Canadians Paying for Our Own Brainwashing Propaganda

[Canadian Blue]

Hold on, what do you mean by "pre-emptive actions". Iraq was a pre-emptive action, and was not sanctioned by the UN. Afghanistan had terror camps freely operating within it's border, and was thus culpable in 9/11.

As for going on the offensive against the Taliban, why should we allow a group who has a goal of killing as many Canadian soldiers as possible to freely operate in the country, it makes no sense.

I will refer you back to the topic of this thread, and the focus groups, that we paid for, that were prompted by the 35% approval that was current in December 2006.

Well current polls say otherwise.

Canadians were there on a reconstruction mission and security mission until Martin changed it.

Until you reconcile that their is a major difference between operation's in the North and the South, this debate is futile. Once we moved to the south we had no other choice but to prepare for combat. As for reconstruction, it's hard to build a school while getting shot at.

In a few years, perhaps not so many now, who knows how those who engaged in pre-emptive actions are going to be dealt with. As International Law also states that it is up to the individual military person to adhere to Inrenational Law, as well as the Laws of their Land, and if they do not and accept orders and carried out orders, that were in violation od said laws, they could be charged under International Law.

I don't really know what your getting at. I'd think going on the offensive against an organization like the Taliban isn't considered a crime against international law. If it is, then the United Nation's should be disbanded for being so incompetent.

So, as result of the focus group, we paid for, we are now being told lies on the Can Gov website. They are portraying kids and reconstruction with false references to development and reconstruction. When we are now spending more than $9 on combat for every $1 dollar spent on reconstruction.

Being lied to, by who, according to our soldiers over there we are taking part in reconstruction. As well it shouldn't surprise you to know that it costs more to fight the Taliban then do reconstruction. As long as the Taliban are free to operate, we can't get much done in the way of reconstruction.

Too bad Harper used all that money of us taxpayers to try and sell us the War in Afghanistan, when he should have been listening to what we Canadians were saying about what should've been going on in Afghanistan in the first place as opposed to pre-emptive actions, against just whom?

People that set up IED's, kill school teachers, and people that are responsible for terrorist action's there.

As well it's obvious according to most poll's a majority of Canadian's or at the least around 50-50 want us there, so it's not that cut and dry.

[Catchme]

True to form talking points again. Good job! Makes it easy to answer.

The CPC's poll of 35% who approve of the mission in Afghanistan, that was derived from, their taxpayer funded, focus groups is way more accutrate than random sampling, that you keep mentioning.

Since, the 2 polls actually occured around the same time, I will take as fact, the CPC's poll, where the questions would not have been skewed to get the wanted results. But good try on the band wagon effect.

No, Hillier quite clearly noted "pre-emptive">

The Senlis Council is on the ground in Afghanistan, I will take their word as fact, which they got from Afghans, over a moniker on a forum.

The Canadian and coalitions actions are killing innocent Afghans and driving the rest to the Talban, at this rate, ALL of Afghanistan will be Taliban, as situation created by the punishing actions of the military occupiers who are not living up to their contractual obligations and the parameters of counter insurrgency.

I see again you completely avoided the Senlis Council Report.

[Canadian Blue]

No, Hillier quite clearly noted "pre-emptive">

Which means???

Do you always focus on semantics.

Since, the 2 polls actually occured around the same time, I will take as fact, the CPC's poll, where the questions would not have been skewed to get the wanted results. But good try on the band wagon effect.

Well hey, isn't that the claim you made about some poll were you didn't like the result.

I see again you completely avoided the Senlis Council Report.

No I read it, and it doesn't talk about pulling out in the report that I'm reading.

http://www.senliscouncil.org/documents/Ins...Recommendations

Yes I agree with most of the reccomendation's, you don't agree with them. That's why I'd rather have our troop's stay in Afghanistan, and instead see that government's, especially the American's reevaluate some of the economic and humanitarian assistance needed in Afghanistan.

True to form talking points again. Good job! Makes it easy to answer.

Rational thought usually trumps any partisan rhetoric that you happen to offer. The report doesn't call for an immediate pullout, a reevaluation perhaps, but not a pullout.

[imatitlover]

adian soldiers. It's not slander, please, I've been slandered much worse in the past three days.

No, support for the mission in Afghanistan is around 35%. Those who suppot the mission are in a minority.

Actually, the poll that I'm looking at says a different story, it's actually quite the opposite of what you are saying.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/14414

[

Well what do you expect from Angus Reid.

But if you say the Conservatives were lieing when they said in their report that Canadian support was only at 35%,then go for it

OTTAWA–The Conservative government has been "too American" in its attempts to justify the Afghan war to a skeptical Canadian public, according to an internal report commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Public support for the mission in Afghanistan stood at 35 per cent in late December, the report said.

[Catchme]

Do you always focus on semantics.

Well hey, isn't that the claim you made about some poll were you didn't like the result.

I see again you completely avoided the Senlis Council Report.

No I read it, and it doesn't talk about pulling out in the report that I'm reading.

Yes I agree with most of the reccomendation's, you don't agree with them. That's why I'd rather have our troop's stay in Afghanistan, and instead see that government's, especially the American's reevaluate some of the economic and humanitarian assistance needed in Afghanistan.

Why try to place the blame on just the Americans? The "NEW" government of Canada needs to re-evalute, as opposed to making war plans right up to 2011.

And yes, I do agree with the majority of the Senlis Councils words and am on record saying so, how strange that you again to try to put words in my mouth and say the opposite. Remember, it was I who posted the links in the first place to the Senlis council. Not you! Good try on the shifting sands though.

