babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Harper pulls a Bush and drops in at Kandahar

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Harper pulls a Bush and drops in at Kandahar
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 12 March 2006 08:16 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Harper makes surprise visit to Kandahar

Prime Minister Stephen Harper arrived in Afghanistan on Sunday in a carefully planned and closely guarded mission to show support for Canadian troops and diplomatic staff. ...

----

Has anyone told Stevie that he is *not* commander in chief?


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
sfontaine
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12241

posted 12 March 2006 08:36 PM      Profile for sfontaine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes he is. The Governor General is the Commander-in-Chief by law, and since she only acts on the advice of the Prime Minister the Prime Minister is, in effect, the CINC.
From: Victoria | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 12 March 2006 08:40 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sfontaine:
Yes he is. The Governor General is the Commander-in-Chief by law, and since she only acts on the advice of the Prime Minister the Prime Minister is, in effect, the CINC.

The GG has the power to fire the PM as well as the power to order the army to *not* take any direction from the PM. The PM, then, is NOT the
C in C, but rather can issue orders only as long as he has the confidence of the GG.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sfontaine
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12241

posted 12 March 2006 08:43 PM      Profile for sfontaine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

The GG has the power to fire the PM as well as the power to order the army to *not* take any direction from the PM. The PM, then, is NOT the
C in C, but rather can issue orders only as long as he has the confidence of the GG.


Ok, so he is in practice the Commander-in-Chief. He is the one after all who does the commanding, he's the one who can deploy them and the one who can withdraw them. Prime Minister Harper is the one who commands Canadian soldiers.

It makes no sense, why would any soldier care about seeing the Governor General anyway? It's not like her presence would be relevant in any way, since nothing she learned or heard while there would have any influence on the mission or it's future. It seems you want protocol to be a higher priority than practicality.

[ 12 March 2006: Message edited by: sfontaine ]


From: Victoria | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Euhemeros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11067

posted 12 March 2006 08:46 PM      Profile for Euhemeros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Let's hope that "support the troops" line of propaganda doesn't work here. I don't think it works with the military either as (using all the people in the military I know as a sample) most of them vote Liberal.
From: Surrey | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 12 March 2006 08:47 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I fear for the morale of our troops. Imagine having that goop slobbering platitudes in your face, and you stifling a gag reflex. Back in the day, the troops referred to guys like Harper as "plugs".
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 12 March 2006 08:48 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sfontaine:

It makes no sense, why would any soldier care about seeing the Governor General anyway?

The troops loved the last GG, and they her. No doubt this might have been due to the husband's deep roots in the Canadian Military, but she was also one of the few GGs who appeared to care.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sfontaine
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12241

posted 12 March 2006 08:50 PM      Profile for sfontaine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

The troops loved the last GG, and they her. No doubt this might have been due to the husband's deep roots in the Canadian Military, but she was also one of the few GGs who appeared to care.


The troops also love Trish Stratuss when she comes to visit, but it's not as if they wouldn't rather see someone who can actually have an effect on their mission.


From: Victoria | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 12 March 2006 10:30 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What a lovely photo-op!. Everything was so beautifully staged!
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 12 March 2006 10:45 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hurl-tacular! I just looooove that one of him at the airplane controls...
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 12 March 2006 10:48 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know something really needs to be debated when the politicians, especially neo-cons who have a proclivity for lying, says there should be no debate which really means "no questions."
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 12 March 2006 10:53 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Euhemeros:
Let's hope that "support the troops" line of propaganda doesn't work here. I don't think it works with the military either as (using all the people in the military I know as a sample) most of them vote Liberal.

I don't think we need to worry about that just yet. As I said in another thread, we don't fetishize the military the way our friends to the south do.

Yet.

Oh, and those pics of Harpoon at the controls? I'm surprised his handlers didn't put him in a flight suit with an extra "package."


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12238

posted 13 March 2006 01:07 AM      Profile for Polunatic2   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They could have a banner in the background that says, "Mission Impossible".
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
sfontaine
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12241

posted 13 March 2006 02:40 AM      Profile for sfontaine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You guys will find a problem with anything. Fact is the man is in the country at great risk to himself to show the troops he supports the mission 100% and to get the facts straight off the ground. Not even Mr. Layton objected to that.
From: Victoria | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 03:41 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not even Mr. Layton? Wow. I am impressed.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 13 March 2006 06:34 AM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sfontaine:
You guys will find a problem with anything. Fact is the man is in the country at great risk to himself to show the troops he supports the mission 100% and to get the facts straight off the ground. Not even Mr. Layton objected to that.

Utterly ridiculous to suggest Harper is at any 'risk' in the course of his dumb little adventure. Utterly ridiculous.

Showing the troops he supports the mission 100% is great. Now if only the Canadian people would get with the program, eh?

'Facts straight off the ground'? You're kidding, right? What, he's going to hit the streets of Kandahar and go door to door interviewing the locals, gimme an effing break. If he had any appetite for facts at all neither he nor the troops he supports by putting in harms way would be there at all.

No, this repulsive clown is simply aping his moron-mentor to the south, with his militaristic proclivities. Bush, it seems, is always addressing cadets or fresh recruits or marines or Westpoint graduates and seems to enjoy hanging around the engines of war, he must get some vicarious buzz of it...making up for earlier lost opportunities I suppose.

Why doesn't Harper go visit a daycare center? An Innu community? Something a little more central to the Canadian identity than Victorian era colonialism? He's just a puke.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 07:18 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sfontaine:

Ok, so he is in practice the Commander-in-Chief. He is the one after all who does the commanding, he's the one who can deploy them and the one who can withdraw them. Prime Minister Harper is the one who commands Canadian soldiers.

It makes no sense, why would any soldier care about seeing the Governor General anyway? It's not like her presence would be relevant in any way, since nothing she learned or heard while there would have any influence on the mission or it's future. It seems you want protocol to be a higher priority than practicality.

[ 12 March 2006: Message edited by: sfontaine ]



It is not a question of protocol. It is a question of democratic principle.

The loyalty of our armed forces is owed most fundamentally to the citizens of Canada, ALL the citizens of Canada, and the symbol of ALL the citizens of Canada, regardless of politics, is the head of state, the Crown, NOT the head of government, who is perforce a political leader.

I hope that our current prime minister is not trying to subvert that principle by politicizing military missions, but ultimately that matters less than awareness and responsibility among the citizenry.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 13 March 2006 07:37 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fearless Leader and the troops were on CBC last night. Harpoon's got a beer belly! His belly hangs over his belt. I shouldn't laugh, but, cripes it was funny.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 13 March 2006 07:59 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One of the troops said the PM could have picked a better time (the camp was almost empty as the troops are out on a two-week mission).
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2006 08:01 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sfontaine:
You guys will find a problem with anything. Fact is the man is in the country at great risk to himself to show the troops he supports the mission 100% and to get the facts straight off the ground. Not even Mr. Layton objected to that.

Mr. Layton - is that Jack's dad?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2006 08:02 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[A gratuitous post, deleted.]

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
caliope
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4856

posted 13 March 2006 08:47 AM      Profile for caliope        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He invoked 9/11 early in the speech, moved to “we won’t cut and run… That’s not my way” and finished it all up with a “God bless Canada”. All Harper needs is the Texas drawl.
From: North | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 13 March 2006 08:49 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fearless Leader gave the "thumbs up".
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 08:53 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He is a freak.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 March 2006 08:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by caliope:
He invoked 9/11 early in the speech, moved to “we won’t cut and run… That’s not my way” and finished it all up with a “God bless Canada”. All Harper needs is the Texas drawl.

Jesus. Time to move to Europe.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 13 March 2006 09:01 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh well, at least he's honest about it. Unlike the Liberals who did all their pro-Bush regime stuff behind closed doors and kept us happy with a well-spun lie about how we're "peacekeepers" and somehow only benignly imperialist.
From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 09:02 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"That’s not my way"

Goddamn. There it is.

