Calling Some One a Racist or Bigot

[betsy]

Wow thats kind of paranoid! Are the anti-war people with the terrorists?

Some anti-war people, unwittingly, give aid and encouragement to the terrorists. Some anti-war, unwittingly, help tip the scale in favor of the terrorists. Some anti-war, unwittingly, sides with the terrorists.

Then, there are those.

They could be against both the pro-war westerners and the pro-war terrorists.

Ha-ha-ha! Then they should be specific and be very clear about being neutral! They should do their protests on both sides! They should criticize both sides!

Imagine that... it puts a whole new domension to your view of things.

Precisely.

Wouldn't you suspect a game show is rigged if the game host keeps rooting for the other contestant? You still think he is being fair when he keeps on telling you you're wrong even though you know you're right? When he's relentlessly finding faults to keep the score from you whereas he practically lets the other contestant get away with anything?

Edited October 20, 2007 by betsy

[Higgly]

However you both want to translate or spin why our men are fighting a war in Afghanistan is your own opinion. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS WE ARE OFFICIALLY AT WAR....and your opinion does not change that fact!

We? Who we? Has parliament declared war on Aghanistan? Has Parliament declared war on anybody? It's not as simple here as it is in the US, where damned near anybody can declare war, it seems, on nobody. Hence we have the "War on Terror". A war not on a country, nor even an identifiable group, but a military tactic.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Higgly

[ScottSA]

We? Who we? Has parliament declared war on Aghanistan? Has Parliament declared war on anybody? It's not as simple here as it is in the US, where damned near anybody can declare war, it seems, on nobody. Hence we have the "War on Terror". A war not on a country, nor even an identifiable group, but a military tactic.

Our troops are in the field, fighting. We are at war.

[Higgly]

Our troops are in the field, fighting. We are at war.

Well as long as you say so ScottSA. How could I dare to ask for a parliamentary declaration? What was I thinking? By the way, ScottSA, a state of war has special legislative meaning and triggers a particular legislative framework. You were aware of that, right?

Edited October 22, 2007 by Higgly

[capricorn]

How could I dare to ask for a parliamentary declaration? What was I thinking? By the way, ScottSA, a state of war has special legislative meaning and triggers a particular legislative framework.

Legislative framework...would that include the Geneva Convention on the treatment of war prisoners?

Due to the nature of the enemy, I don't think any country is prepared to issue a declaration of war against the Taliban. The Taliban is not a country so a declaration of war is inappropriate under the circumstances.

Cries for the Geneva Convention to be applied in regard to the present conflict can be and for the most part are ignored. Don't get me wrong. Prisoners, in any context, should not deliberately be mistreated and where this has happened the apprehended perpetrators have been duly punished.

[ScottSA]

Well as long as you say so ScottSA. How could I dare to ask for a parliamentary declaration? What was I thinking? By the way, ScottSA, a state of war has special legislative meaning and triggers a particular legislative framework. You were aware of that, right?

Yup, I'm aware of that. Our troops are in the field. We are at war.

[Guest American Woman]

We? Who we? Has parliament declared war on Aghanistan? Has Parliament declared war on anybody? It's not as simple here as it is in the US, where damned near anybody can declare war, it seems, on nobody. Hence we have the "War on Terror". A war not on a country, nor even an identifiable group, but a military tactic.

At least we call a war a war. You have troops in Afghanistan. What would you call that? A picnic??

[ScottSA]

At least we call a war a war. You have troops in Afghanistan. What would you call that? A picnic??

What he calls it is an abstract; something happening far away that has little to do with him, but serves as a topic that he can shed crocodile tears over on internet forums.

[jazzer]

Yup, I'm aware of that. Our troops are in the field. We are at war.

Seems to me old Gordie musta had things mixed up then when he said this back in 2006:

"Canada is not at war in Afghanistan"...

link

Just where is the official declaration of war anyway. Does anyone have a link?

[ScottSA]

Seems to me old Gordie musta had things mixed up then when he said this back in 2006:

"Canada is not at war in Afghanistan"...

link

Just where is the official declaration of war anyway. Does anyone have a link?

Who cares whether he "considers it war?" It's war. If he was point man in a firefight he'd damn some start considering it war.

[M.Dancer]

Who cares whether he "considers it war?" It's war. If he was point man in a firefight he'd damn some start considering it war.

