# Resisting the Opposition’s Urge to Abandon the Afghan People



## ruxted (9 Sep 2007)

Beaten in Afghanistan?
Resisting the Opposition’s Urge to Abandon the Afghan People

Ruxted has spent the summer calling for a greater show of leadership from the Prime Minister and his deputies with respect to the Afghanistan mission.  Ruxted has called for more and better communication from the responsible departments, particularly DFAIT and the PMO, in order to educate Canadians. Recent comments from Peter MacKay suggest that the government is learning.

Unfortunately, the importance of supporting the 2006 Afghanistan Compact is not being effectively communicated in such a way that Canadians hear the message.  Even worse, the government has failed to outline its vision with regard to how it sees Canada meeting this international obligation that lasts until 2011.

Now, in the absence of a clear vision from Mr Harper, the opposition has taken the initiative.  Both the Liberals and the Bloc have threatened to topple the government on the issue of Afghanistan.  

It is a gamble on the opposition's part because the Afghan mission can be easily sold to Canadians as being in keeping with our national principles.  In fact, turning our back on the Afghan people would be hypocritical of a nation that self-indulges in a vision of itself as a peacekeeper.  

Unfortunately, it appears the opposition's gamble is working and senior members of the Harper government have begun to hint that the military mission will end in 2009.  Ruxted knows that there cannot be success in Afghanistan without the military component.  We hope this is a truth that Canadians can understand and one that politicians will not ignore for political gain.

Since reconstruction and infrastructure work in Afghanistan attracts the population toward the legitimate Government of Afghanistan, the Taliban and their allies will continue to attack schools, hospitals, infrastructure and the people who work there or partake of their services; security has to be provided. 

Helping the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police in the daunting task of defending the people and infrastructure will inevitably involve Canadian military action and the use of force, and it seems obvious that as reconstruction proceeds and greater success is achieved by ISAF and the Government of Afghanistan, the Taliban will resort to increasingly violent attacks to stop reconstruction and to negatively influence western media and public opinion. Regardless what role Canadians fill in Afghanistan, they will continue to be targeted and therefore must continue to take proactive steps to protect themselves and continue the mission. It will be impossible to separate military action from reconstruction for several more years.

If we are serious about Afghanistan, then we must continue to stand with the Afghan Government and its people for many years to come. Women who are starting businesses with Canadian micro financing need two or three years to learn their business and make a profit. The forty thousand or so children who are now surviving infancy who might not have before our arrival need us to stand with them until they can go to school.  The seven million children who are in school now need us to stand with them for a decade or more until they can graduate and begin to take up skilled trades and professions. As the years go by, our contributions will  change with the circumstances, and the field force will eventually be able to go home, but it is currently the most effective and enduring symbol of our commitment to Afghanistan and the Afghan people.

Ruxted has suggested there may well be an other way to execute the military component of the mission.  Change and evolution are not bad things when driven by a rational assessment of mission requirements.  The opposition calls for military abandonment do not appear to meet this rational threshold.

In fact, reducing Canadian contributions to Afghanistan not only violates the spirit of the Afghanistan Compact, which our government signed in early 2006, but is also in direct opposition to the stated values of all Canadian political parties, as well as our historical role as a leading middle power. Canadian history is all about taking up great challenges and winning; why should we stop doing great deeds now because a few politicians don’t see personal benefit in this?

Once again, Ruxted requests that the Prime Minister show leadership on this issue.  In this regard, he must articulate not just why we help the Afghan people but how he feels we should help the Afghan people.

Debating the next leg of the mission in Parliament is fitting with our democracy.  Waiting for that debate in order to unveil a plan will only allow time for the opposition to not only undermine the importance of the essential military component, but also to frame the question itself in the most negative and ideologically driven way possible.  

Therefore, the PM must voice and sell his vision now.  He must sell it in the House, he must sell it in the media, and he must sell it to Canadians.  

He must not allow the opposition to put him on the defensive; he must seize the initiative.  He must remind Canadians of promises, forged under the previous Liberal government, to support the Afghan nation until the end of 2010.  He must remind Canadians of the peace and stability that we are bringing to Afghanistan.  

He must also remind Canadians using the world's recent history - the darkest days of international inaction in Rwanda and the Congo, the feeble and misguided efforts to peacekeep without first ensuring security in war zones like  Bosnia and Somalia - that human rights and humanitarianism without the courage of conviction and a willingness to fight when the going gets tough are just pitiful words without power, without the ability to change the world or even save a single life.

The goal that the Liberal Government of Canada agreed to in 2002 was the creation of a stable Afghan state, with a consensual government under the Rule of Law. To signal a withdrawal now or set an end date of 2009 can only serve to embolden our enemies and prevent us from reaching that goal. Ruxted asks: What are the motives of Canadian politicians who work against that goal? 