"L'état, c'est moi." Goddamn, but he does not get to do that.

That is wrong. In a democracy, it is philosophically wrong and it is morally wrong.

It is also politically very very dangerous.

Parents, please teach your children that Canada does not have a personal dictator.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2006 09:10 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kuri:
Oh well, at least he's honest about it. Unlike the Liberals who did all their pro-Bush regime stuff behind closed doors and kept us happy with a well-spun lie about how we're "peacekeepers" and somehow only benignly imperialist.

I agree. But Chrétien kept us out of Iraq, and Harper wouldn't have (possibly not Martin either). So while they may all be the same under the skin, little distinctions can make huge differences.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 13 March 2006 09:28 AM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This visit is a blunder, because it will not sit well with Duceppe. I bet in a month's time, he will be trying to "put what's past behind us; let's focus on the way ahead".
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 13 March 2006 09:49 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He needn't worry about his safety. The Taliban were defeated, right?

quote:
Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban leader, has ordered the murder of four foreigners kidnapped in Afghanistan on Saturday. [/QUOTE

[QUOTE]Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a Taliban spokesman, quoted the order as saying: "These people had come to Afghanistan at America's behest, therefore they should be sentenced to death."


What is interesting is that even Al Jazeera, that bastion of terrorism, isn't immune from a little pro-US historical revisionism now and again:

quote:
US-led forces overthrew the Taliban government in late 2001, after its leadership refused to surrender Osama bin Laden after the attacks on the US on 11 September that year.
italics mine. Hmm.

From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 13 March 2006 09:49 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see a familiar pattern developing here.....

If this is true:

quote:
merowe: No, this repulsive clown is simply aping his moron-mentor to the south, with his militaristic proclivities. Bush, it seems, is always addressing cadets or fresh recruits or marines or Westpoint graduates and seems to enjoy hanging around the engines of war, he must get some vicarious buzz of it...making up for earlier lost opportunities I suppose.

and he really said this:

quote:
caliope: He invoked 9/11 early in the speech, moved to “we won’t cut and run… That’s not my way” and finished it all up with a “God bless Canada”. All Harper needs is the Texas drawl.

then can this be the way things will go?:

http://www.harpers.org/MostRecentCover.html

If the Harpie's aim is to ape his American Idol, then he's pulled the knives out of the drawer himself. He clearly doesn't remember his own hissy fit of leaving the Reform party because Sargeant Preston was to dictatorial and didn't stick to the "grassroots" philosophy they espoused. I see a bigger slide than his waistline beginning here. Classic case of a professional critic not having the skills to actually run what they have been criticising. Oh, wait, my mistake. Harpie never wanted to "run" government, he wants to discredit and dismantle government. Good start from what I can see.


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 09:54 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
He needn't worry about his safety. The Taliban were defeated, right?

italics mine. Hmm.


Albanians?! and a German. Weird.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 13 March 2006 10:00 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
the beautiful thing about the ConClowns is that no one has to dig up examples of holes in their feet, and I imagine that with the eventual killing off of the gun registry, self inflicted wounds will only increase.

I can see a showdown/defeat of bushlike ports control/social security privatisation with the attempt to cancel the national child care program. The climbdown will be easy though. Don't make it a confidence issue, then claim that the mean, fiscally imprudent opposition spoiled the whole thing, and now they have to continue with it, there will be no money for public health care, or whatever else they hate.

tick tock tick tock tick tock....how long until the party implodes yet again?


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 13 March 2006 10:18 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
did anyone see the globe poll a few days ago?:

[LIST]How would you rate Prime Minister Harper's performance so far?

A (18%) 4097 votes

B (20%) 4567 votes

C (23%) 5398 votes

D (40%) 9228 votes

Total votes: 23290[LIST]

any question of Harpie's choice of leadership style is in the numbers. A+B=38%. Almost exactly the same number as the popular vote that the Cons recieved. This is the highest this number has reached, and can't move above 40%. Face it Cons, over 60% of the country doesn't like you, doesn't like your style, and don't like your policies. And when the electoral reform you yourselves have been demanding is implimented, thankfully we will never ever have to deal with a conservative government again.

Oh, wait, i correct myself. what electoral reform. unelected senate appointees, floor crossers rewarded with cabinet posts, refusal to respect the ethics commisioner, running a minority govt. like a majority.....sounds like a culture of entilement to me. Three cheers for the Con-mander in Chief! Three cheers for Steve-paul Harpmartin!


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
caliope
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4856

posted 13 March 2006 10:28 AM      Profile for caliope        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just to be fair to Harper, the whole quote was that we “would not cut and run, that’s not your way (the military), that’s not my way, that’s not the Canadian way.” I cut it down to the most egomaniacal part.
From: North | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
NWOntarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9295

posted 13 March 2006 11:04 AM      Profile for NWOntarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This passage stood out to me in today's National Post story about the trip. I didn't notice any mention of it in either the G&M or the Star:

quote:
Mr. Harper was greeted by about two dozen carefully selected Canadian soldiers and then paused at the Inuit stone sculpture that stands as a memorial to military personnel who have died fighting the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Because of security concerns, Mr. Harper's arrival was relatively low-key and most Canadian personnel did not yet know their Prime Minister had come to visit them.

From: London, ON | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 13 March 2006 11:39 AM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:


It is not a question of protocol. It is a question of democratic principle.

The loyalty of our armed forces is owed most fundamentally to the citizens of Canada, ALL the citizens of Canada, and the symbol of ALL the citizens of Canada, regardless of politics, is the head of state, the Crown, NOT the head of government, who is perforce a political leader.

I hope that our current prime minister is not trying to subvert that principle by politicizing military missions, but ultimately that matters less than awareness and responsibility among the citizenry.



I see nothing democratic in an unelected head of state. Seems the antithesis of a democratic principle.


From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
caliope
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4856

posted 13 March 2006 01:05 PM      Profile for caliope        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Democracy simply means that power should rest with the citizens, how that happens has always varied greatly. All Canadians over 18 have the right to vote for MP’s, the party who gets the most MP’s gains power, they voted for a leader who will be PM and that person appoints the GG. The position has a direct line to the citizenry, maybe not as direct a democracy as some would like but democracy does not and never has meant voting for every single public servant.

Pick your undemocratic aspect. Appointed GG? Only party members vote for PM? Winner takes all votes for MP's? Have to be over 18?

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: caliope ]


From: North | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 13 March 2006 02:38 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I heard the Arrogant Worms call Stephen Harper "Kandaharper" this morning...those silly guys!

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 13 March 2006 04:00 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Our soldiers shouldn't be there ... whoever committed them to that task needs to answer a lot of questions. Having said that, there's nothing wrong with a PM going to see the conditions that the soldiers are living under - after all, it was the gov't that decided to send them. May as well look at the results of their decision.

The criminal was the decision maker (and I think that was Paul Martin ... who might have done well to take a tour of Afghanistan before making that commitment in Canada's name ). Harper's just publically admitting what the Liberals kept trying to sweep under the carpet - we've sent soldiers to fight in a foreign land. So far, from what I've seen Harper is just a (very) slightly more honest version of Martin ... same conservative thinking, but at least he's open about it.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: retread ]

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: retread ]


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 13 March 2006 04:25 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's with the Globe and Mail today?

The screaming all-caps Page 1 headline is this: HARPER'S SURPRISE AFGHAN VISIT. They used a quote from Harper as a large-font subtitle: "We're doing all kinds of great work in terms of developing democracy, advancing the rights of the women and the education of children. These are great
Canadian values." The Globe has helpfully highlighted four words in red: democracy, rights, education, and values. It looks like an editor wanted to make sure that the readers didn't miss the key Harper talking points.

