Canadian resolve weak: Taliban official
- Thread starter Pikache
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I'm not a history buff, but I can't think of a time when public opinion was cause for us to pull out of a theatre. In fact, in the past we were staying for way to long.
I am all for the debate, as we are a democracy and that's how we do business. Give the reasons for why we are there and what will constitute success. If they choose not to accept, declare the mission over.
How does the support for a governments decision equate to support for the troops?
I am all for the debate, as we are a democracy and that's how we do business. Give the reasons for why we are there and what will constitute success. If they choose not to accept, declare the mission over.
How does the support for a governments decision equate to support for the troops?
- Reaction score
- 7,339
- Points
- 1,160
rifleman I think you are correct to a point. In the past we probably did stay too long but perhaps that was only possible because the politicians and the media forgot about what was happening.
If they decide to make it an issue then it might be used to try to defeat the government, ensure that there is no extension of the current mission, that ROEs and operations be changed or a number of other ways that Policy might be modified to have an impact on operations. Some folks will act out of conviction. Some will act out of opportunism. Either way "change" can be exploited by the opposition (both foreign and domestic) for propaganda gains.
If they decide to make it an issue then it might be used to try to defeat the government, ensure that there is no extension of the current mission, that ROEs and operations be changed or a number of other ways that Policy might be modified to have an impact on operations. Some folks will act out of conviction. Some will act out of opportunism. Either way "change" can be exploited by the opposition (both foreign and domestic) for propaganda gains.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Don't be suprised if the Liberals, come next election, "vow to pull the troops out of Afghanistan" in order to secure votes...
C
couchcommander
Guest
Lost_Warrior said:
Graham was just on CBC vehemently defending the mssion.
- Reaction score
- 7,339
- Points
- 1,160
I must say that I was pleasantly surprised not only by the Liberals but also by the BQ. On the other hand Jack and Co. are running true to form.
As important was the Liberal's position stipulating that going to war and commiting forces is the prerogative of the government and doesn't require a debate. The electors get to decide at the next election.
As important was the Liberal's position stipulating that going to war and commiting forces is the prerogative of the government and doesn't require a debate. The electors get to decide at the next election.
Was listening to debate on CPAC...true Dojanch and other liberals widely praised their original deployment, but, and there definitely is a BUT they are "reasonably" suggesting that the extension due for Feb 07 be debated and hinting that it should be a vote by Parliament. This allows them and their brand spanking shinny new leader to try to undercut the conservatives. It doesn't matter that the decision to extend past Feb 07 probably has to be made this summer, ammunition is ammunition
Now the approach of the NDP Alexa McDonna and liberal Anthony Rota, plus others is that force should only be used to protect the people, not to wage war. I think somebody should start throwing beany bags around, if only to distract from all that poo floating around
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well thats a shocker.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
Anyone else feel that the justification given by different parties for having a debate ("We need more information.... The public needs to know more...") is somewhat tepid?
FIRST POINT: we've been in AFG since 2002, and the situation there, while overshadowed by Iraq, has still been reported in the media. It only would take a little digging to learn the real situation over there.
Because, of course, previous Liberal and present Conservative statements about the purpose and risk of the mission can't be trusted. The two parties practically hate each other, so if they agree about something, then they MUST be hiding the truth.
As for info from NDHQ, well, that's not even an option assuming that you believe, as far too many NDP types do, that the Canadian military chain of command can't be trusted when THEY explain the situation because they are simultaneously a) too low-brow and stupid to get "real" jobs that would allow them to do something actually productive and meaningful for society, like attend anti-globalization rallies or stop evil fishermen from clubbing poor, defenceless baby seals, and b) so smart that they'd run some kind of coverup / conspiracy that could hoodwink the whole Canadian public, the mainstream media, the political establishment, the civil service, and the blogosphere about the true state of affairs there...
SECOND POINT: who in the Canadian public is going to watch the debate anyway? Less than 100 MPs attended the debate themselves, and most of them left after the MND's comments! Perhaps a few really interested stakeholders, like soldiers and their families and political junkies, but their minds are made up already.
Oh, and the Bloc and NDP, they who brayed and cried about having this whole thing in the first place - I see that CTV is reporting that 8 NDP and 2 Bloc MPs are present. So much for piously being interested in the welfare of the troops. I think this shows that they were simply making political hay of the issue.
(To be fair, the Conservatives had rather few MPs there, too - but they were hardly pushing for this.)
"And I saw that this, too, was meaningless, a chasing after the wind."
FIRST POINT: we've been in AFG since 2002, and the situation there, while overshadowed by Iraq, has still been reported in the media. It only would take a little digging to learn the real situation over there.
Because, of course, previous Liberal and present Conservative statements about the purpose and risk of the mission can't be trusted. The two parties practically hate each other, so if they agree about something, then they MUST be hiding the truth.
As for info from NDHQ, well, that's not even an option assuming that you believe, as far too many NDP types do, that the Canadian military chain of command can't be trusted when THEY explain the situation because they are simultaneously a) too low-brow and stupid to get "real" jobs that would allow them to do something actually productive and meaningful for society, like attend anti-globalization rallies or stop evil fishermen from clubbing poor, defenceless baby seals, and b) so smart that they'd run some kind of coverup / conspiracy that could hoodwink the whole Canadian public, the mainstream media, the political establishment, the civil service, and the blogosphere about the true state of affairs there...
SECOND POINT: who in the Canadian public is going to watch the debate anyway? Less than 100 MPs attended the debate themselves, and most of them left after the MND's comments! Perhaps a few really interested stakeholders, like soldiers and their families and political junkies, but their minds are made up already.
Oh, and the Bloc and NDP, they who brayed and cried about having this whole thing in the first place - I see that CTV is reporting that 8 NDP and 2 Bloc MPs are present. So much for piously being interested in the welfare of the troops. I think this shows that they were simply making political hay of the issue.
(To be fair, the Conservatives had rather few MPs there, too - but they were hardly pushing for this.)
"And I saw that this, too, was meaningless, a chasing after the wind."
C
couchcommander
Guest
Guardian said:
It's all for the headlines tomorrow, it's not like they were having a "debate" as we would understand it. Just like most days on Parliament hill, the MP's are by and large nowhere to be seen after question period (except for those unlucky few who have to stay behind to ensure the opposition doesn't do something like bring in a motion to adjorn the house, etc.)
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Rather interesting isn't it? After all that commotion from the Left and 'Loyal Opposition' to have a Debate, we find that even the Vocal Minority have quite a 'minority'. What was it.....less than 19 members to debate this issue?
- Reaction score
- 879
- Points
- 1,060
George Wallace said:
You're sooo right George. I bet CBC's Radio's "The Current" had to go dejectedly to "Plan B" this morning.
On TV, that Jack Layton looks like a smug SOB with his expensive suits and pandering words. All that while others do the necessary dirty work.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Smiling Jack and his crew don't care about either our soldiers or the Afghan people. His and their eloquent silence since 2002 and the lack of participation last night make it very clear indeed.
As noted above, this is just a flanking manoeuvre to get to the real centre of gravity in the NDP plan; our wallets.
As noted above, this is just a flanking manoeuvre to get to the real centre of gravity in the NDP plan; our wallets.
Similar threads