There are all kinds of war, but there is only one kind of declaration of war. We cannot declare war against the Taliban, they are not a sovereign nation.

But we are fighting a war, and if anyone feels the need to be picky (as I oft do) call it a conflict......

[Guest American Woman]

Seems to me old Gordie musta had things mixed up then when he said this back in 2006:

"Canada is not at war in Afghanistan"...

link

Just where is the official declaration of war anyway. Does anyone have a link?

If Canada is not at war in Afghanistan, then no one is; there isn't a war in Afghanistan.

No one officially declared war on Afghanistan, it's a war against terrorism and Canada is at war in Afghanistan as surely as the United States is. I'd really like to know why O'Connor is denying it.

Edited October 22, 2007 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

If Canada is not at war in Afghanistan, then no one is; there isn't a war in Afghanistan.

No one officially declared war on Afghanistan, it's a war against terrorism and Canada is at war in Afghanistan as surely as the United States is. I'd really like to know why Gordon is denying it.

Fighting violent insurgents is just one task among many for Canadian soldiers trying to bring stability to the troubled country, O'Connor told a Commons committee Tuesday.

He is correct. He is using a narrow legal definition of war, as surefly as the Korean conflict was war, it was also correctly described as a Police Action.

[Army Guy]

Is that what we are debating, whether or not we have declared war or not. is'nt that a rather mout piont now ?

Foreign affairs calls it a campiagn, actually an inter national campaign agains't terrorism. The below link is what Canada is doing in regards to this campaign...As part of this Campaign Canada has agreed to send it's armed forces to battle terrorist elements.

campaign .

Like it or not our combat troops are very much at war, they live, sleep, and eat war for the length of thier tours. they live every day with the realities of war, they see the outcome, kids going to school , new business opening, new roads, markets, etc...in most parts of the country, in the other parts they see poverty, death, and acts of desparate terrorists, whose only goals are to claw the country back into the stone age....To our soldiers it is very clear, we the soldiers are at war, while Canadians at home are not sure what they are doing, or what they want..So for now we'll call it war and you , well you call it what ever you want...

[jazzer]

Who cares whether he "considers it war?" It's war. If he was point man in a firefight he'd damn some start considering it war.

Please keep in mind the quote in question came from a Defense Minister in the Government of Canada.

[ScottSA]

Please keep in mind the quote in question came from a Defense Minister in the Government of Canada.

I'm aware of that. As Momo explained (as I recall explaining to him some time ago, which is why he knows it *snicker*) a declaration of war is an abstract that has no bearing to the boots on the ground. We are at war. Our soldiers are in action...not peacekeeping, and not even under the umbrella of that other illdefined term; "peacemaking"...but at war. Not like Bosnia where the UN ROE precluded 'war,' and not like gulf war I, where we hid in the gulf and landed a medical tent or two. Not even like Kosovo, where we flew around dropping low tech ordnance on second world ground forces under the protection of Nato air cover. We're at war in a very real way. I know it's just an abstraction to a lot of people on the left, but it's not an abstract; it's war. It's real, and fools who use it as a talking point to dis the current government are very small people.

[Guest American Woman]

Please keep in mind the quote in question came from a Defense Minister in the Government of Canada.

"I don't consider this war. To me, war would be — well, I can start going into what war would be, I just don't consider this to be war."

That sounds rather ambiguous to me. What point do you think he was trying to make by saying that?

[Higgly]

All right. If a declaration of war does not suit the situation in Afghanistan, then one would think Harper would try to broaden the definition. When a country is at war, it may place priority on resources for that purpose, rejig certain aspects of the economy, and institute temporary border measures, for example.

If a state of war is to have any meaning, then it has to be described in some way in legislation. Otherwise, it's whatever whoever decides to say it is.

Canada is not at war in Afghanistan.

[Guest coot]

What he calls it is an abstract; something happening far away that has little to do with him, but serves as a topic that he can shed crocodile tears over on internet forums.

That pretty much covers 99.8% of the country. What does it have to do with you, other than as a topic for internet forums?

[ScottSA]

All right. If a declaration of war does not suit the situation in Afghanistan, then one would think Harper would try to broaden the definition. When a country is at war, it may place priority on resources for that purpose, rejig certain aspects of the economy, and institute temporary border measures, for example.