Also, the "Analysis" bit starting on page one is headed "First foreign trip helps PM burnish patriotic bona fides". A headline from the main story continued inside is "Trip is about showing leadership, Harper says." On the front page is a photo of the beaming Harper and defence Minister O'Connor photgraphed with soldiers at the Kandahar air field. Inside is a photo of Harper at the aircraft controls, giving the thumbs up.

If Leonid Brezhnev could have seen how the Globe's presentation was supporting the government's PR efforts, he would have been on the phone to Pravda ordering them to be more like the Globe and Mail.

I couldn't believe the right highlighting. It came across to as "Readers, these are the key words that the Great Leader wants you to remember".

Did anyone else who saw today's Globe have the same impression?

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 13 March 2006 04:40 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Somebody give that man a plastic turkey.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 13 March 2006 04:48 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

http://images.theglobeandmail.com/v5/images/newspaper/20060313/sectionA-188.jpg

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 13 March 2006 04:53 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, that's the one. Right below the main headline is the quote from Harper, with four words highlighted in red.

[Edit to add:] The quote is lame, anyway, sitting in the grey zone between an off-the-cuff remark and rehearsed propaganda. What made them think that it was front-page big-font material?

...in terms of...
...the women...
...Canadian values...

Puh-lease.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
white rabbit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10751

posted 13 March 2006 06:37 PM      Profile for white rabbit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Has anyone noticed Harper's habit of walking around
with his hands in his pants pockets? My mother, who was from the 'old country', always said that a man who does that has something to hide.

From: NS | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jeb616
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10841

posted 13 March 2006 07:00 PM      Profile for Jeb616   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by white rabbit:
Has anyone noticed Harper's habit of walking around
with his hands in his pants pockets? My mother, who was from the 'old country', always said that a man who does that has something to hide.

Or is playing with himself.


From: Polar Bunker | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 13 March 2006 07:21 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by white rabbit:
Has anyone noticed Harper's habit of walking around with his hands in his pants pockets?
-
Ive heard that described as 'playing pocket pool'.

From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 March 2006 08:45 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Last Thursday the press was reporting that hundreds of Canadian troops were moving out of Kandahar into southern Afghanistan in a three-week excursion designed to show local residents and insurgents that Afghan authorities and Canadian troops are soldly in charge.

I'm guessing those troops are really disappointed that they weren't in Kandahar for Harper's visit.

Of course, Harper isn't getting to see much of Kandahar anyway. He's staying at a U.S. military base; the Globe says he was planning to "tour the base" today. Maybe tomorrow he'll get to tour some Canadian military facilities, just for a change of scenery.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 14 March 2006 12:34 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anyone catch the National on TV tonight? Harper's triumphal tour! What struck me was Dosanjh and Layton, each with sound bite about how we need a "debate" 4.5 years after Canada joined the U.S. war on Afghanistan. As if there is the slightest doubt about the outcome of such a debate, other than to legitimize Canada's junior partnership. They both sounded like whipped puppies. Of course, neither one had the guts to actually take sides in this debate. Gotta see which way the wind blows first. Only Harper had guts tonight.

Some day we will have a real opposition in Parliament. But not soon.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 14 March 2006 02:23 AM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, it's stupid to be whining about having a debate. You don't beg for debate, you start one by taking a position and defying others to do the same. The NDP is showing typical excess of caution. It doesn't look good on them.

Meanwhile, I think harper will get decent mileage out of this whole tactic. Anyone think of good ways to disrupt this message?


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 14 March 2006 03:20 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What Stephen Harper had done is increase the danger to the Canadian troops on the ground.

By allowing himself to be airlifted to the Canadian base in a phalanx of US helicopters, he has shown Afghanis (clearly) that the US is in control, and that Canadian troops are not separate from the US.

Whatever bit of credibility Canada may have had with the locals, which I'll grant was probably not much, is now completely gone.

In the future, the locals will consider attacks on Canadian troops to be the same as an attack of US troops.

The other day I was looking for the Pasto words for 'sitting duck', and I stumbled on something rather interesting.

I couldn't find a straight across Pasto word for 'sitting' in the sense used in the statement, so I asked for a translation for 'still' (as in non-moving).

I found a word gh_alaey, which has an interesting meaning.

quote:
gh_alaey, adj. Silent, concealed, hidden, still, lurking, crouching, lying hid, lying in ambush; (Fem.) gh_ali. Pl. (Masc. and Fem.) ī. gh_alaey-tob, s.m. (2nd) Concealment, hiding, secrecy, stealth. Pl. tobūnah. gh_alaey kawul, verb trans. To

Any people who have a single word that means 'lying in ambush' are to be respected, and I mean 'respect'.

They are a people whose life is one of opportunism, in the sense of how they deal with the harsh world in which they live. They understand patience in a way that doesn't translate across cultures. One might even say they define patience.

Before going to war with them, I think I'd say to myself, you know, these people have lived in one of the world's most unforgiving environments for thousands of years. They've survived as a culture (or mixture of cultures) because they've found a way to deal with the world in which they live.

It's possible they may see my interference as the annoyance of a young upstart, which they'll accept for the time being, provided it doesn't interfere beyond a certain point.

However, if they decide the interference has gone past that point, they will make life so miserable for the source of annoyance, that *hell* could start looking quite cool and relaxing.

If there is a legitimate thing to be done for the good of Afghanistan, it is to urge the rest of the world to keep their mitts off.

That means the US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, in fact all of the US client states - and all of the other players who seem to all have the same agenda, which is to never let Afghanistan progress beyond utter poverty, chaos, and despair.

I am convinced that the people who know best how Afghanistan should be is Afghanis. *All* of the other players should get out and stay out.

[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 March 2006 10:17 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is all part of Harper's grand plan, to coine Thomas Walkom's phrase.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005225&p=

He wants to denationalize in domestic affairs while nationalizing in foreign affairs. This vist is part of the latter. Look for further "patriotic photo-ops."

Also notice the secrecy, refusal to cooperate with the press and outside investigations, as well as the increase of power in the PMO. All these are hallmarks of someone who wants to turn the PMO into the presidency.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 14 March 2006 01:10 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
This is all part of Harper's grand plan, to coine Thomas Walkom's phrase.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=005225&p=

He wants to denationalize in domestic affairs while nationalizing in foreign affairs. This vist is part of the latter. Look for further "patriotic photo-ops."

Also notice the secrecy, refusal to cooperate with the press and outside investigations, as well as the increase of power in the PMO. All these are hallmarks of someone who wants to turn the PMO into the presidency.


Agree with the first part about nationalizing. But not sure the second part makes sense ... the PMO already has much more power than the American presidency (relatively speaking). He'd be giving up power if he went that way ...


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 14 March 2006 01:23 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
x
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 14 March 2006 01:39 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Harper has stated that a debate after a deployment is putting the cart before the horse and he is correct.

Canada has to see its committment in Afghanistan through its current mandate.Blame Martin for that,not Harper.

The parliamentary debate should properly be focused on whether to continue this agressive mission after the current committment.This mission is not acceptable to most Canadians.

The impotent outrage here is already scraping the bottom of the barrel,better save some of it for Harper's majority government.There is nothing standing in his way.A fractured,discredited Liberal party,the perennial bridesmaids of the NDP and an increasingly loony left movement that can't get past its self-indulgent pity party about Harper long enough to get a coherent message out to average Canadians.

The G+M mentioned a response from the Polaris Institute but only briefly.It is not enough.Engaging Canadians in the facts of the Afghanistan situation is an uphill struggle compared to the exposure the PR pushing the mission receives..

Too bad Tommy Douglas isn't here now.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 14 March 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Impotent rage, jester? Wrong on both counts, effendi. We've already put Harper on the defensive, and we'll pin him there. Thank God for parliament, and the press scrum.

I don't feel rage for Harper, because he's not a threat..he's a passerby. A footnote.


From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 14 March 2006 02:13 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
Blame Martin for that,not Harper.

