Dion's opinions/garble.
- Thread starter midget-boyd91
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
sgf said:
That's OK. The liberals worked on the forget and do nothing and it will go away policy. :-\
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
There is indeed more out there, but these, sir, are snippets of a larger policy. Also, being verbose does not make something comprehensive.sgf said:awesome, three paragraphs on such an important topic. I guess thats up there with the six hour debate. Nice that its sandwiched in, among the speech from the throne.
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
sgf said:awesome, three paragraphs on such an important topic. I guess thats up there with the six hour debate. Nice that its sandwiched in, among the speech from the throne.
Three paragraphs that someone ELSE had to provide to you.
You'd figure -- if you were as "informed" as you seem to think you are -- that YOU'D have actually looked into BOTH sides of the debate and the policy, but, by your own admission, haven't read the Conservative side ... because YOU can't find it.
Funny eh, that everyone else here can. How about YOU do your own looking and reading, and stop perpetuating another myth. There's shitloads of info out there on Afghanistan from them ...
Now, you're beginning to troll.
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
sgf said:
And being an ex-WO, you'd be well used to having personnel answering the phone with a "Sir" on the end of it back in the day. IT still happens -- one day, perhaps you'll get over it.
Listen "J" -- if YOU filled out your blank profile somewhat, IT may not have occured; that's your problem -- not his. There is an option to insert your male or female status ... YOU chose not to -- best to remember that. It's not like they discriminate against we wimminfolk here. Even girls can be outted as idiots -- along with boys.
:
- Reaction score
- 18,530
- Points
- 1,360
sgf said:
Okay, a little bit more then...
Although there are some who apparently contest whether a Speech from the Throne constitutes an official statement by the Government :
, I will repeat the part from the Throne Speech that TCBF provided, since it's something that is rather important to the issue. (ref):More specifically, I would say, maintain the functional status quo. It seems to be working, because the PM said we would carry on as we are as he formally marked the first anniversary of the Afghanistan Compact (ref to PM's speech)
The Minister of Foreign Affairs reaffirms this in a speech to the International Conference on Canada's Mission in Afghanistan (ref)
As well, you can always spend your spare time educating yourself by reviewing the Government of Canada's website dedicated specifically to the Afghanistan issue:
http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/
In anticipation of any dismissive comments about references quoting from Government web sites, I maintain that anything that is provided by the Government of Canada to any Canadian citizen (or other people who would like to inform themselves of the Government's official position) should be considered as the Government's official position.
Regards,
G2G
ArmyVern said:And being an ex-WO, you'd be well used to having personnel answering the phone with a "Sir" on the end of it back in the day. IT still happens -- one day, perhaps you'll get over it.
Listen "J" -- if YOU filled out your blank profile somewhat, IT may not have occured; that's your problem -- not his. There is an option to insert your male or female status ... YOU chose not to -- best to remember that. It's not like they discriminate against we wimminfolk here. Even girls can be outted as idiots -- along with boys.
:
[/quote
i dont remember saying that I have a problem with it. Back in the day, I was more used to having personnel answer phones with simply the name of the section, but again there was no hard and fast rule there either!
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 530
Yep.
And I have the distinct impression that even if they answered with a Ma'am -- you'd have piped up with that "I'm not a Ma'am -- I work for a living bit" ... though they were just answering the phone in a nice and polite manner; EXACTLY what Mortarman Rockpainter was doing in his post. It's called manners, apparently they're lost on some.
:
Like I said, one day, you'll get over it.
And I have the distinct impression that even if they answered with a Ma'am -- you'd have piped up with that "I'm not a Ma'am -- I work for a living bit" ... though they were just answering the phone in a nice and polite manner; EXACTLY what Mortarman Rockpainter was doing in his post. It's called manners, apparently they're lost on some.
:
Like I said, one day, you'll get over it.
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
Just going by what you said. Call me a sexist if you will, but...I was just going by what you were typing. "Typically" men will reply in the manner in which you have. No offense intended. For calling you "sir", I apologise.sgf said:
- Reaction score
- 4,847
- Points
- 1,060
sgf,
YOU threw out the LPC policy without providing it. We asked YOU for it. YOU did not provide it. We found it ourselves. YOU asked for the CPC policy. WE provided YOU with MORE than YOU provided us.Then YOU come back here whining and complaining that WE haven't made a good enough argument for YOU, or provided good enough policy research? As Vern said, you're a knife edge away from being a troll.
