Extending the Afghan Mission Without Parliamentary Approval?
- Thread starter Spade
- Start date
So does that make any of this right? Chretien might have run things "As a Dictatorship" but if that could be compared as a Dictatorship, what would you call what Harper has been doing since he became PM?
If Chretien was a Dictator, then Harper must be a Fascist Overlord.
Indeed, they do have a few finer points...... if they bother use them and use them properly. I remember they pulled out the legal process over Clinton getting a blow job..... yet nobody did anything with Bush-Dick or their minions and I'm betting nobody ever will. That little process you mentioned above would be a good thing, so long as those running that process weren't as corrupt as those they should be keeping an eye on..... that's why nobody will ever touch Bush-Dick, because just about everybody in the US government had a hand in supporting Bush-Dick and their invasions and if they call Bush-Dick out for the things they did, they will in turn open the doors for people to look in their own involvement with Bush-Dick and thus, not only risk losing voter support, not only risk ruining their political careers, but could also face criminal charges and investigations right along side Bush-Dick.
And since nobody there wants to deal with that and would rather just sit high on their hog and living the good life..... nothing will ever be done and justice will never be served.
Great system...... it'd make sense for us to have it too...... If it worked.
Then God Damit, Vote for me as the next leader of Canada.... I'll tell it as it is and won't make any crazy decisions against the public's wishes..... I may present questions, arguments and debate the topic with the public in order to hash out a proper answer and to make sure people thought something through in an informed manner and then carry out what needs to be done.
How can I guarantee this?
Simple:
I believe in a government that represents the interests of the people and the main reason why I believe in this is because if I was leading the nation, I'd get feedback from the public on a topic, get all the sides of a story, determine what the majority of the public wants and then make it happen.
^ Because if something royally screws up...... I can point my finger back at all of you for wanting such a stupid thing to be done and say I was merely carrying out the Democratic Representational Process, as my job dictates me to do..... as what so many citizens have demanded for so long.
And because of that, I'll be forgiven and will be allowed to continue to rule with a cotton mitten.
Vote for Prax in 2011.
.......... Oh wait, I won't be here..... never mind, you're all on your own..... I'll be too busy basking in the sun and eating new foreign animals in another country and can't be bothered to deal with this country imploding in on itself.
MOOOOO HOOOO HAAWWWW HAAAWWW HAAWW HAW HAW HAW HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
What I don't understand is why the Libs actually support extending the mission. What the hell is wrong with these people?
It's what I've been saying for years..... both the Liberals and Conservatives take turns playing Good Cop / Bad Cop and in the larger scheme of things, they're both out for the same objectives.
Meanwhile, over 60% of Canadians are opposed to continuing the mission.
CBC News - Politics - Tories to confirm Afghan mission details
What is said here is admirable in a way but again disregards a major stumbling point in our political system: the general public doesn't always KNOW what is in its best interests because they can't be bothered to get informed on the issues. Our best leaders realize this and take it into account by trying to mask unpopular decisions use spin. Its frustrating to me because I would rather someone just say " you don't know WTF you're talking about" to me than blow smoke up my butt, but I'm not most people...
I was just reading the other day on how a parliamentary system is supposed to be more democratic than the presidential system -- at least outside the voting process. What a load of bull that seems to be.
True, but one of the biggest determinants of voter ignorance is the lack of transparency and that media spin in the first place. If there was a large enough conduit to give people the most pertinent facts (and yes, they do exist), as well as precise figures on funding (both government and corporation), then a majority decision would almost always be a good thing. Ignorance is a two-way street here.
Of course, it always comes down to the individual person, but even some of the most well-intentioned and reasonably intelligent people are being led down the wrong path because of misinformation.
True, but one of the biggest determinants of voter ignorance is the lack of transparency and that media spin in the first place. If there was a large enough conduit to give people the most pertinent facts (and yes, they do exist), as well as precise figures on funding (both government and corporation), then a majority decision would almost always be a good thing. Ignorance is a two-way street here.
Of course, it always comes down to the individual person, but even some of the most well-intentioned and reasonably intelligent people are being led down the wrong path because of misinformation.
Last edited:
Agreed about many in the public not being well informed about some topics, and most of those people only read or hear what they're told by quotes from politicians in the news and simply assume what they say is the truth without thinking beyond the words.
The above is the excuse our politicians continually use to further continue the ignorance cycle in the public..... keep spinning the facts, keep changing the story, keep finger pointing back and forth enough to confused everybody watching and you can do whatever you want, while those select few in society who see what's really going on and voice themselves are in turn waved down by politicians by calling them minorities and don't express the general opinion of the population..... or just simple classify them as crack pots.