As the new PM, Harper is answerable to the house for the old PM's decisions. That's how government works.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 14 March 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OTTAWA -- Canadians' views have shifted sharply in support of the Afghan military mission even as troop casualties have mounted over the past three weeks, a new poll suggests.

A modest but clear majority -- 55 per cent of respondents to a nationwide poll taken for The Globe and Mail and CTV over the past four days -- now broadly support the decision to send troops to Afghanistan. Only 41 per cent oppose the deployment.....
....But the latest Strategic Counsel poll suggests that intense print and broadcast media coverage of the recent casualties, as well as the handoff of control to Canadians, has had the effect of solidifying public support rather than eroding it.

web page

Don't be too complacent about the footnote,he may be around much longer than anticipated.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 14 March 2006 02:20 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:

Don't be too complacent about the footnote,he may be around much longer than anticipated.

That's the same pollster who had Harper winning a majority in the election.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 14 March 2006 02:38 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The man hasn't the skills to lead, nor the acumen to address his shortcomings. That makes him a "dead-ender", in my books. Is there a king maker behind the curtain? A Dalton Camp? Be doubtn'er.

So, what of the opposition? Duceppe must be pissed at Harper already, but not "jump the shark" pissed. That impotent rage you alluded to may reside in Gilles' heart.


From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 14 March 2006 03:42 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think the cons will find many dates in a month when the house FINALLY sits again. They have burned just about all the bridges they can afford. I still can't believe how closely this resembles the US. A con who says he is a moderate and will work with the other parties, yet as we have already seen this is NOT going to happen. "I have a mandate" Ummm no you don't. But lets see how long this lasts. The only thing that is saving stevie from having a shorter term than Joe is voter fatigue. Otherwise I think we sould have an election call by the first budget.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 14 March 2006 05:24 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by thorin_bane:
The only thing that is saving stevie from having a shorter term than Joe is voter fatigue. Otherwise I think we sould have an election call by the first budget.

That's part of it. As well, the Liberals are in a complete shambles at the moment - I doubt they will take the gov't down on any issue for the next year.

Which is probably a good thing, it'll give folks a long time to see how Harper governs. If the opposition brought him down now he'd probably get a majority just because voters would be extremely annoyed at going to the polls again. In a year or two, after people have seen what the cons are really like, he won't do so well.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 14 March 2006 05:34 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
With Ujal stating in the press that the Harper visit was a good trip i think that the Liberals will support the cons for longer than we had all hoped for.

That coupled with the Liberal leadership convention scheduled for late fall '06 there is no way that Harper government falls before the spring '07.

If an election is to take place it will be betweeen may june '07 and end of August. Their is no way that the fed libs will want a federal election and ontario election around the same time


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 March 2006 06:59 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally quoted by jester:
....But the latest Strategic Counsel poll suggests that intense print and broadcast media coverage of the recent casualties, as well as the handoff of control to Canadians, has had the effect of solidifying public support rather than eroding it.
It's no surprise that once the media began to embed itself in Harper's war effort, that public opinion would soon follow accordingly.

I rarely quote Margaret Wente, but she noted today as follows:

quote:
We thought U.S. media coverage of Iraq was pretty dumb too. Remember how we criticized the way they embedded their reporters with the troops? As the foreign editor of the Toronto Star declared, embedding "was really serving the interest of the Pentagon more than anyone." We rolled our eyes at how CNN and the other media sentimentalized the soldiers.

Well, that was then -- and them. Now that it's our turn, the Star could not embed its people fast enough. And I hope you caught Peter Mansbridge last week, live from Kandahar, as he conducted cloying double-enders between the brave kids in the field and their anxious mothers back home.


Mind you, she wasn't being critical of the media. Quite the reverse.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 14 March 2006 07:19 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks to Josh;

quote:

THOMAS WALKOM

But his {Harper's} twin ideas — decentralize internally; focus externally — promise to inform everything he does as prime minister.


I think some in the media (not Walkom) are missing the point here. The visit to Afghanistan may be meant to bolster canadian troops and/or attempt to align support behind the Afghanistan mission.

However, now Harper is off to Pakistan. Essentially, Harper is replicating George Bush's foreign trip of about a week ago: Afghanistan, India, Pakistan. Well, Harper has hit 2 so far; where is secretive Stevie off to next?

This is a trip to assure the Bush boys that Harper is right beside them in every foreign intervention -- without alarming the canadian public by making his first trip a love in with Bush at the Crawford Cretin's Ranch.

On edit; I would like to make my usual appeal that people address sidescroll issues! No Yards, I think it occurs in your link to the Globe and Mail cover page. Thanks.

[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: siren ]


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 14 March 2006 09:38 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There was an interesting little part of that poll which was published in the Globe today.

This question was posed:

What do you perceive to be the purpose of our troops in Afghanistan?

More peacekeeping than combat - 70%

More combat that peacekeeping - 26%

Don't know - 4%

What this shows is the majority of Canadians are still in the 'Canada as peacekeeper' mode.

As the body bags pile up, it will be more and more difficult to maintain this fantasy.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 14 March 2006 09:50 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
If there is a legitimate thing to be done for the good of Afghanistan, it is to urge the rest of the world to keep their mitts off.
Well of course that's the solution, but I doubt asking the Taliban, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, or whomever, really nicely to leave the country alone is going to get you anywhere.

Rather, by helping the people of Afghanistan, their government in Kabul and their armed forces take charge of their country is how that's going to happen.

Anyway, nice to see that Rick Mercer had some good things to say about the mission being carried out by the armed forces, as well as Harper's trip, tonight.

[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 14 March 2006 11:35 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What all this support indicates is that there is a sizeable portion of this country that prefer to remain lackeys of the Anglo-American Empire.

Afghanistan's history is an unending example of the hubris of empires. While we may be patting ourselves on the back for our "civilizing" mission, we are still stuck in the same old colonial role. In fact, the Eric Margolis article on this was quite excellent:Margolis article


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 March 2006 11:40 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
What this shows is the majority of Canadians are still in the 'Canada as peacekeeper' mode.
Yes, I noticed that, too.

There was another question, "What should Canada's role be in international conflicts?" When Quebec responses are excluded, 57% of Canadians said we should not be actively involved in combat. (The alternative position, which got only 41% support, was that we should be "prepared for active armed combat duty").

The fact that the majority of the ROC thinks we should not be actively involved in combat, but should have troops in Afghanistan, indicates a great deal of confusion about what the Afghanistan mission is.

It was also interesting that only 51% of NDP voters oppose sending troops to Afghanistan. This is a sign of the failure of the NDP to provide any kind of leadership on this issue.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 March 2006 12:02 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ceti, thanks for the link to the Eric Margolis article.

Margolis raises the question of what Canadians are fighting for in Afganistan. We've heard much about what they are fighting against.

One thing they're fighting for is to prop up the rotten Afghanistan legal system. Someone started a thread about this, but unfortunately it got closed down.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 15 March 2006 12:09 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
{Quoting Margaret Wente}
------------------------------------
Well, that was then -- and them. Now that it's our turn, the Star could not embed its people fast enough. And I hope you caught Peter Mansbridge last week, live from Kandahar, as he conducted cloying double-enders between the brave kids in the field and their anxious mothers back home.

It is deeply disconcerting that what the Americans have been going through for the last 3 years is repeating itself up here.

There was a province wide radio programme on this today. People (and the guest) 'phoned in to state well worn tripe about:

*fighting terrorists
*we're fighting them "over there" so we don't have to fight them over here
*we were attacked on 9/11
*terror
*9/11
*terror
*SUPPORT OUR TROOPS (don't discuss their role)

Just as the American public is beginning to awaken -- as revealed by Bush's plummeting poll numbers -- canadians appear set to sleep walk into the morass.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 15 March 2006 12:40 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
'Support Our Troops'. You never hear 'Support Our Aid Workers' or 'Support Our Firefighters'. What's so damned holy about the military that we should blindly accept any predicament the politicians see fit to throw them at, and any suggestion of doubt or even debate is considered near-treachery?
The whole language of this issue has become semantic trip-wire.

