Harper goes beyond Kandahar base

[BC_chick]

Harper would dearly love to have our soldiers in Iraq but he knows that Canadians are not in support of any participation there.

Yes, Harper would love to have soliders in Iraq and soldiers on the streets of Canada. He is the anti-christ and wants to boil your children in oil from Alberta, before eating them with fava beans.

That is the most ridiculous response on so many levels. I'm not even sure I follow - are you denying that Harper supported the Iraq war? Or are you having such a difficult time coming up with an explanation for this MONSTROUS misjudgement on the part of your infallible hero that your only attempt at a justification is to put childish words in the mouth of the person who is raising this legitimate concern about his questionable pro-war views?

What MONSTROUS misjudgement, if your talking about Iraq, he hasn't done anything on that, and Afghanistan is just a follow up of Liberal policy. Oh yea...Harper he's so scawy scawy he eats children and maybe hes even a reptillian kitten eater ROTFL

If I'm talking about Iraq? Why don't you try reading what's actually being said in those quotes you yourself are referring to. Jeez.

Now let's see if you can answer a couple of simple questions a second time....

are you denying that Harper supported the Iraq war? Or are you having such a difficult time coming up with an explanation for this MONSTROUS misjudgement on the part of your infallible hero that your only attempt at a justification is to put childish words in the mouth of the person who is raising this legitimate concern about his questionable pro-war views?

[geoffrey]

Harper's support for the Iraq war is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic at hand. Your premise is disingenuous.

[noahbody]

Harper would dearly love to have our soldiers in Iraq but he knows that Canadians are not in support of any participation there.

Yes, Harper would love to have soliders in Iraq and soldiers on the streets of Canada. He is the anti-christ and wants to boil your children in oil from Alberta, before eating them with fava beans.

That is the most ridiculous response on so many levels. I'm not even sure I follow - are you denying that Harper supported the Iraq war? Or are you having such a difficult time coming up with an explanation for this MONSTROUS misjudgement on the part of your infallible hero that your only attempt at a justification is to put childish words in the mouth of the person who is raising this legitimate concern about his questionable pro-war views?

Yes, Harper supported the war in Iraq, like Martin and Ignatieff, but he did so based on the intelligence at the time. It may be fair to characterize him as a leader who is quick to stand by allies in times of conflict, but trying to characterize him a lover of war is ignorant. Do you think he dearly loves phoning the familes of killed soldiers? Specifically on Iraq, Harper is on record (2005) saying he wouldn't send Canadian troops as PM.

Could you tell me what his pro-war views are?

[Fortunata]

Did Steve actually say he thought we should go to war in Iraq based on intelligence? I thought it was we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our southern neighbours just because we are neighbours and allies. No intelligent thought there.

[noahbody]

Did Steve actually say he thought we should go to war in Iraq based on intelligence? I thought it was we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our southern neighbours just because we are neighbours and allies. No intelligent thought there.

"On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country. I must admit great disappointment at the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction."

(Stephen Harper, letter to the Washington Times, December 11, 2005)

Guess you stand corrected.

[Fortunata]

Steve has had many shifts of position about Iraq. I remember him shouting with derision in QP about Canada's official stance. Here's some of his statements:

On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction.

We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.

Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.

[noahbody]

Steve has had many shifts of position about Iraq. I remember him shouting with derision in QP about Canada's official stance. Here's some of his statements:

On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction.

We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.

Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took.

If you're using these as examples of shifts, the 1st and 3rd are actually from the same paragraph of a Mcleans article from aug 2003. The other was earlier in 2003. I don't really see much of a shift here. But he has shifted as he should have.

[margrace]

Have you ever had to discipline a child and have them tell you "Well Johnny's parents let him do it" You know how rediculous that is in how you raise your children. A very childish thing and one we do not consider. However every time Harper breaks one of his own promises or does something he said he would not do, his supporters immediately go back to the Liberal government and say "Well they did it"

Do you not see how childish this behaviour is. We are adults or at least I thought we were, so we need to remind Mr. Harper of his actions. We also need to remind him that his obvious supercilious and contemptious attitude toward the Canadian voters shows in everything he does.

[noahbody]

Have you ever had to discipline a child and have them tell you "Well Johnny's parents let him do it" You know how rediculous that is in how you raise your children. A very childish thing and one we do not consider. However every time Harper breaks one of his own promises or does something he said he would not do, his supporters immediately go back to the Liberal government and say "Well they did it"

Do you not see how childish this behaviour is. We are adults or at least I thought we were, so we need to remind Mr. Harper of his actions. We also need to remind him that his obvious supercilious and contemptious attitude toward the Canadian voters shows in everything he does.

Sometimes parents have to do the responsible thing, whether it's popular with their child or not. Parenting isn't about popularity. In that regard, it's similar to being the PM.

By your comment, "I think Harper is making a tactical error. If he wants to get his majority maybe he should start listening to the Canadia people." are you suggesting a quick withdrawl because some polls suggest the people, informed or not, do not want us there?

As far as childish comments go, saying Harper would dearly love to go into Iraq is make believe. Johnny might have told you there's a boogie man in the closet, there's no indication that that is true. If you disagree, please state your case and we can debate it.

On the Iraq topic, pointing out that others shared Harper's previous position is relevant. If you can understand why Martin, Ignatieff and many other Canadians shared his opinion, you might realize that the basis of your war monger image of Harper isn't justified.

[BC_chick]

Harper's support for the Iraq war is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic at hand. Your premise is disingenuous.

You should address that to the person who brought up the subject, not me. I just found noah's usual irrelevant diversion a little tedious and so I called him/her on it. No worries though s/he's back on my ignore list. I can't stand trying to discuss things with people who I repeatedly have to explain thing to before I can get a response from them.

[noahbody]

You should address that to the person who brought up the subject, not me. I just found noah's usual irrelevant diversion a little tedious and so I called him/her on it. No worries though s/he's back on my ignore list. I can't stand trying to discuss things with people who I repeatedly have to explain thing to before I can get a response from them.

Likewise. I didnt' bring Iraq into this either. I was just addressing a comment I found absurd. So calling my post an "irrelevant diversion" is a little off, again. Also, if you go back and read page 2, you'll find I did answer your questions. Your rant about having to explain it for a second time was actually directed to a different poster.