Prime Minister Harper must act now if he wants to avoid an ignoble defeat for Canada.  Every day that passes without leadership brings us a day closer to the opposition forcing our capitulation to the Taliban.


----------



## Flip (9 Sep 2007)

Like what I've been thinking but in sentences and everything!

My favorite para.



> It is a gamble on the opposition's part because the Afghan mission can be easily sold to Canadians as being in keeping with our national principles.  In fact, turning our back on the Afghan people would be hypocritical of a nation that self-indulges in a vision of itself as a peacekeeper.



Sing it from the rooftops!


----------



## RangerRay (9 Sep 2007)

Fair Dealings, etc., etc.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/09/09/4481436-cp.html

*Harper wants troops to 'finish job' in Afghanistan; dims hope for quick vote*

By BRUCE CHEADLE

SYDNEY, Australia (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper has set the benchmark for what might be called winning conditions on a vote to extend Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. 

*Harper said Sunday there'll be no vote in Parliament anytime soon unless he can find enough support to ensure his wish to "finish the job." * "I don't see the necessity of rushing into a vote unless we're able to have a situation where a vote would be successful - where there would be some agreement among at least some of the opposition parties that would carry the day and would give a mandate to our Armed Forces," Harper told reporters following the end of an Asia-Pacific leaders' summit in Sydney. 

Harper announced in June that the current military mission, set to expire in February 2009, would continue only if his minority Conservative government could get a consensus in Parliament. 

With the Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Liberals all lined up against an extension, many pundits argued Harper was throwing in the towel after publicly declaring that Canada would never "cut and run." 

Not so, Harper said Sunday. 

*"I want to finish the mission. At the same time, I want to ensure that when we have men and women in uniform in the field in a dangerous position, that they have the support of their Parliament."*  
   

Harper said he's seeking "some kind of consensus to fulfil the government's objectives and also, I think, to fulfil everybody's objectives of seeing Canadian troops leave - I hope would leave - when we've actually finished the job we've committed to do." 

*He said that job entails getting Afghan military and police forces to the point where they can provide security for their own country. * 

The Liberals said at their summer caucus they plan to bring the matter to a head when the Commons returns this fall by engineering an opposition day vote confirming the combat mission should end in 2009. 

Dion accused the prime minister of flip-flopping on the issue Sunday. 

"Canadians must understand that what the prime minister is trying to do is to be ensure that this combat mission will continue after February 2009," Dion said in Vancouver. 

"And he's trying to go there with a lack of transparency, a lack of coherence. And in doing so he's not helping our troops, he's not helping our allies, he's not helping the people of Afghanistan." 

NDP leader Jack Layton said his party remains firm that Canada should pull its military out of Afghanistan now instead of February 2009. 

"Mr. Harper knows there will be a vote on the speech from the throne and that speech must address the war in Afghanistan," Layton said in Montreal. "The speech from the throne will be an opportunity for a full debate about the war and we're holding to our position that the withdrawal of our troops should take place now, safely and securely. A whole new approach for Canada in Afghanistan is what is required." 

Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe said his party will vote against the Conservatives if the troop pullout in 2009 isn't mentioned in the speech. 

"In the speech from the throne we have said that we want it made clear that the mission will end in 2009," Duceppe said. "There will be a vote on the speech and if it's not spelled out there, we will vote against it." 

While the official end of the mandate is more than a year off, NATO will be seeking as much lead time as possible in knowing whether the 2,000-plus Canadian military contingent in the Kandahar region is pulling out. 

Harper has indicated a willingness to alter the existing military mandate, but not to pulling the troops out of Afghanistan altogether. 

The prime minister said the mission should not be treated as "a political football in this Parliament." 

"And I think it's irresponsible that it is a political football," said Harper. "So we're not going to put people in that place again." 

Harper said he's still seeking a consensus, but a government official later said that consensus has to be in line with the government's wishes. 

The official said that "consensus" means 50-per-cent plus one MP in a parliamentary vote. 

By that definition, some might argue there is already a consensus in the Commons to end the mission in 2009. 

*But the Conservatives point out there is division within Liberal ranks on the matter. * They're hoping to flush those divisions into the open and get a firm answer from Dion about what he sees as Canada's role after the current military mandate expires.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2007)

Lets hope we start to hear this more often from the PM and lets hope it is the signal that the information campaign is about to start informing Canadians why we are going about things the way we are in Afghanistan.


----------



## tdwebste (10 Sep 2007)

*An outside view*

If we are going to resist the urge to abandon the Afghan people, we need to understand why so many Canadians want out.