From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
1ndiemuse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10536

posted 15 March 2006 12:42 AM      Profile for 1ndiemuse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:

Why doesn't Harper go visit a daycare center? An Innu community? Something a little more central to the Canadian identity than Victorian era colonialism? He's just a puke.

If there was a smiley for salivating I would insert it here.


From: Everybody knows this is nowhere . . . | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 March 2006 01:03 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"We're Here Because We're Here"
Canada in Afghanistan
By Jason Kunin

quote:
There might have been a time when Canada, and even the U.S., could have done some good in Afghanistan. Let's leave aside, for the moment, the morality of invading a sovereign nation before diplomatic means had been exhausted. If we begin with the coalition ousting of the Taliban as a fait accompli ­ one that was indeed popular with many Afghanis who saw the Taliban as unwelcome interlopers from Pakistan ­ there was a brief period in which Canada could have played a positive role in the country. That was our window of opportunity.
....
The main problem has been with the narrow military sense in which "security" for Afghanis has been prioritized. "Security," after all, is not simply about being protected from "bad guys," to borrow George W. Bush's phrase. It's also about knowing where your next meal is coming from, having access to clean water and health care, and being able to earn an independent living.

It's these latter aspects of security that the neo-cons orchestrating the war from Washington have failed to provide. Hell, they barely provide them to their own citizens.

Canada's efforts on this score, though wide-ranging and aided by some no doubt truly exceptional individuals, have similarly fallen fall short of what is needed.

As a result, since the arrival of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, things have only steadily worsened for Afghanis. There is less security, the warlords are back, the heroine trade has resumed, and what is called an "insurgency" looks more everyday like yet another civil war.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 15 March 2006 05:59 AM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The 'heroine' trade? Where can I get some?
From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 15 March 2006 06:36 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In response to my original post:

quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
If there is a legitimate thing to be done for the good of Afghanistan, it is to urge the rest of the world to keep their mitts off.

quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Well of course that's the solution, but I doubt asking the Taliban, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, or whomever, really nicely to leave the country alone is going to get you anywhere.

Rather, by helping the people of Afghanistan, their government in Kabul and their armed forces take charge of their country is how that's going to happen...
[ 14 March 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


Interesting that the two states you chose to name are US client states. One wonders, if the US is so all fired anxious to stabilize the situation, why they don't tell their friends to take a hike?

As far as the Taliban go, they are also a US property, courtesy of Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been at the centre of US policy towards Afghanistan for twenty years, and has supported the Taliban throughout.

However, they're a property that got away on the US, and actually have significant support amongst Afghanis. Otherwise there's no way they could operate in that country.

It was US foreign policy that inflicted the Taliban on the people of Afghanistan, and it was Donald Rumsfled (echoed by Karzai) who said the Taliban were no longer a problem back in 2004.

They were inviting the Taliban back into the government. That's also why they're cutting and running themselves. They figure the situation is more or less stable as it is, and a few troops from Canada are not going to do much except get used for target practice.

So whatever else we're doing there, we're not fighting the Taliban.

By the way, did I tell you I looked up the Pashto words for 'sitting ducks'. I found no equivalent word for 'sitting' in the sense used, and typed in 'still'. One of the meanings of the Pasto word for 'still' is 'lying in ambush'.

A people that have a single word for 'layin' for somebody' commmand respect, in terms of their ability ot make life hell for an occupying military force. Of course, we already knew that, but it doesn't hurt to think on it from time to time.

As far as creating stability, didn't I just read last week that since the overthrow of the Taliban, and the US invasion of Iraq, the techniques developed in Iraq for dealing with the invaders have found their way into the repertoire of the Afghani resistance. Like car bombing, which had never happened before.

Some stability we're workin' on there. At this rate, the whole country will be one long burst of gunfire in a year or so.

Oh yeah, and Margaret Wente, in her column today (isn't it funny that today and toady have the same letters?) referred to a Canadian officer who was:

quote:
...tasked with trying to determine whether the kid who killed the soldier with an axe during a peaceful village meeting was a genuine Talib, or just another angry kid.

OF course Wente wouldn't think of checking her facts, 'cause after all, who cares.

It was the soldier that was injured, and is now back in Vancouver, and the 'angry kid' that was killed.

I don't know whether she does this stuff deliberately, or she's just to stupid to be able to assemble a small number of facts.

[ 15 March 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 15 March 2006 01:24 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Lord Byron:
'Support Our Troops'. You never hear 'Support Our Aid Workers' or 'Support Our Firefighters'. What's so damned holy about the military that we should blindly accept any predicament the politicians see fit to throw them at, and any suggestion of doubt or even debate is considered near-treachery?
The whole language of this issue has become semantic trip-wire.

'Support our troops' has always had a bit of guilt attached to it ... afterall, the gov't (and hence the voters) are the ones who send young people out to risk their lives. With that comes a feeling that the decision can't be wrong - if it was, then every dead soldier (ours and theirs) is an act of murder by the gov't and the electorate. Easier just to 'stay the course' than admit that. Which makes no sense, of course.

Some wars have to be fought, most are criminal acts of aggression. But 'support our troops' doesn't take any of that into account ... it really means 'absolve me of guilt'.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 16 March 2006 02:45 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

That's the same pollster who had Harper winning a majority in the election.


Nope. This pollster had Harper winning a minority.At the time I agreed with this to rid the country of the Libranos.The election merely replaced members of the Village People as PM.The country replaced the air guitar rock star with the guy in the too small cowboy costume but the crooked unethical government still continues.The guys at Cower Porporation must be laughing themselves silly.

I WAS WRONG,WRONG,WRONG to believe change for the better would occur. Happy now?

My point is that while the left is busy deriding Harper's physical imperfections and underestimating him,Harper is busy consolidating power and marginalising effective opposition.

In the latest manipulation of the Afghanistan mission,our leader states that while parliament must debate any future mission,extension of the current mission is not included.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
caliope
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4856

posted 16 March 2006 06:30 PM      Profile for caliope        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hope/expect that Harper will have a more difficult time silencing the opposition in parliament than keeping his own MP’s quiet. It’s one thing for him to say there will be no debate it’s quite another for him to stifle it, if a party wants to debate the Afghan mission on their opposition day then Harper can do nothing about it. It’s just like refusing to cooperate with the ethics commissioner or insisting on a free vote from all parties on marriage, He’s a control freak who does not recognize the very real limitations on his power.
From: North | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 March 2006 06:44 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by caliope:
I hope/expect that Harper will have a more difficult time silencing the opposition in parliament than keeping his own MP’s quiet.

I wish there were someone in Parliament -- one person -- calling for our troops to come home right now. Without that, there is no opposition for Harper to silence.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 16 March 2006 07:08 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 16 March 2006: Message edited by: Merowe ]


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 16 March 2006 07:34 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I wish there were someone in Parliament -- one person -- calling for our troops to come home right now. Without that, there is no opposition for Harper to silence.

You expect the BQ to do this? Neither the NDP or Liberals can stand up with a straight face and ask for the troops to be recalled. I don't remember the NDP calling for troop removal when they teamed up with the Liberals.

From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 16 March 2006 07:38 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I wish there were someone in Parliament -- one person -- calling for our troops to come home right now. Without that, there is no opposition for Harper to silence.


When the debate in Parliament over the expanded role of the CF in Afghanistan occured last November, why didn't Jack have Bill do it then?


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 March 2006 07:39 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:

You expect the BQ to do this? Neither the NDP or Liberals can stand up with a straight face and ask for the troops to be recalled. I don't remember the NDP calling for troop removal when they teamed up with the Liberals.