If a state of war is to have any meaning, then it has to be described in some way in legislation. Otherwise, it's whatever whoever decides to say it is.

Canada is not at war in Afghanistan.

This is completely silly. What you're talking about is known as "total war." The fact that this is not total war doesn't mean it's not a war.

[M.Dancer]

I'm aware of that. As Momo explained (as I recall explaining to him some time ago, which is why he knows it *snicker*) a declaration of war is an abstract that has no bearing to the boots on the ground.

I'm not to sure what or when you explained it to me, (it's something I've known since studying geneva conventions while in the militia).....but a declaration of war (which seems to be confusing some with actual or perhaps defacto war.)... a legal condition, codified and formulized in international law.

Since the Taliban are not a sovereign nation we cannot give them a formal declaration of war, but we certainly can make war on them, and do it legally too.

When Japan attacked Britain, Churchill and his war cabinet spent a day or two composing the formal declaration of war which was then handed to the Japanese diplomats. Churchill was criticised for its polite language. He responded with something like it doesn't hurt or cost anything to be polite to someone you are going to try and kill.

Here is the formal declaration of war against Japan.

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.

[Army Guy]

All right. If a declaration of war does not suit the situation in Afghanistan, then one would think Harper would try to broaden the definition. When a country is at war, it may place priority on resources for that purpose, rejig certain aspects of the economy, and institute temporary border measures, for example.

If a state of war is to have any meaning, then it has to be described in some way in legislation. Otherwise, it's whatever whoever decides to say it is.

Canada is not at war in Afghanistan

.

You mean like the ones in the link i provided, such as:

Campaign against terroism.

Introducing new legislation, such as the Anti-terrorist act, and the public safty act.

Improving cooperation with our allies.

Spending 7.7 bil enhancing our security.

Creating a new dept of public safety and emergancy preparedness and the Canada border services agency.

Creating a smart border concept.

Modernizing our immigration and refugee policies.

New measures to freeze terrorist financing.

Our military contributions to over 3 major operations.

Working with the US and international community to prevent, counter, and respond to terrorism.

Sounds like our government has place it on the top of the list for resources, rejiging certain aspects of our economy,and instututed border restrictions. How much more dollars, or lifes will it take before we are all on the same page...

Edited October 23, 2007 by Army Guy

[M.Dancer]

Took a moment to find the British Declaration of war against Japan...what with the US running dog imperialists colonizing the internet.....

'Sir',

On the evening of December 7th His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom learned that Japanese forces without previous warning either in the form of a declaration of war or of an ultimatum with a conditional declaration of war had attempted a landing on the coast of Malaya and bombed Singapore and Hong Kong.

In view of these wanton acts of unprovoked aggression committed in flagrant violation of International Law and particularly of Article I of the Third Hague Convention relative to the opening of hostilities, to which both Japan and the United Kingdom are parties, His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has been instructed to inform the Imperial Japanese Government in the name of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that a state of war exists between our two countries.

I have the honour to be, with high consideration,

Sir,

Your obedient servant,

Winston S. Churchill

[Guest American Woman]

Canada is at war in Afghanistan whether war was declared or not; whether the Defense Minister thinks Canada is at war or not. Being Sec. of Defense didn't make Rumsfeld's word gold.

"When the Taliban or al-Qaeda came out of Afghanistan, they attacked the twin towers and in those twin towers, 25 Canadians were killed...The previous government and this government will not allow Canadians to be killed without retribution." O'Connor (Doesn't sound as if he's saying Canada is there on a peace mission. )

"And much like the Battle at Vimy Ridge, our involvement in Afghanistan is, in many ways, helping to define us as a nation today. A nation that stands up for what we believe in." O'Connor again. --comparing Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to a battle in WWI

"Afghanistan is a 20-year venture. There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for." Major-General Andrew Leslie -- Canada's military commander in Afghanistan (Sounds like war to me).

To put it another way, "a rose by any other name .... "

Edited October 23, 2007 by American Woman

[Higgly]

This is completely silly. What you're talking about is known as "total war." The fact that this is not total war doesn't mean it's not a war.

War requires resources from the nation's purse and needs a precise legal definition. If that does not suit your idea of war, then you are wrong. If you don't like that, talk to your MP. You don't have the power to declare war just because you have an internet connection.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Higgly