Article out of Afghanistan

[Lineman]

Re: RE: Article out of Afghan

Many fools like me, with my name have fought in wars long before
you were arround sonny, my family has left blood and body parts all over this planet. WW1, WW11, Korea, Congo, Cyprus, and Bosnia, so I don,t want to hear and don,t have to take any of your prepupesant lip.My defence Minister will do what we the people tell him to do. And as for the hardships and lack of equipment you have had to endure well that just builds character. And I,m not the pacivist you think I am, and I appreciate what I have more than you can understand and your ass belongs to the people of Canada read your articles shithead.
[/quote]

So tell us then, do you speak to your family members, present and departed, in the same disrespectful manner? Do they know that you "own their ass" too? Debate is always healthy if its intelligent, respectful, and tolerant. Isn't that what we as Canadians always brag about ourselves? Your responses are more "American" in their tone than I think you realise.

 

[zoofer]

Re: RE: Article out of Afghan

Many fools like me, with my name have fought in wars long before
you were arround sonny, my family has left blood and body parts all over this planet. WW1, WW11, Korea, Congo, Cyprus, and Bosnia, so I don,t want to hear and don,t have to take any of your prepupesant lip.My defence Minister will do what we the people tell him to do. And as for the hardships and lack of equipment you have had to endure well that just builds character. And I,m not the pacivist you think I am, and I appreciate what I have more than you can understand and your ass belongs to the people of Canada read your articles shithead.

A bit pompous don't you think? You say your family fought in the military. Did their asses belong to the people of Canada?
Do you look at a soldier and think to yourself his or her ass belongs to you?
Very rude.
.
.

and Lineman.

Canadians always brag about ourselves? Your responses are more "American" in their tone than I think you realise.

A bit pompous too don't you think? Your stereotyping Americans is ignorant and very rude too.

 

[mattyaloo]

God bless, Capt. Hamilton.

Keep up the great work ensuring our securty and those of that ravaged county.

 

[Machjo]

Great article Mogz. It truely boggles me that the Canadian public thought this was a Peace Keeping Mission. My biggest fear is the Tree hugging, lettuce eating veggins,the love all things and give the world a hug groups will start screaming to bring our "Boys Home".

WHAT? I'm vegan and actually support the war in Afghan! You obviously have no clue what you're talking about!

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Article out of Afghan

"Hey Mogz I,m a taxpayer so thats my military over there and I don,t want it working for Uncle Sam."

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the UN had approved of sending troops to Afghanistan; you're confusing this with Iraq!

 

[Curiosity]

NSA

Wednesday's Child wrote:
Dissention and debate is all well and good, but save it for when the mission is over and all of the participants are home safe.

NSA wrote:
No! Who is going to tell anyone when to debate a military endeavour or not? And how are they going to stop that debate? Are you going to throw dissenters in jail? Declare certain topics off-limits during Question Period?

"No dissent during wartime" is an ugly hallmark of a militarized society. We do not exist to serve the troops, they exist to serve (i.e. defend) US. And "they" are "us" too, being citizens themselves who deserve the right to dissent.

My suggestion indicated that the decision had already been made.
Discussions should take place before the military are sent on a mission, and then support should be forthcoming until they are home.

The military feel they are doing their work for the people of the country, only to find out they are sitting in the sandbox away from family and friends, and their countrymen are back home giving off toxic messages?

If they did not agree, then they would not be in the military would they?

I just don't understand your argument - but as you feel so violently about it, you must have thought about it a great deal.

I don't like war - war kills people - but if there is to be a military, give them the best equipment, the best people, and stand by them while they do their job. You are not. Fomenting after the fact is a waste of energy.

If Canada's people do not want to enter into any foreign country with uniformed militia then this message should be made clear to the government - so the mistake is never again repeated. At the present time, it is a bit late.

 

[Curiosity]

Last line from a poem by Michael Marks, January 2006

He turned and slid the rifle in a drag bag thickly padded, then looked again with eyes of steel as quietly he added; "And maybe just remind the few, if ill of us they speak, that we are all that stands between the monsters and the weak."

 

[FiveParadox]

Parliament and the Armed Forces

Wednesday's Child, I would not endeavour to imply that we should withdraw the Canadian Armed Forces from their mission before its completion; however, in the interest of democracy and the supremacy of Parliament, we must recognize the right of the House of Commons to discuss and debate whatever subjects they may deem appropriate (with the exception, of course, of the sub judice convention).