One reason why many people do not support Harper in Afghanistan, has nothing to do with Afghanistan and everything to do with Harper. People do not believe Harper can bring good governance to Afghanistan. Of course people who completely unconditionally support Harper don't have this problem.

Harper and the Conservatives are fundamentally failing at peace keeping in Afghanistan, because they have not even attempted the long term and final goal required for peace which is 'good governance'. This opinion is formed not based on Harpers handling of Afghanistan, but his handling of Canada. Very few people really know what is happening in Afghanistan, but everybody can see what Harper is doing in Canada. He has taken steps to reduce the independence of the judiciary. And is seems apparent why with his handling of the Wheat Board and now Elections Canada. An independent judiciary is a tool to prevent corruption. Even extending the summer recess is seen as an attempt to govern outside the parliamentary system. I believe this is one reason why many people do not want to give Harper a mandate to stay in Afghanistan. This is partly why people are so split on what to do. They realize we need to be in Afghanistan, but under Harper's leadership we will only make things worse so we need to get out.

This is Canada's own guides for peace keeping. 

When a state 'fails' and becomes a threat to the stability of its neighbours, the Canadian government may choose to intervene. Any such intervention will have diverse goals – to be accomplished within differing time - frames: 

• Short - term operations will focus on stabilization and protection of civilians. 

• Medium – term: projects will include rebuilding basic infrastructure – water, sewage, and transportation. 

• Long - term goals involve the establishment of 'good governance', trustworthy security forces, and an independent judiciary. 

These there objectives do not occur sequential, but simultaneously where the long term and final goal takes longer to complete. Good governance requires fighting corruption and sources of corruption.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Sep 2007)

Lets examine this post:



			
				tdwebste said:
			
		

> *An outside view*
> 
> If we are going to resist the urge to abandon the Afghan people, we need to understand why so many Canadians want out.
> 
> One reason why many people do not support Harper in Afghanistan, has nothing to do with Afghanistan and everything to do with Harper. People do not believe Harper can bring good governance to Afghanistan. Of course people who completely unconditionally support Harper don't have this problem.



Most people who oppose the mission to Afghanistan seem to be motivated by partisan considerations, but anyone who has even the smallest knowledge of the situation realizes how ridiculous this statement is; The Government of Afghanistan is responsible to bring good governance to Afghanistan. They have asked the UN for help in doing so, and in turn we have been "subcontracted" as part of ISAF to carry out the mandate. Since this occurred in 2002, it is hard to see how Prime Minister Harper can be smeared or praised for that either.



> Harper and the Conservatives are fundamentally failing at peace keeping in Afghanistan, because they have not even attempted the long term and final goal required for peace which is 'good governance'. This opinion is formed not based on Harper's handling of Afghanistan, but his handling of Canada. Very few people really know what is happening in Afghanistan, but everybody can see what Harper is doing in Canada. He has taken steps to reduce the independence of the judiciary. And is seems apparent why with his handling of the Wheat Board and now Elections Canada. An independent judiciary is a tool to prevent corruption. Even extending the summer recess is seen as an attempt to govern outside the parliamentary system. I believe this is one reason why many people do not want to give Harper a mandate to stay in Afghanistan. This is partly why people are so split on what to do. They realize we need to be in Afghanistan, but under Harper's leadership we will only make things worse so we need to get out.



Most if not all of the institutions named have been used as political tools by previous governments, so to try to use them as valid points against the current government seems besides the point. Indeed, many of the actions of the current government seem to be designed to decouple the institutions from the government (or end government intervention altogether in the case of the Wheat Board), so what point is really being made here? Anyway, where is the substantive link between the wheat board and Afghanistan?



> This is Canada's own guides for peace keeping.
> 
> When a state 'fails' and becomes a threat to the stability of its neighbours, the Canadian government may choose to intervene. Any such intervention will have diverse goals – to be accomplished within differing time - frames:
> 
> ...



So where is the evidence we or ISAF are *not* doing these things? Google Kandahar PRT and follow the links. If you want these things to happen faster, then that is open to debate, but given the lack of skilled and educated Afghan people to do the work, you better have a very innovative plan in mind.


----------



## tdwebste (11 Sep 2007)

I am trying to help you understand why some Canadians are split. They realize we need to be in Afghanistan, but under Harper's leadership we will only make things worse so we need to get out. This is an opinion people have which is not based on the work in Afghanistan, because very few people really know what is happening there. People can only base their opinion on how Harper is governing Canada. People who disagree with Harper's heavy handed governing of Canada which appears corrupt, don't believe he can bring good governance to Afghanistan. Please remember Harper has a minority government, because the majority did not vote Conservative. Its unfortunate, but Harper has turned the Conservative Party into an extension of himself. 

I bring up the peace keeping guide lines to focus attention on the importance of good governance. 

