canada needs to press on with the three Ds. It means the CF will need support from Liberals and yes, New Democrats. The Forces should be trying to show their best light rather holding the committee at a distance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaponeer Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 I think people need to see the real story, yes. The talibs massing in lawless regions of P-stan. I know they are being watched. I have every confidence our military leaders are preparing to deal with them. The US Army has sent a battalion to the area to beef up the Canadians, they have extended the tour of duty of 3/10th Mountain, and NATO is sending another full Brigade to the area. With these forces in place, this "winter offensive" will hopefully be a non-event.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 The Tories are denying they will extend the mission beyond 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/29/...n-military.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tml12 Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 The Tories are denying they will extend the mission beyond 2009.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/29/...n-military.html It is all in the hands of our very competent military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaponeer Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 What if the Tories are not in power in 2009?? If the job gets done, come home, if it does not we can stay. Perhaps reduce to a single battalion... There may be an even bigger threat to deal with by then, anything is possible...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 It is all in the hands of our very competent military. So they are responsible for diplomacy and development as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.