The Armed Forces must acknowledge that the Parliament Assembled is responsible for determining a course of action, and that the Armed Forces are responsible for carrying out that course of action — with few exceptions, the "other-way-around" would not be an appropriate method of administration, in my opinion.

The Armed Forces must realize that where we discuss their activity, their missions and their endeavours, such is not tantamount to non-confidence in them; rather, it is out of concern; why do you think that this issue is rising widescale in both the population, and in the House? We are concerned for their safety, and wish to ensure that the objectives of the mission, and its likelihood for success are adequate to warrant continuing to place our beloved Armed Forces, citizens of Canada, at risk.

For the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, M.P., P.C., the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Honourable Peter Mackay, M.P., P.C., the Minister of Foreign Affairs to attempt to circumvent the right of the House of Commons to discuss whatever matters they may deem appropriate is an affront to democracy, making our own support of the Armed Forces nothing more than a sham.

If another Member requests a take-note debate, or an emergency debate from the Speaker of the House of Commons, there is nothing that the Government of Canada can do to shut them up — other than, as occurred during the previous Parliament, the Conservative Party of Canada tossing respect for the institution out the window, shutting down the House.

 

[Curiosity]

Five

I understand your message but these are matters to be worked out for future and care must be taken not to offend the men and women already serving their country - especially in the unstable parts of the world.

Canada prides itself on PC except when it comes to their military people - who are people like you and like me - whose families read the papers and listen/watch the media regularly.

If Canadians do not want a militia - even for peacekeeping - because nobody can guarantee peacekeeping these days is just that - they must decide to have a defensive in-home militia only and make it stick.

Five - your opinions are all you will have - remain true to them and glimpse occasionally at the dark side to check yourself out - whether it is unpleasant or not - just stay the course true. Please don't feel you have to explain your opinion to me.

Opinions are really the single thing we own - and we must arrive at them with due diligence, and treat them with care, updating them along the way as issues change before our eyes.

 

[FiveParadox]

I have the utmost respect for the Canadian Armed Forces; however, I respect the Parliament Assembled to the same degree, both being sovereign institutions of Canada. I am concerned, however, that if we are to prevent ourselves from discussing or debating missions or endeavours of the Armed Forces once begun, then we would be setting a very dangerous precedent.

To deny the right of the House of Commons to discuss matters that would pertain to the Armed Forces would seem to indicate that such matters should not be within its authority to begin with; under such circumstances, if that is the case, then perhaps we should re-concentrate the power of the Armed Forces in the Commander-in-Chief of Canada, on the advice of the Chief of the Defence Staff, rather than the Prime Minister.

That would perhaps be more in keeping with this idea that the House's right to discuss matters it deems appropriate does not apply to matters relating to the Armed Forces — perhaps the House's authority in that area, then, should be revoked.

 

[Curiosity]

Five

I am not negating discussion toward a positive outcome for the military - within Parliamentary process. Not at all.

I am complaining (or whining) about negative press, often inaccurate press and media blame attributed to the military.
I have seen too many military families keep quiet about their loved ones in some groups - being prevented from sharing their concerns and loneliness with others in fear of what the others may say to demean the military even to the face of a family member.

Of course the police get it all the time- so what should I expect?

People want security and law enforcement and safety within their own land - but don't like how it is carried out. They are too ambigious about the military's role. And in complete frustration then the public blames it on the trouble the U.S. has "got them into". It doesn't address the matter, nor focus on the problem of what Canadians want of their armed forces.

The people in Canada are conflicted about their military. I think it is time for the people to have a voice for the future of their military - what missions do they actually wish these members to fulfill.

My uncle went to Vietnam as a Canadian with American forces. His family members (mother, father, siblings) said he was away at school....for three years he was "away" and then returned home minus a leg.
When people found out the truth many of his former friends turned against him. The trauma for him was tougher at home than his physical loss. He now has grown past it and understands but when he was a young man, it marked him for a long time.

 

[FiveParadox]

That would be more reason to have open and free discussions of this in the House of Commons. The New Democratic Party of Canada is shouting for a discussion — not even a vote on any motion, but a discussion — but, the Honourable Peter Mackay, M.P., P.C., the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has said that the Government of Canada has no intention of permitting any discussion or debate on the issue.

It's an affront to democracy, and the Minister should be ashamed.

 

[Jay]

Have we debated this in the House already when the Liberals where in power?

 

[Colpy]

We are missing a point here.