I regret that support or lack of support for Harper has nothing little to do with Afghanistan, but his handling of the Canadian government. There is a very strong chance that Harper's delay in opening government will not help and he will lose the coming federal election. I want to make it clear that not supporting Harper does not mean not supporting our work in Afghanistan. I strongly believe we need to stay and help the Afghan people. I don't want to see Canada pull out of Afghanistan, so I believe it is extremely important to gather support for bringing good governance to the Afghan people.  Every political leader has a giant ego. Its a job requirement.  Why not play to their ego and convince them why *they* can be successful where the past government has failed


----------



## armyvern (11 Sep 2007)

Pardon??

Harper's leadership will make things worse??

I think this is the kind of comment that highlights EXACTLY what the problem is in Canada: uniformed people. Their lack of being properly and factually informed ... causes comments like yours. Some types will try to pass it off as a certain party's doing, and that of their leadership ...

when the actuality of the situation is:

It was the Liberal party who has put us where we are now (ie moved us south into the current role -- STOP "blaming" the Conservatives) ... and it was them that did up the mandate...

Not the Conservatives ... and therefore, not Harper. The Liberals. And, it's quite amazing how they gloss that over ... for their partisan purposes, which is, essentially, what the Ruxted article is all about (perhaps you missed that part).

And there's lots of info out there on how we are also supporting the "good governance" of Afghanistan; well, for those who choose to put in the effort to find it because the media certainly isn't informing anyone about it.


----------



## Davionn (11 Sep 2007)

tdwebste,

I don't think Harper's been any more heavy handed at governing than previous PM's.  All the people I've talked with don't associate him specifically (or his ways) with the mission, anyway.

Even if they did, is your argument that those who do not like Harper's style of governing want us out of Afghanistan?  I think most people want us out for different reasons, mostly because of the perceived association with US President Bush and what's happening in Iraq.

I'm just having a little trouble linking some of the things you have said together.


Davionn


----------



## tdwebste (11 Sep 2007)

Please everyone stop trolling, this is a not Liberal or Conservative forum. 

I am trying to help you understand  the opposition's urge to leave Afghanistan. 
It is Harper's governing style which is the reason why some people believe he is going to make things worse. Everyone here has heard the term mini-bush. It means in their opinion they believe Harper will mess things up just like Bush. It is not about who initiated the Afghan mission, but people's expectations of its future. I think what I am trying to say is very clear and does not need to be further explained.


----------



## armyvern (11 Sep 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> Please everyone stop trolling, this is a not Liberal or Conservative forum.
> 
> I am trying to help you understand  the opposition's urge to leave Afghanistan.



The general Canadian populace (they are ill-informed as to actualities and the realities of Canada's mission and of it's accomplishments in Afghanistan) ...

or the "opposition" as in Liberal, NDP etc ... because your misreprensentation of facts (ie who sent us into that combat role in the south/ref to "peacekeeping"/lack of awareness of the "good governance support" Canada is providing in Afghanistan, etc) certainly makes it seem the latter.


----------



## Davionn (11 Sep 2007)

tdwebste,

Sorry about the misunderstanding, I'm not trolling, just trying to understand your argument.  Just a healthy debate.

I'm not trying to upset you or dismiss your argument, you are entitled to your point of view.  

I just don't agree with it, bassed on previous conversations.  Many of the people I've spoken with that are against our involvement in Afghanistan are not keen on the conservatives, but many are not particularly against them either.  The biggest gripe anyone has that I've spoken with about Harper, is his way of dealing with the press.

Anything else is not that incredible.  Delaying the return to parliament, for instance, is not new, it's done all the time even at the provicial level.  Maybe not popular (especially for the opposition), but certainly not new.


Davionn


----------



## armyvern (11 Sep 2007)

Davionn said:
			
		

> Sorry about the misunderstand, I'm not trolling, just trying to understand your argument.  Just a healthy debate.
> ...



No, you weren't trolling. His idea was somewhat further expanded upon with the edit to his last post and the addition of the last para to it, vice the original post as I had it quoted.

Funny thing is, I too have heard Harper referred to as a "mini-Bush," but it's always been based upon a leftist viewpoint of us soldiers having to bow to "mini-Bushs'" "war-mongering for oil" with George W; I've yet to hear Harper referred to in this context as it relates to his governing style or in his dealing with the media or in the context that Harper will just "mess things up like Bush." Perhaps, it's just me who missed the link??


----------



## tdwebste (11 Sep 2007)

sorry Davionn That was not directed at you. It was directed at people implying things I did not say, nor believe.