Scooter -- there is no one calling for our troops to come home. Nobody. No, I don't expect the BQ to do it. The NDP are opportunists who never open their mouths without analysing what effect it will have on their popularity.

It is shameful and sickening that there is not a single person in Parliament who will stand up and say: "We should never have gone in there, and we should get out immediately, unconditionally." Those who call for a "debate" without stating what their own position is are cowards.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 March 2006 07:41 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

When the debate in Parliament over the expanded role of the CF in Afghanistan occured last November, why didn't Jack have Bill do it then?


Maybe because Jack doesn't really give a damn?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
caliope
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4856

posted 16 March 2006 07:42 PM      Profile for caliope        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don’t expect anyone in the house to demand a Canadian pullout but the hubris of Harper declaring; “there will be no debate” needs to be countered. I would be pleased if a debate simply leaves people better educated about the new role that our forces are playing in Afghanistan. Then Harper can go to every coffee shop, every morning and tell Canadians they are not allowed to debate the issue.
From: North | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 March 2006 07:49 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by caliope:
I don’t expect anyone in the house to demand a Canadian pullout but the hubris of Harper declaring; “there will be no debate” needs to be countered. I would be pleased if a debate simply leaves people better educated about the new role that our forces are playing in Afghanistan. Then Harper can go to every coffee shop, every morning and tell Canadians they are not allowed to debate the issue.

With all due respect, caliope, your country and mine has soldiers in a foreign country, killing innocent people and lying about it, supporting one warlord government against rival factions, helping the U.S. agenda in that part of the world, and destroying the good international reputation of our country.

It's not good enough to expose Harper's hubris on whether a debate is required. We need to get Canadians to ask: "Why are we doing this? It is wrong, and it is not in our nature." A Parliamentary debate will only rubberstamp and bless this evil incursion. If we know that in advance (and you do, don't you??), then how can we in good conscience support the call for a "debate"?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 16 March 2006 08:04 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by caliope:
I don’t expect anyone in the house to demand a Canadian pullout but the hubris of Harper declaring; “there will be no debate” needs to be countered. I would be pleased if a debate simply leaves people better educated about the new role that our forces are playing in Afghanistan. Then Harper can go to every coffee shop, every morning and tell Canadians they are not allowed to debate the issue.

What's wrong with the debate that occured in Parliament back in november?


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
caliope
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4856

posted 16 March 2006 08:26 PM      Profile for caliope        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
What's wrong with the debate that occured in Parliament back in november?

They debated changing our role from protecting government officials to killing that government’s enemies? It’s not a small distinction.

If an honest debate gets the facts out in the open then we have to trust Canadians to make good decisions. It would be great to see a principled stand from anti-war members of Parliament but barring that I just want Canadians to know that we have changed from police to bounty hunters in Afghanistan and “that’s not the Canadian way” (to quote the PM). If the truth doesn’t convince Canadian’s to question the mission then we’re all as guilty as our MP’s.


From: North | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 16 March 2006 09:40 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They debated the plan for Canada's expanded role in Afghanistan. If none of the parties debated the point in the way that you wanted then you should bring it to their attention.

However, back in November it wasn't in anyones interest to take on the Liberals over this. The CPC liked the role, the Libs presented it, the Bloc didn't really care, and the NDP was....well I'll be fair and say that I don't know why this wasn't an issue for Jack in November when it was on the plate.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 16 March 2006 09:41 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's the Hansard.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/150_2005-11-15/toc150-E.htm#TOC-TS-2255


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
caliope
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4856

posted 16 March 2006 09:52 PM      Profile for caliope        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:
They debated the plan for Canada's expanded role in Afghanistan. If none of the parties debated the point in the way that you wanted then you should bring it to their attention.

I think the NDP have had it brought to their attention and now want more discussion.

From: North | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 16 March 2006 10:08 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I wish there were someone in Parliament -- one person -- calling for our troops to come home right now. Without that, there is no opposition for Harper to silence.

God I miss Svend. When everyone else was scared of their shadows, you could count on Svend to have the courage to say what needed to be said.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 16 March 2006 10:51 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:
God I miss Svend. When everyone else was scared of their shadows, you could count on Svend to have the courage to say what needed to be said.

Amen. Unless Layton did as his predecessor McDonough, and stripped Svend of his Foreign Affairs Critic duties. Svend's truth was not always welcome.

Here is his marvellous report of his fact-finding mission to Kosovo -- the only politician from any country who travelled there after the NATO bombing began. Among his recommendations:

quote:
The United Nations must be reformed and strengthened to enable it to respond effectively and consistently to crimes against humanity and massive human rights violations within national borders. Never again must NATO be the body that arrogates unto itself this decision, particularly given the glaring inconsistencies in its approach (see the plight of the Kurds in NATO member Turkey for example). Canada should take the lead as a member of the UN Security Council in seeking changes in the UN to make this possible, including the possibility of a UN Rapid Reaction Force. Canada should convene at an early date an international conference to review these issues
and make recommendations for change.

Canada is now in charge of the NATO deployment in Kandahar, and the NDP says nothing but "let's debate". For shame.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 17 March 2006 05:36 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Harper can say there won't be a debate all he wants, but the fact is there is a debate going on right now. Not in parliament, but in the streets.

I speak with many people about this, and everyone has an opinion, and some quite strong.

So Harper can sit in his ivory tower and contemplate another quick fly-about on US helicopters, but the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is being discussed by Canadians, and the verdict will be rendered come next election.

That's why the powers that be are mounting such a major propaganda offensive against the Canadian people. They understand they're on very shaky ground, and they don't want any 'insurgency' in Canada.

A few more cabbies getting shot, a few more troops dying in Kandahar traffic accidents, and Harper can kiss the PM's office goodbye.

If he wants to maintain himself in his current position he's going to have to address the concerns of the electorate. If he doesn't, his term will be a single one.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
caliope
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4856

posted 17 March 2006 08:09 AM      Profile for caliope        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
According to the G&M, Harper is now insisting that his office vet all communications from his MP’s right down to “letters to the editor.” So he’s the only Conservative allowed to talk to Canadians and any other party or individual who does so (about the Afghan mission anyway) is endangering the troops. Lord I hope this blows up in his face.
From: North | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 17 March 2006 08:21 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by caliope:
[QB]According to the G&M, Harper is now insisting that his office vet all communications from his MP’s right down to “letters to the editor.”

Indeed. here's the link. excerpt: Mr. Harper's PMO is not the first to want the final say on communications — but it has extended the practice to a level never seen in Ottawa.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 March 2006 08:47 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is good. It might keep O'Connor from blurting out which country he'd like to invade next. Or Tony Clement from talking about three-tier health care. I'm all in favour of muzzling Conservative ministers.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 17 March 2006 09:28 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think muzzling Conservative (or any) nutjobs is a bad idea, because, otherwise, how is the ROC supposed to judge them? Let these guys foam at the mouth unbridled, sez I.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 March 2006 09:31 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I think muzzling Conservative (or any) nutjobs is a bad idea, because, otherwise, how is the ROC supposed to judge them? Let these guys foam at the mouth unbridled, sez I.

You're right, of course. I was hasty.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 17 March 2006 01:50 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My inner cynic notes Canada's enthusiasm for an Afghan adventure roughly coincides with the U.S. Geological Survey announcement of a probable 1.6 trillion barrel oil deposit in the Tajic Basin.
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 17 March 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The oil find in Afghanistan reminds me of the oil and gas discoveries in Baluchistan, also one of the worlds poorest areas.

The jobs for the locals are few and now they are branded as terrorists and insurgents because the indigenous people have the gall to question how the oil and gas discoveries are beneficial for their families, all the while watching the environmental impact. Oil and gas and blood.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 18 March 2006 06:18 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:

Of course, Harper isn't getting to see much of Kandahar anyway. He's staying at a U.S. military base; the Globe says he was planning to "tour the base" today. Maybe tomorrow he'll get to tour some Canadian military facilities, just for a change of scenery.