There are opposition days in the House when the opposition can bring forward any motion it likes. It is not for the government to oppose itself.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Article out of Afghanistan

Have we debated this in the House already when the Liberals where in power?

No, we did not.

 

[Jay]

Thanks, Colpy.

I wonder what the diffrence between then and now is....

 

[zoofer]

5 years ago Cretien fell off the fence and stated that Canada would send troops to Afghanistan
Since then Paulie's regime announced the troop contingent would be increased, not surprising as Canada was to assume command of the Nato forces.
Was Jacko screaming for a review during those years?
Our top soldier Hillier, Canada's Chief of defense Staff, a soldier's soldier, not one of those armchair Ottawa based pussies, visited a remote forward base thursday. These guys know why they are there.
Just ask a guy whose been there done that.
The NDP take their cue from the far left Dems Dean and Pelosi. Undermine the Conservative government by all means possible.

 

[Sassylassie]

I agree with Zoofer. Jack Layton aka Pain in the ass Layton is only screaming from his soap box to gain public attention. In my local paper today every article was written in support of the Military being in Afghanistan. Jacko could bring a load of grief on to his party by harping on a subject that garners very little public support.

 

[Mogz]

This'll probably be long:

Perhaps... but voting any which way is a right that you are out there defending (albeit

currently for the Afghans, which is good for them AND us). There are a lot of reasons to NOT

vote Conservative, and doing so does not mean a particular person supports under-equipping

the military.

I have never said that voting any party other than Conservative means you support underfunding. However if you DO vote any party other than, you perpetuate under funding. Darkbeaver claims he's given me what I need to do my job when frankly he hasn't. His years of voting Liberal have hurt me more than helped me. That's my point. Vote liberal all you want, but in the end you do not reserve the right to tell me that by doing so you've helped the Canadian Forces. You haven't.

Actually you march into harm's way because the representatives of Canada's citizens have made an "ethical" decision (influenced, one hopes, by the opposition "bitching about casualties" aka making sure lives are not lost for no good reason) that your assistance is needed somewhere, and needed enough to risk your wellbeing. You don't want ethics to start NOT being considered in these decisions after all.

I don't go anywhere or do anything at the whim of the opposition, everyday citizens, the U.S. or anything other than the current governing party. Ethics are considered, but by individuals with the information and forethought to make the decisions. This nation no longer has a sense of itself on a military scale. People don't understand why we have an Army and what it is for. As a result I have no time for everyday Canadians that want me to wave a white flag and hand out food parcels every time I head overseas. To reiterate; I march at the whim of the Government, not the opposition, not dark beaver, not the United States.

Many fools like me, with my name have fought in wars long before
you were arround sonny, my family has left blood and body parts all over this planet. WW1, WW11, Korea, Congo, Cyprus, and Bosnia, so I don,t want to hear and don,t have to take any
of your prepupesant lip.

I can give you as much lip as I want, it's a free Country, something I enforce. With regard to past generations fighting in conflict, they're exactly that, past generations. You don't wear a uniform, you don't contribute, so where do you get off waving both their accomplishments and your utter lack of respect for the Army in my face? I've had family fight in both World Wars, Korea, the Gulf, Bosnia, and my dad is currently serving his third (3rd) tour in Afghanistan. Do I lean on that like a crutch? Do I demand respect because of it? No. If you want me to respect you and not give you "any lip", go to your local recruiter, join the Army, do a tour in 'ghan, then we'll be on equal footing in this discussion. Until then, get over yourself and enjoy the freedom you take for granted.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought the UN had approved of sending troops to Afghanistan; you're confusing this with Iraq!

The U.N. has no forces in Afghanistan. We do not need the U.N.s permission to go to war. We're in 'ghan under NATO. NATO is kicking ass there and the U.N. is doing nothing.

Have we debated this in the House already when the Liberals where in power?

Sure did, back in 2001. A formal debate was carried out on the merrits of going to Afghanistan. The was also coupled with a debate on the capabilites of the Canadian Army and it's ability to deploy "long term" to a warzone. So yes, we debated it, 5 years ago when the war started. We do not need to rehash the whole situation.

 

[FiveParadox]

One must keep in mind that this matter does not have to be reserved for a Supply Day; rather, any Member, most likely from the New Democratic Party of Canada given their recent urgent statements in relation to the matter, could request of the Speaker of the House of Commons that a take-note or emergency debate take place at any time — notwithstanding the opposition of the Government of Canada, and notwithstanding whether or not the day of the request was a day of supply.

Such debates would be in addition to any allocated supply days.