I agree Harper has handled the press poorly.  He promised to bring an end to corruption, so eyes were watching him from the beginning. Lots of people are more than a little disappointed. I really hope the Afghan mission doesn't become the election issue. And if it does we need to make our voices heard and support the mission regardless of whether we support Harper or not.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Sep 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> People who disagree with Harper's heavy handed governing of Canada which appears corrupt,



Well start the list,......


----------



## Reccesoldier (11 Sep 2007)

If this is an indication of what passes for rational analysis in Canada then we are indeed in a world of hurt.


			
				tdwebste said:
			
		

> I am trying to help you understand why some Canadians are split. They realize we need to be in Afghanistan, but under Harper's leadership we will only make things worse so we need to get out.


  As already pointed out PM Harper does not control the government of Afghanistan nor does he control directly the day to day activities of a governmental or non-governmental agencies in Afghanistan.



> People who disagree with Harper's heavy handed governing of Canada which appears corrupt, don't believe he can bring good governance to Afghanistan.


  I'm going to call Troll on this.  Can you in any way demonstrate that a majority of Canadians believe that Harper's government is corrupt?  If you were referring to the former Liberal government I might buy it, after all it was on the news day after day after day but the current government has not significantly been called corrupt by any news agency.  Sounds like Liberal party propaganda. 



> Please remember Harper has a minority government, because the majority did not vote Conservative.


  Another troll section.  Care to tell me when the last time a majority of Canadians voted for the Ruling party? Never mind I did the work for you.  It was Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives in 1984.   



> Its unfortunate, but Harper has turned the Conservative Party into an extension of himself.


  Every organization is an extension of the person leading it, just as this post is an extension of your bias against the current government.



> I bring up the peace keeping guide lines to focus attention on the importance of good governance.


  Yes, we shouldn't forget the great job the former Liberal government did bringing good government to places like Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia (pre NATO).  This 'point' is just more mud slinging.  Do you understand the concept of national sovereignty at all?


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> *An outside view*
> 
> If we are going to resist the urge to abandon the Afghan people, we need to understand why so many Canadians want out.


So, your theory is that the majority of Canadians want us to abandon Afghanistan because of Harper's domestic policies?

I think you've presented us with some of the most foolish logic we've seen here (and we've seen some really odd stuff).  Come clean though, this is not what Canadians think; I've never even heard of this position before. This is just how you think.


----------



## RangerRay (11 Sep 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> He has taken steps to reduce the independence of the judiciary. And is seems apparent why with his handling of the Wheat Board and now Elections Canada. An independent judiciary is a tool to prevent corruption. Even extending the summer recess is seen as an attempt to govern outside the parliamentary system.



I call BS.

Re: The judiciary:

For the last 13-odd years, the Liberals have stacked the judiciary committees that select our judges with Liberal hacks and cronies.  As a result we now have an inordinate amount of Liberal hacks and cronies sitting on the bench, not to mention on the Supreme Court.  What the PM has done will hopefully restore some balance in the judiciary by taking in the views of the law enforcement community.

Remember, it was PM Harper who first allowed the public questioning of a Supreme Court nominee, never before seen in this country.

Re: The Wheat Board:

Giving Western farmers the right to market their own grain makes him corrupt?  I am not seeing the logic here.

Re: Elections Canada:

As I recall, Parliament sets the rules by which Elections Canada operate.  It sounds like all parties are saying Elections Canada is not playing by those rules, despite the protestations of the Chief Electoral Officer.  The fact that not one Opposition party is defending Elections Canada is telling.

Re: Extending summer recess:

This has been done by previous governments in numerous jurisdictions for a very long time.  Here in BC, the government did the same thing.  Oh sure, the Opposition huff, puff and bloviate, but they did the same thing when they were in power.  The Constitution does not prevent this.  You might not like it, but there is nothing inherently evil in such a practice.  Besides, it gives MP's more time to do their real job in their ridings.  

You might want to get your information from other sources other than the mainstream media, or Rabble.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Sep 2007)

>One reason why many people do not support Harper in Afghanistan, has nothing to do with Afghanistan and everything to do with Harper. People do not believe Harper can bring good governance to Afghanistan. Of course people who completely unconditionally support Harper don't have this problem.

Leaving aside the peculiar belief that it is Harper's job to bring good governance to Afghanistan rather than the Afghan's job to bring it to themselves with security and developmental assistance from others such as Canada, you'd have to believe that the Harper government we have in Canada right now would be an unsatisfactory improvement for the Afghans if we could translate it immediately and completely.  And I am skeptical any significant portion of Canadians, despite the fact I tend to disagree with the opinion of the majority on many issues, is as stupid as a loaf of bread.


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Pardon??
> 
> Harper's leadership will make things worse??
> 
> I think this is the kind of comment that highlights EXACTLY what the problem is in Canada: uniformed people. Their lack of being properly and factually informed ... causes comments like yours.