The Canadians are based out of Kandahar Airfield (KAF), which is currently a US facility. KAF will, in the coming months, become a NATO run facility.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 18 March 2006 11:18 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

The Canadians are based out of Kandahar Airfield (KAF), which is currently a US facility. KAF will, in the coming months, become a NATO run facility.



And, as we all should know, NATO is a US run facility.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 18 March 2006 11:46 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, I there (I believe) is a Canadian General in charge of NATO right now
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 19 March 2006 05:37 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
No, I there (I believe) is a Canadian General in charge of NATO right now

Uh huh. And he, or she, takes their orders from Washington. You can't seriously believe that Washington would allow some general from some other country to order the use of their forces?

They have never allowed that. The US gives orders, it doesn't take them. Even in the current situation in Afghanistan where Canada is ostensibly 'in charge', the US has made it very clear that they will be the ones who decide how the international force will be used.

This was clearly shown when Harper had to use US helicopters to ferry him around Kandahar. They are the ones with the force, we're just decoration, albeit decoration under deadly threat.

Or maybe you do believe that Canada could undertake some mission the US didn't want undertaken, but because we're in command, that we'd just go ahead and do it.

Nobody could believe that.

edited to add:

Remember when NORAD was a joint operation between Canada and the US? The command of NORAD was split between Canada and the US, with the commanding officer always an American, and the deputy commander was always a Canadian.

Well, that situation still exists, except the US created another level of command, and put NORAD under it, effectively destroying the joint nature of the original agreement.

That's just one of the ways the US deals with command structures.

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 09:54 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

That's just one of the ways the US deals with command structures.

When the U.S. perceived its NORAD dictate as being defied by the Canadians, it went so far as to undermine the Canadian government to re-establish its supremacry:

How the Americans Toppled Diefenbaker

quote:
As the 1950s gave way to the '60s, recently-declassified White House correspondence shows John Diefenbaker becoming an irksome problem for President John F. Kennedy. He had refused to end trade with Cuba, refused to join the U.S.-centred Organization of American States, and further alienated J.F.K. by supporting a nuclear test ban treaty in Europe and by selling wheat to China.[...]

But it was the Cuban missile crisis in October of 1962 that brought Canadian-American tensions to their boiling-point. Kennedy failed to consult with Canada about his naval blockade of Soviet warships, and instead requested and assumed Canada's full support just hours before he announced it to the world.

Diefenbaker then shocked some members of his cabinet and the armed forces by refusing to put Canadian forces on advanced readiness, calling instead for an independent investigation of the alleged missiles installed in Cuba.[...]

There was also the infuriating fact that, even when Canada's U.S.-purchased Bomarc anti-aircraft missiles finally went on alert, they were useless, because Diefenbaker had never followed through on an alleged promise to arm them with the requisite nuclear warheads.[...]

On January 23, 1963, newly-retired U.S. Air Force General Lauris Norstad held an unprecedented press conference in Ottawa in which he publicly condemned Diefenbaker's anti-nuclear policies.[...]

On January 23, in Washington, the U.S. State Department issued a press release supporting Pearson's pro-nuclear stance and suggesting that Diefenbaker had misled Canadians on nuclear issues.[...]

The effects were predictable. Fights broke out between the pro- and anti-nuclear ministers in cabinet. Several resigned. Diefenbaker recalled the Canadian ambassador to the U.S., and in the House of Commons Pearson called for a non-confidence motion based on Diefenbaker's alleged inability to manage relations between Canada and the U.S. Diefenbaker lost the vote, and his government fell on February 5.

The final toppling of John Diefenbaker had taken 33 days. Commenting on that period, Trudeau later asked: "Do you believe it was coincidence? Why should the United States treat Canada any differently than Guatemala (a country then openly targeted by the U.S.) if reasons of state require it and circumstances permit?"


Lester Pearson, the Nobel "Peace" Prize winner who shamelessly supported the U.S. nuclear dictate, won the next election. Pierre Trudeau at the time called Pearson "Canada's defrocked Priest of Peace" and refused to stand as a Liberal candidate in the next federal election.

Every Canadian schoolchild needs to learn this history.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 10:02 AM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:


And, as we all should know, NATO is a US run facility.


There are a number of sovereign nations who may disagree with that view.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 10:18 AM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

Uh huh. And he, or she, takes their orders from Washington. You can't seriously believe that Washington would allow some general from some other country to order the use of their forces?


One of the Task Forces (or more traditionally, Battle Groups) under command of BGen Fraser is American - the other is Canadian (and it would be rude to forget the Romanian Battalion minus that is also under command). In the coming months, a British and Dutch Task force will be added to the forces under his command.

quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

This was clearly shown when Harper had to use US helicopters to ferry him around Kandahar. They are the ones with the force, we're just decoration, albeit decoration under deadly threat.

The Americans want to reduce their troop commitment to AStan. They have agreed to provide a "Bridging Forces" of some combat enablers such as helos until such time as British and Dutch helos arrive to replace them.

As to the idea that we are decoration, I am afraid that I beg to differ. Canada's new role in Kandahar is designed to provide the catalyst for ISAF Stage III expansion - essentially to lead the evolution from an American led OEF to a wider engagement from the rest of NATO (and others).

quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

Or maybe you do believe that Canada could undertake some mission the US didn't want undertaken, but because we're in command, that we'd just go ahead and do it

Nobody could believe that.


Actually, I could easily believe that. Canada will act in accordance with her interests, as any sovereign nation can and must. National caveats are always at play in this kinds of missions, and are universely respected by all nations. Having said that, until July, the "higher headquarters" that TF Aegis (the Multi national brigade commanded by Canada) reports to is US led. Post July, that HQ will be replaced by a NATO HQ based on the British led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) Headquarters.

edited for egregious spelling error...

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: Grizzled Wolf ]


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 19 March 2006 10:22 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

There are a number of sovereign nations who may disagree with that view.


I'm sure there are sovereign nations who will agree or disagree with any view if the price in US dollars is right or if the threats are sufficient.

However, I do think that maestro may have been exaggerating to make a point (maestro will correct me if I'm wrong!). Several NATO states, including Canada, France, and Germany, have refused to join the U.S. aggression in Iraq. Even at the height of the Cold War, de Gaulle's France carved out its own autonomous military policy. I don't think the Beast is as powerful as it believes.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 10:41 AM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I don't think the Beast is as powerful as it believes.


Or as monolithic as some make it out to be.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 19 March 2006 02:04 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I'm sure there are sovereign nations who will agree or disagree with any view if the price in US dollars is right or if the threats are sufficient.

However, I do think that maestro may have been exaggerating to make a point (maestro will correct me if I'm wrong!). Several NATO states, including Canada, France, and Germany, have refused to join the U.S. aggression in Iraq. Even at the height of the Cold War, de Gaulle's France carved out its own autonomous military policy. I don't think the Beast is as powerful as it believes.


De Gaulle removed France from the military section of NATO in 1967, and expelled all foreign troops from France at that time.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 19 March 2006 02:50 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Actually, I could easily believe that. Canada will act in accordance with her interests, as any sovereign nation can and must. National caveats are always at play in this kinds of missions, and are universely respected by all nations.

Having said that, until July, the "higher headquarters" that TF Aegis (the Multi national brigade commanded by Canada) reports to is US led. Post July, that HQ will be replaced by a NATO HQ based on the British led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) Headquarters.

[ 19 March 2006: Message edited by: Grizzled Wolf ]


Which is exactly what I said, Canada is following US orders, and will continue to do so.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 02:55 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

Which is exactly what I said, Canada is following US orders, and will continue to do so.


Umm - no. The Canadian TF takes its orders from a Multi National Brigade - which is under command of a US "Division".