I've had no horse in this race, but if YOU don't start hauling YOUR weight, by providing links and research for YOUR opposing view, I'll, to put it politely, can your ass from the forum for misconduct. Better drag out YOUR debating and research skills, and quit acting like a grade eight debate team member. You're quickly showing yourself to be out of your depth, and will soon find yourself ignored by people that take the subject seriously.
No more warnings.
Milnet.ca Staff
YOU threw out the LPC policy without providing it. We asked YOU for it. YOU did not provide it. We found it ourselves. YOU asked for the CPC policy. WE provided YOU with MORE than YOU provided us.Then YOU come back here whining and complaining that WE haven't made a good enough argument for YOU, or provided good enough policy research? As Vern said, you're a knife edge away from being a troll.
I've had no horse in this race, but if YOU don't start hauling YOUR weight, by providing links and research for YOUR opposing view, I'll, to put it politely, can your ass from the forum for misconduct. Better drag out YOUR debating and research skills, and quit acting like a grade eight debate team member. You're quickly showing yourself to be out of your depth, and will soon find yourself ignored by people that take the subject seriously.
No more warnings.
Milnet.ca Staff
sgf said:awesome, three paragraphs on such an important topic. I guess thats up there with the six hour debate. Nice that its sandwiched in, among the speech from the throne.
- Not all politicians get paid by the word.
- In the past, we had so much product sent out to Canadians that was all carrier wave and no modulation that we may have gotten used to it.
- Clarity was almost a lost art.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Feb 7 offering from Aislin of the Montreal Gazette. Couldn't have said it better myself
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/aislin/index.html
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/aislin/index.html
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
In her usual "take no prisoners" manner, Rosie tells it like it is!
The Toronto Star
Dion's ploy will get soldiers killed
Feb 11, 2008 04:30 AM
Rosie DiManno
Number of Canadian troops killed in combat in Afghanistan last year: 0.
This would be the combat component of the mission that Liberal leader Stéphane Dion wants ended by next February and upon which he seems prepared to trigger a national election that Canadians don't want.
Number of Canadian troops killed by improvised explosive devises in Afghanistan in 2007: 12.
Number of Canadian troops killed by roadside bombs and land mines in 2007: 11.
The last Canadian casualty in conventional combat – died fighting – came during the latter stages of Operation Medusa, four servicemen perishing during a ground offensive on Sept. 3, 2006.
Since that time, there have been deaths in rollovers, helicopter crashes, suicide bombings and accidents but none from aggressively engaging the enemy.
If Liberals are trying to spare Canadian lives – by venturing passively, ducking into calmer territory and promoting reconstruction in the absence of a secure environment – an anti-combat insistence is utterly without merit.
But it might get Canadian troops killed. An enemy that knows troops won't fight back, can't fight back because of political handcuffs slapped on half a world away, is an enemy given a blood-embossed invitation to attack at will.
An enemy that knows – as the neo-Taliban command indisputably does – how undermining a rash of killings would be in the midst of a federal election here, would predictably target Canadian troops with renewed vigour. It serves their purpose if an alarmed electorate casts ballots in favour of the get-somewhat-out party.
This is as stupid, tactically, as giving the Taliban an exact withdrawal date.
Rather than seek a political accommodation with the Tories on Afghanistan – by respecting the proposals contained in an Afghanistan report authored by the foreign policy savant who was once Liberal deputy prime minister – Dion prefers insurgency tactics of his own. And the odds are just as strong that he'd lose anyway, few convinced that a campaign fought on the back of Afghanistan would deliver the Liberals anything better than a minority, if that; more likely a leadership review that would send Dion back to the party marginalia he richly deserves.
Canadians are dying in Afghanistan precisely because they are doing what Dion and his hard-core rump want: They are training Afghan troops. They are protecting aid projects. They are leaving the security of Kandahar Air Field in reconnaissance patrols and resupply convoys and to attend Shuras. They are showing a presence that does not, for the most part, involve chasing down enemy combatants.
Indeed, they would prefer to engage and attack because fighting a conventional battle is their forte – the Taliban has never come away from such a confrontation other than defeated. That's why they stopped doing it.