What is the problem?
Let's inform people properly!
I think the problem is much simpler. 

The people is uninformed because no one is able to formulate, in a clear and understandable way, the needs and benefis of staying there as well as to give a clear criteria of what is considered the "well-finished job" .

Are you able to do this?

What ordindary people see right NOW, is costly military expenses and regular arrivals of killed soldiers.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> What is the problem?
> Let's inform people properly!
> I think the problem is much simpler.
> 
> ...



You think so eh??

How about you go ask the media then when they are going to start doing their jobs?? This is especially obvious in Quebec these days ... 

I DO my job already, and I take evry opportunity I can to inform the uneducated as to the ACTUALITIES of the mission in Afghanistan. 

What ordinary people are seeing right NOW, is a PERCEPTION of costly military expenses and regular arrivals of killed soldiers  ... because "REPORTERS" (thus the media) are more interested in non-reporting, bleeding and leading, and profit for their shareholders. Kid yourself not.. Their focus is on the body count of our fallen, and DIRECTLY influences the PERCEPTION in that ill-educated (but vocal) portion of the Candian population of whom I speak. 

Isn't a reporters JOB to REPORT the FACTS?? 

Their absolute neglect to report on advances within Afghanistan (rebuilding - PRT - girls in school - women at work -  kids outside playing and flying kites - music heard in the souks and marketplaces - ALL DIRECTLY caused by those very military personnel doing their jobs), causes a LAZY Canadian public too BUSY to bother to pay attention to any other newssource except that MSM beamed in to their big screens TVs ... and when that MSM fails to report ALL the facts and details ... do not blame the soldier ... nor those who speak of the good ... look squarely at the media and ask ... WHY NOT? 

People can explain our mission and it's complexities all they like, and they have, but when the media doesn't give it airtime, or gives it a mere soundbite ... that's the media determining the political future of this country. If you're OK with that -- fill your boots. This girl isn't.


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> LAZY Canadian public too BUSY to bother to pay attention to any other newssource except that MSM beamed in to their big screens TVs



Let's not forget that LAZY Canadian public pays all these military expenses from its taxes.
So they might have reason...

Looking back to the world history, we won't see so much cases of active public support of foreign military operations.
It was always very difficult for soldiers and officers doing their jobs. 
In particular, it is very difficult to return to your own country and see that nobody cares of that foreign war.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Let's not forget that LAZY Canadian public pays all these military expenses from its taxes.
> So they might have reason...
> 
> Looking back to the world history, we won't see so much cases of active public support of foreign military operations.
> ...



Let's not forget that those Canadian soldiers ALSO pay taxes ... and DIE doing their jobs protecting that LAZY portion of the Canadian public too wrapped up in their daily business to either really give two shits or to properly inform themselves. they take the spoonfeeding that the MSM feeds them daily -- quite willingly.

Ensuring those soldiers have the best equipment possible in providing that protection is too much to ask??

Give me a fucking break already.

Many people care about that foreign war. Not *NOBODY*. I care. Soldiers care. Soldiers are volunteering to go there ... because they care ... and because we KNOW the good that we are doing. How dare you come on here and state that nobody cares?? Come to this town and watch the red shirts worn every Friday ... people do care!!

You are speaking of non-support for foreign wars in past history, obviously, from a Quebec perspective ... because, that statement is not borne out to be the experience outside of that particular province's borders.

You are an asshat.


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

Let's note that soldier's taxes aren't suffucient to make war.
And ordinary people is not as stupid as you might think. 
It is not difficult to sold a merchandise if there is a real demand for it. However, it is diffucult to convince people to buy some unnecessary stuff. 
We can call them lazy, stupid etc. but that is what we see actually.

In Soviet times, I talked to some soldiers returned from Afghanistan with the same problems.
People just did not undestand where they came from and what they did there.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Let's note that soldier's taxes aren't suffucient to make war.
> And ordinary people is not as stupid as you might think.
> It is not difficult to sold a merchandise if there is a real demand for it. However, it is diffucult to convince people to buy some unnecessary stuff.
> We can call them lazy, stupid etc. but that is what we see actually.
> ...



Are you really so misinformed and ill-educated as to Canada's mission in Afghanistan and what we are doing there, why, and under that particular United Nations mandate, that you are actually trying to draw comparisons between our mission and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan??

Because, if that's the case ... your tinfoil hat is in the mail ... and the media really has failed you on your TV screen. The facts of the mission are out there to be had ... Step back from your television and go forth and properly educate yourself ... you need it. Desperately.


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Are you really so misinformed and ill-educated as to Canada's mission in Afghanistan and what we are doing there, why, and under that particular United Nations mandate, that you are actually trying to draw comparisons between our mission and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan??