Citizens should have an unbiased and informed general web site we can all go to to view the details of the topics, laws and plans our government plans to act on...... this web site should have all the pros and cons for the viewer to read and to be informed about, no matter how remote those pros and cons may be...... they then should be allowed to input their own voice and their own views on those subjects and be factored into the government's decisions, regardless of how stupid or ignorant they may be....... which is point of the site in the first place..... to reduce the ignorance on subjects and to promote people in getting involved with government decisions and be informed about what direction our country is heading.... in an easy and straight forward manner...... without the influence of bias news sources spinning certain factors to favor one party or another.
Who could be trusted in making sure this site is fair an unbiased with it's information?
The simple solution would be people who have no party affiliation or record of voting for any party (non-voters)...... Just because someone doesn't vote does not mean they are not interested in government affairs...... they usually just don't see any party that represents their interests..... but in a site like the above, they can bypass the politicians and parties and directly inform voters and other fellow citizens of the situation at hand, what's proposed by each party, what pros and cons would occur from each proposal, and then allow everyone to have a say with a quick, YES/NO/OTHER vote option (customized based on the topic of course)
^ But all this would be too easy and simple to do..... and it would solve way to many problems, like making citizens informed...... and our politicians don't want that because it makes their jobs harder.
Remember when it was the job of the press to keep politicians in-line by reading all the proposals and bills and fact checked with a legal team by umpteen news outlets instead of less than you can count on one hand who only repeat what is given to them in a press release?
Now I get it, "Harper repeated that it was a training mission and such missions are never put to a vote."
Read more: CBC News - Politics - Tories confirm Afghan mission details
Training mission, even President Bush would not call it that.
Yup, Harper was a Bush wannabe but now is moving into a class all by himself. That happens when you live in isolation and snort too much shyte up your nose.
"This will not be a combat mission," Harper said. "I can assure the leader of the Liberal party that the mission that lasts until 2014 will be a non-combat mission . . . It will be a training mission that will occur in classrooms behind the wire on bases."
Read more: Allies applaud Canada's 'behind the wire' plan to train Afghan forces
Ahhh, we're going to bore the Afghanis to death!
Read more: Allies applaud Canada's 'behind the wire' plan to train Afghan forces
Ahhh, we're going to bore the Afghanis to death!
The nature of our intervention there is going to be constantly changing and evolving; we must have the capacity to make these decisions on-the-fly, then, as quickly as necessary to keep the Canadian Forces both effective, and as safe as possible. This is one of the reason's why the executive branch is the part of government that should be making deployment decisions; there is no institution better-suited to make these decisions than Her Majesty's Government for Canada, supported and advised by the Department of National Defence, and the senior staff of the Canadian Forces.
Which is complete bullsh*t considering the fact that they're "Training" them in "Combat" operations, one needs to submerge their students in what they're trained in..... COMBAT...... and the teacher can not determine how well the student does with Combat if they don't go out to where the combat is.
So far, the training we have been doing with Afghans has been directly tied to 1st hand combat experience.... either our troops would take an objective with the Afghans backing our troops up, or our troops would send in the Afghans to do it themselves, but stand ready to take action if they request assistance...... ie: Combat either way.
Harper is BS'ing everybody if he says it's all going to be in the classroom and they'll never be facing combat, because for one thing, war and combat isn't English Class and a second thing..... it'd be pretty damn stupid to train Afghan forces in a classroom, providing them with no hands-on, 1st hand immersion in what they need to do, then send them on their way to take an objective, but don't go with them.
What happens if they crack and/or get over run?
Our wonderful "Trainers" will be waiting a while for their students come back and they'll end up losing more Afghan forces then ever before.
And thirdly..... IT'S AFGHANISTAN!!! Harper can stick our troops anywhere he damn well pleases in that country...... they will still eventually face combat..... they may not seek it out, but it will for sure come to them soon enough.
Come on.... a smaller amount of Canadian troops, training newly recruited Afghan soldiers and police..... inside a School of all things?
Sounds like a pretty damn good target to me.
Regardless of how Harper wants to twist this BS-two-faced, backstabbing lie to the nation, this is the third extension of our mission there, there is still no solid plan or objective over there, there is no end to this war in sight...... and it will still be a combat operation where our troops will face threats and risks.
And we all can damn well expect to have more names and faces of troops crossing the tv screens as they list off the next list of soldiers lost over there.
No matter where our troops go, they're still going to face attacks..... it's a damn war zone ffs..... to claim it's no longer a combat operation when our military is still there, still armed, still face dangers, still face attacks and are in fact, training other soldiers in COMBAT....... that sure sounds like Combat operations to me.
Harper is such a manipulative little fk'r
All that means F-all if none of them have the support of the people.