Unless Dion wants Canadian troops to stay exclusively in barracks – an insupportable option because they would accomplish nothing, certainly not the Liberal preferred approach of furthering reconstruction efforts and humanitarian intervention – his intransigence on the mission's combat portion is without sense. And even someone with no military smarts should realize that.
There is no safe distance in Afghanistan. Troops doing Dion's bidding, the anachronistic peacekeeping model that can only have a chance at succeeding if security is minimally established, still need to get outside the bubble. And they will be killed because insurgents attack convoys, seed roads with explosive devices and continue recruiting suicide bombers.
John Manley's call for more troops from NATO allies as an absolute proviso will happen, even if ultimately it falls upon Americans to dispatch a battalion cavalry to Kandahar. The U.S. has reawakened to the urgency of Afghanistan.
But what the Liberals are doing out of sophistry and political self-absorption will get your sons and daughters killed.
I should mention I found this on The Torch
The Toronto Star
Dion's ploy will get soldiers killed
Feb 11, 2008 04:30 AM
Rosie DiManno
Number of Canadian troops killed in combat in Afghanistan last year: 0.
This would be the combat component of the mission that Liberal leader Stéphane Dion wants ended by next February and upon which he seems prepared to trigger a national election that Canadians don't want.
Number of Canadian troops killed by improvised explosive devises in Afghanistan in 2007: 12.
Number of Canadian troops killed by roadside bombs and land mines in 2007: 11.
The last Canadian casualty in conventional combat – died fighting – came during the latter stages of Operation Medusa, four servicemen perishing during a ground offensive on Sept. 3, 2006.
Since that time, there have been deaths in rollovers, helicopter crashes, suicide bombings and accidents but none from aggressively engaging the enemy.
If Liberals are trying to spare Canadian lives – by venturing passively, ducking into calmer territory and promoting reconstruction in the absence of a secure environment – an anti-combat insistence is utterly without merit.
But it might get Canadian troops killed. An enemy that knows troops won't fight back, can't fight back because of political handcuffs slapped on half a world away, is an enemy given a blood-embossed invitation to attack at will.
An enemy that knows – as the neo-Taliban command indisputably does – how undermining a rash of killings would be in the midst of a federal election here, would predictably target Canadian troops with renewed vigour. It serves their purpose if an alarmed electorate casts ballots in favour of the get-somewhat-out party.
This is as stupid, tactically, as giving the Taliban an exact withdrawal date.
Rather than seek a political accommodation with the Tories on Afghanistan – by respecting the proposals contained in an Afghanistan report authored by the foreign policy savant who was once Liberal deputy prime minister – Dion prefers insurgency tactics of his own. And the odds are just as strong that he'd lose anyway, few convinced that a campaign fought on the back of Afghanistan would deliver the Liberals anything better than a minority, if that; more likely a leadership review that would send Dion back to the party marginalia he richly deserves.
Canadians are dying in Afghanistan precisely because they are doing what Dion and his hard-core rump want: They are training Afghan troops. They are protecting aid projects. They are leaving the security of Kandahar Air Field in reconnaissance patrols and resupply convoys and to attend Shuras. They are showing a presence that does not, for the most part, involve chasing down enemy combatants.
Indeed, they would prefer to engage and attack because fighting a conventional battle is their forte – the Taliban has never come away from such a confrontation other than defeated. That's why they stopped doing it.
Unless Dion wants Canadian troops to stay exclusively in barracks – an insupportable option because they would accomplish nothing, certainly not the Liberal preferred approach of furthering reconstruction efforts and humanitarian intervention – his intransigence on the mission's combat portion is without sense. And even someone with no military smarts should realize that.
There is no safe distance in Afghanistan. Troops doing Dion's bidding, the anachronistic peacekeeping model that can only have a chance at succeeding if security is minimally established, still need to get outside the bubble. And they will be killed because insurgents attack convoys, seed roads with explosive devices and continue recruiting suicide bombers.
John Manley's call for more troops from NATO allies as an absolute proviso will happen, even if ultimately it falls upon Americans to dispatch a battalion cavalry to Kandahar. The U.S. has reawakened to the urgency of Afghanistan.
But what the Liberals are doing out of sophistry and political self-absorption will get your sons and daughters killed.
I should mention I found this on The Torch
Similar threads