The mission goals were pretty the same and Russians were invited by the Afghan government. 

But my point is following.
Foreign wars are rarely understood by population. 
I do not see why the actual war should be an exception from this rule.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> The mission goals were pretty the same.
> Russians were invited by the Afghan government.



WHAT!!??!! 

Unfuckingbelieveable. I really can not believe that you just said that!!

Our mission goal ... was not/is not/has never been to invade Afghanistan and take over their government and expand Canadian territory. It has been to counter terrorism and terroristic acts that have resulted in the loss of civilian, allied and Canadian lives; further it has been to ensure that the Taliban, who harboured those terrorists, are prevented from regaining control of the now (thanks to soldiers) democratically elected (by Afghanistan's free citizens actually being allowed to voice their "VOTES") government of Afghanistan.

Until the Taliban is defeated, and stability restored so that the democratically elected government can continue in it's march to overturning decades of strife in that nation ... our mission is valid ... the citizens of that country realize this. When women can go to school, and teachers teach, and children play ... without fear of being decapitated for their daring to enjoy their freedom ... our mission in assisting them achieve these goals is valid.

Next time you go out to mark your ballot at the polling station, I suggest you think about that which you are advocating the people of Afghanistan be denied -- that same opportunity.

You really are lacking in the facts department aren't you??

IQ two points higher and we'd be issuing a diploma for graduating from fruit to vegetable.


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> The mission goals were pretty the same and Russians were invited by the Afghan government.
> *
> But my point is following.
> Foreign wars are rarely understood by population.
> I do not see why the actual war should be an exception from this rule.*



As to your edit which I have bolded ...

But your point is assinine.

The goals were not the same. The mission is in no way alike ... and the fact that foreign wars have sometimes been misunderstood by some of the population ... is exactly due to misinformation ... and the laziness of some people to educate themselves as to the facts of the war their soldiers are involved in. You are an ideal example.

You think it's OK to misunderstand this war simply because previous wars were misunderstood by some?? So this one should be no exception?? THAT is exactly the laziness that I spoke of earlier ... and the people not caring ... think exactly the way you do.


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> WHAT!!??!!
> 
> Unfuckingbelieveable. I really can not believe that you just said that!!



Yes, that is what I said.
Soviet army also fought terrorists, built schools, freed women etc.

Are you surprised? 

The only difference is that terrorists were largely supported and sponsored by United States and Pakistan.
So it was not so easy to fight them ...


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Yes, that is what I said.
> Soviet army also fought terrorists, built schools, freed women etc.
> 
> Are you surprised?



You forgot some very important FACTS to finish off your sentence with in lieu of the "etc" that you did end it with ...

"with the ultimate goal of expanding their territory, enforcing their own government; a government where no elections would be required..."

 :

Are you surprised that our mission is NOT the same.

Stick to the facts please; your rhethoric is revealing of only one thing ... and it's NOT a pretty picture.


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> you forgot to finish off your sentence with ...
> 
> "with the ultimate goal of expanding their territory, enforcing their own government; a government where no elections would be required..."



First, there had never been a goal to expand their territory. 
Second, Soviets supported the loyal EXISTING governement, exactly as the coalition is doing now. 

Do you think the actual government (elected by 20% of population) has real power over the country?
If yes, who all these guys that coalition forces fight every day? Terrorists? Too much for terrorists...
May be just native people that do not want foreigners in their country?


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> First, there had never been a goal to expand their territory.
> Second, Soviets supported a loyal EXISTING governement, exactly as the coalition do now.
> 
> Do you think the actual government has real power over the country?



OMFG ... go back to school. 

Soviets certainly did "support" a loyal existing government ... after they put him there didn't they?? Loyal to the Soviets being the key-word in your sentence. I bet you the multitudes of Afghanistans citizens of the day ... certainly thank him too for inviting the Soviets down for the block party and schwarma fest which followed that loyal "support."  :

Do I think the government has real power over the country?? Well, they are certainly on their way aren't they?? The Taliban is out ... the population has their voice ...

and if you think for one second that leaving them now will allow them to remain holding that power and making those advances towards democray... you are warped.


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> and if you think for one second that leaving them now will allow them to remain holding that power and making those advances towards democray... you are warped.



That is what I have just said above. And you seems to confirm it.
The actual LOYAL government is powerless without coalition's support.

P.S. Hint. Read on where Karzai came from


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2007)

From a news release announcing a bit of a "shadow cabinet shuffle" by Taliban Jack, his caucus's three priorities, and the trio who will likely be pushing the AFG mission change agenda hard...