Your words say, that you would rather have the military stay and be increased to fight insurrgency. As opposed to approving the Senlis Report's saying more are needed to be counter insurregents, which actually means NO additional fighting, less bombing, and more focus on the basic needs of Afghans and rebuilding. As opposed to blowing them to bits through fighting an insurregency, that is growing daily, because innocent Afghans are: being killed, left with nothing, and are not having their basic needs met because everything has been destroyed.

1. There has been an evolution of the actual nature of insurgency since 9/11

In Afghanistan, the international community has opted for a counter-insurgency approach

that fails to see the current evolution of the insurgency. The Taliban and similar insurgency

groups operating in Afghanistan are perceived outside Afghanistan as part of the Jihad and

Al Qaeda movements. Although some core Taliban leaders could be seen in this light, most

Taliban fighters are local Afghans who have either been attracted by economic incentives or

are driven by legitimate grievances. These grievances have resulted in anger, frustration and

disillusionment with the government and the international forces.

Again you are over looking what the report says and you are ignoring what Afghans are saying and doing, and why they are saying and doing the things they are.

The International Community needs a reality check: we must fundamentally reassess the status of international community counter-insurgency efforts in Afghanistan..

The support that the international community enjoyed when it first arrived in the country has disappeared and must be rebuilt in ..We must acknowledge this reality and take immediate steps to turn around the dynamics between the international community and the local Afghan population. Despite the fact that counter-insurgency theory is normally understood to include many different policy areas, the counter-insurgency strategy used in Afghanistan is dominated by a military approach.

If ALL our military is going to do, is continue to blow them to bits and say they are fighting insurrgents, while their actions are creating more insurrgents, they need to be pulled. And because it appears as though, that is their only intent, by your words, the words of Hillier, and the CPC government then ergo they should be pulled.

The Canadian military, under the governance of the CPC, are NOT conducting the correct Mission, they are not following the original mandate for deployment, and they are not following a national policy that the majority of Canadians believe in and expect.

Contrary to what you believe, Canadians are not pathetic, nor are they apathetic. This seems to be a common mantra from the partisan right in order to justify their desire to erode the rights of Canadians and indeed peoples from around the world, for personal agenda and capital gains.

Some may not be fully engaged, yes, but overall Canadians are well informed, mindful of others, and want to be responsible world citizens. They do not want to be exploitive of others, nor believe they have a right to erode and destroy the right of action and freedom of conscience.

[Canadian Blue]

Contrary to what you believe, Canadians are not pathetic, nor are they apathetic. This seems to be a common mantra from the partisan right in order to justify their desire to erode the rights of Canadians and indeed peoples from around the world, for personal agenda and capital gains.

Yeah, I'm just rolling in cash what with the single room and shared bathroom.

Some may not be fully engaged, yes, but overall Canadians are well informed, mindful of others, and want to be responsible world citizens. They do not want to be exploitive of others, nor believe they have a right to erode and destroy the right of action and freedom of conscience.

Freedom of conscience, isn't that something the Taliban would take away if they got back into power.

Either way theirs no point debating you, as you seem to twist things to fit your little ideological box.

[imatitlover]

I read where Canadian Blue thinks Canada and Canadians are pathetic.

Why does he/she think this way?

[Canadian Blue]

No imatitlover, people can't seem to grasp english, and the irony behind said comments.

Baylee remember the only reason you have the ability to make the comments you do is the police who ensure law and order in Canada, and the soldiers who defend this country. So perhaps you should stop hating them so much as they are partially the reason you're living in this pathetic little country were you have so much due to the lives of others who were killed in Europe, Korea, the Balkan's, Mayerthorpe, and Afghanistan.

Besides, I know this will simply get into a debate on semantics, as does anything with simple minded people.

Actually glancing through your past posts, it's odd noticing how you've used the same language as a member who was recently banned. Just a coincidence, probably not.

[jefferiah]

I am a Canadian, Catch Me, and I dont find anything offensive about Canadian Blue's comment at all. I think you are digging a little too deeply into his comment and that you are quite conscious of that yourself. In true Liberal fashion you are feigning deep emotional outrage over a few words that could be interpreted in a bad way if you analyze them hard enough. The next step, in keeping with Liberal protocol, is to demand a public apology on behalf of "the people of Canada" from Canadian Blue for offending you and all Canadians.

[Hydraboss]

Hey Gerry (Catchme), would you please do us all a favor and look up the meanings of the words "slander" and "liable"? For someone who professes to be all-knowing, you seem to have overlooked a simple concept.

By the way, the whole slander/liable thing has been dealt with in the past (as you know) and generally it is viewed as grandstanding. My lawyer can beat up your lawyer.

On a side note, anyone know if there were any NHL players that got a Hatrick last night?

Just wondering.

[Spike22]

OK I'll buy, where do I send the check- count me in as brainwashed!

[Canadian Blue]

I am a Canadian, Catch Me, and I dont find anything offensive about Canadian Blue's comment at all. I think you are digging a little too deeply into his comment and that you are quite conscious of that yourself. In true Liberal fashion you are feigning deep emotional outrage over a few words that could be interpreted in a bad way if you analyze them hard enough. The next step, in keeping with Liberal protocol, is to demand a public apology on behalf of "the people of Canada" from Canadian Blue for offending you and all Canadians.

Thanks for the support, but it simply seems to generate into a debate about semantics over every statement.

But then again apparently I'm not a "real" Canadian. Even though I hold a Canadian citizenship, and am currently a resident of Canada.