> (....)
> 
> Layton outlined his caucus’s three priorities for the coming Parliament: ending the combat mission in Afghanistan, tackling the climate change crisis and closing the prosperity gap by making life more affordable for everyday families.
> 
> ...



We're warned....


----------



## armyvern (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> That is what I have just said above. And you seems to confirm it.
> The actual LOYAL government is powerless without coalition's support.
> 
> P.S. Hint. Read on where Karzai came from



You seem to forget though that Karzai also went on to win an ELECTION; voted in by the citizens of Afghanistan.

With regards to your last edit (boy you do love to edit your posts after I've responded) to add in more bullshit ...

It is not the native populace that coalition forces are fighting every day as per your last assinine edit:



> If yes, who all these guys that coalition forces fight every day? Terrorists? Too much for terrorists...
> May be just native people that do not want foreigners in their country?



There are Taliban, and then of course, there are the foreign fighters (ie insurgents) streaming in from places like Pakistan, Chechnyea, etc etc. If you think that they are the locals (a very small minority are) ... you really do need to further educate yourself.

Want a local perspective ... ??

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/66533/post-619649.html#msg619649


----------



## larry Strong (29 Sep 2007)

What the hell is a "Peace Advocate"?


----------



## Danjanou (29 Sep 2007)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> What the hell is a "Peace Advocate"?



Something fancy and important sounding to keep Alexa quiet in case she wants her old job back. 8)


----------



## Flanker (29 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You seem to forget though that Karzai also went on to win an ELECTION; voted in by the citizens of Afghanistan.



Democracy is the power of majority. Right?
Just ask yourself, why a "democratically elected" president is so impotent in his own country.

The response is quite evident. After being elected by 10% of population or so, he has no support nor authority among the population.
Do not call this democracy and election. As of now, it is a puppet show supported by coalition forces.

But I agree, it is very simple to close your eyes and consider the rest of population terrorists and Taliban, Chechens etc.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (29 Sep 2007)

Oh, Flanker.  You seem to have a lot of promise here and some good insights, but you are not following a good path - just an observation from a fellow poster/member, not a "DS".

If you bring something up as a justification for something you say, you can't recant and refuse to discuss it on the basis that it offers "no relevance" to the discussion.  If so, why did you mention it?

Your shotgun approach on the boards is admirable - you are very passionate about what you are saying.  However, some facts and justification will help you.  Poking other posters with a stick to try and draw a response, not so much...


----------



## McG (29 Sep 2007)

Lets stop the name calling boys & girls.  Next one to cross the line goes up the warning ladder.
If one of your posts is missing, you may be the problem.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Democracy is the power of majority. Right?


Now, Democracy is the power of the people.  There is more than just a nuance to that.  Now, the majority will "rule", but not at the expense of the minority.  That's why we have an independent judiciary in Canada, for example.  Same goes for anywhere else.  If it were simply "majority rule", then things like the proposed mixed member proportional thing proposed for Ontario is a bit dangerous.  It puts MPPs in Toronto who are not responsive to a group of people, but only to their parties.  This is a dangerous thing.  I like parts of the US democracy for it's mix of a one person=one vote (for president) and a one "area" one vote (for senate, and to a varying degree, congress).  If we voted for Lieutenant Governors of provinces, for example, and then voted for our LOCAL and RESPONSIVE member of provincial parliament, for example, that I could buy.  But this mixed up craziness is dangerous, and potentially harmful to the democracy in Ontario, where special interest and single-issue parties such as the Greens and the Marijuana party could get in.  And not responsive to anyone, for that matter.


----------



## Flip (29 Sep 2007)

I found this on Celestial Junk - My favorite Blog  ;D
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/

Thought you guys might enjoy it.


Comment Link

She wore a long black veil to cover her mind by Charles Adler Sept 27/07 “That’s over the top Charles. We never said Karzai was a puppet of the Canadian military,” said the NDP’s Alexa McDonough. Over the top? 

Alexa McDonough in a radio interview on Adler on Line, was delivering the “scoop” that much of the messaging in a speech delivered by Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the Canadian House of Commons last year, was prepped for him by Canadian military officials. She insisted that the messages we got weren’t necessarily those that the people of Afghanistan would want us to have. By any objective standard, the NDP is calling Karzai a puppet. What’s over the top is not my characterization of the NDP position. What’s completely out of bounds and over the line is patently false charge that Afghanistan’s first democratically elected leader is a puppet of Canada’s Department of National Defense.


Read the whole thing - it's a goodie ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Sep 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Do not call this democracy and election. As of now, it is a puppet show supported by coalition forces.



MOD WARNING

We have some esteemed members on this site who helped set up and watched those very elections...........................and they say it was transparent and fair.

So they were there, and if you were not, than STFU or I will drop the hammer.


----------