Orders are in fact open to discussion here. All Canadian troops are under Operational Command of the Senior Canadian (which happens to be BGen Fraser, who is double-hatted as Commander Task Force Afghanistan). The elements are then "chopped" under Operational Control of the MNB HQ. Operational Control has some limitations on what can and cannot ordered or directed - and nothing precludes a force from applying a national caveat. In other words, Canadians remain under Canadian Command.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 19 March 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

There are a number of sovereign nations who may disagree with that view.


They may disagree with it, but it doesn't change the fact that no NATO military action will be undertaken without the express consent of the United States.

However, I will accept that there is a non-NATO country that might disagree with my original statement. Russia.

Post 9/11 Russia reached agreement with NATO that allows NATO to pursue 'anti-terrorist' actions around the globe, but restricts NATO action in Europe by subjecting those actions to the rules of the United Nations.

This is a result of the NATO action in the Balkans, which came very close to starting the third world war, and which violated UN rules.

Russia also has a much stronger voice within NATO despite the fact it is not a member.

One of the results of 9/11 was that the US suddenly found their support for the Taliban, and their opposition to the Russian-backed Northern Alliance, had become a bit problematic.

So they switched sides, or at least the State Department did. There was still significant support for the Taliban within the Bush administration, but for obvious reasons it was somewhat muted.

Since the US announced the defeat of the Taliban in 2004, their military mission in Afghanistan has changed, and their numbers reduced. Of course, they're still in overall control of all 'coalition' forces in Afghanistan, and will remain so even as their troop strength is drawn down.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 19 March 2006 07:57 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's another viewpoint, and one worth considering.

If indeed the Karzai government is the legtimate government of Afghanistan, the troops sent to prop him up should actually be under Afghani command.

This was proposed by Karzai, although I must say he must have been sort of asleep when he said it.

The BBC asked the question back in May of 2005:

Should US troops be under Afghan command?

It is interesting and instructive to read the replies posted by Americans.

quote:
No country in the world is going to allow a foreign power to govern its troops unless it is a conquered country.
Steve JP, Pittsburgh, USA

It must be interesting being a citizen of a small country like Afghanistan and not being able to see the big picture. Karzai is so absorbed in his own small universe that he actually believed this grandiose demand would be met. Karzai is presiding over the shattered remains of a land ravaged by centuries of wars, a land that never even was a "country" except that its boundaries were drawn by western mapmakers and given a name. The US makes possible his presidency and he should be grateful to the US, not making absurd demands like this. The Afghan government is not in a position to demand anything.
Jeremy, Atlanta, USA

Never will a foreign government command US troops regardless of strong anti-US feeling. Afghan citizens would get over whatever they are feeling right now when the dividends of US imported democracy are pouring in and changing their lives. Meanwhile, their country is in the front line and a test field for the US anti-terrorism policy. It is simply a price to pay for harbouring terrorists in the first place.
Matthew Adun, Charlotte, NC, USA

Sure, and our troops in Korea should be under South Korean command, and under German command in Germany, and under Japanese command in Japan - has everyone lost their minds?
A, US



From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 19 March 2006 08:04 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But of course the US reserves the right to order other about as needed.

Only Afghanistan colours can fly

quote:
2. March 2006, 14:05 - By Chris Wattie, with files from Mary Vallis / National Post (Canada)

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan have been ordered, under a directive from a U.S. general, to lower the Maple Leaf from flagpoles at their two bases, from over their tents and even from the aerials atop their vehicles.

...Brigadier-General David Fraser, the Canadian general who took command of a multinational brigade based in Kandahar this week, said he supported the order.

...The only Canadian flag left flying in the main base is over a recently dedicated monument to the nine Canadians killed in the line of duty since our troops first deployed to this southwest Asian nation in 2002.


Four of whom were victims of drug addled pilots of the United States National Guard.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 09:29 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
Here's another viewpoint, and one worth considering.

If indeed the Karzai government is the legtimate government of Afghanistan, the troops sent to prop him up should actually be under Afghani command.


The ideal would of course to have Afghan national Army (ANA) soldiers responsible for the internal security of the nation. That is why Canada is heavily involved in training at the Afghan National Training Centre. The soldiers are trained by Americans, the NCOs by the British, and the French train the Officers. They all come together for the first time at the ANTC outside Kabul, where Canadians are responsible for their collective training, which culminates with Platoon live fire. From those "graduating" platoons, Kandaks are formed (battalions) who are then shipped out to the rest of the country, where they are actively involved in counter-insurgency operations. Every Canadian mission has ANA participation. In time, we will be able to move to the back seat (or to use a rugby analogy, provide support from the second row).

Interestingly enough, the Kandaks are deliberately formed as ethnic and tribal mosaics, with the representation being based on national demographics.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 19 March 2006 09:32 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
But of course the US reserves the right to order other about as needed.

Only Afghanistan colours can fly

Four of whom were victims of drug addled pilots of the United States National Guard.


Some context please. ALL national flags (less those flying over memorials, including the four Canadians killed at Tarnak) have been struck - including the US flags. The Commanding General CJTF 76 was concerned that the flags would be used as targetting markers.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 19 March 2006 10:27 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know, I had about enough of picturing Steve Harper pulling his bush.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 20 March 2006 04:47 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

Some context please. ALL national flags (less those flying over memorials, including the four Canadians killed at Tarnak) have been struck - including the US flags. The Commanding General CJTF 76 was concerned that the flags would be used as targetting markers.


Where did you get this idea. It's not in the story at all. The reason given for striking the national flags is:

quote:
Maj.-Gen. Freakley said the idea was to make it clear the foreign soldiers are there to help the Afghan government.

"I don't want us to find reasons to pull back from the people of Afghanistan and not be teammates and get behind national barriers or anything," he said.

...Brigadier-General David Fraser, the Canadian general who took command of a multinational brigade based in Kandahar this week, said he supported the order.

"It goes back to the cultural sensitivity training that we did back in Canada. This is not Canada, this is the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan [and] we've got to respect their cultures and traditions," he said.

"So I think it's only fitting that we fly their flag.... The Afghan flag is what we're going to be flying everywhere we go: that's who we're here to support."

Captain Doug MacNair, a spokesman for Canadian Expeditionary Force Command in Ottawa, said Maj.-Gen. Freakley requested that commanders consider taking down their flags "to reinforce the authority of the Afghan government and demonstrate respect for Afghan government institutions."

...David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said the decision is likely linked to recent attacks on coalition forces.

"The stepped-up attacks may be sensitizing the U.S. command to the need to symbolically show people in the region that they're not there as occupiers or invaders, but as supporters of the government," he said.


That's funny, not a single word about someone using the flags for target markers. You must have invented that one.

Here's some more context. The US general decides flags shouldn't be flown, and the Canadian contingent follows the order.

Some command.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 20 March 2006 11:45 AM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

That's funny, not a single word about someone using the flags for target markers. You must have invented that one.

Here's some more context. The US general decides flags shouldn't be flown, and the Canadian contingent follows the order.

Some command.


I was there when the original order was issued - and discussed it with the Senior Staff of the then American Brigade. Perhaps they misinterpreted the intent of MGen Freakly's order - nonetheless, I have simply posted that which I believed to be true.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 20 March 2006 07:30 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

I was there when the original order was issued - and discussed it with the Senior Staff of the then American Brigade. Perhaps they misinterpreted the intent of MGen Freakly's order - nonetheless, I have simply posted that which I believed to be true.


Then it is obvious that someone is lying.

Every quote given in the story (and these are direct quotes, not paraphrases) disagree with what you said.

So you claim to have been there when the order was given. I'm sorry but I can't believe both your version, and the version given by those who made the order.

However, here's a question for you. If indeed you are closely connected to the leadership of the Canadian Afghanistan mission, how is it that you stumbled into this discussion?

Accident, or are there personnel that go out of their way to find, and try and neutralize opposition to the Canadian mission?

It seems kind of strange to me that once the news got out that the majority of the population was opposed to Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, suddenly there appears one after the other of self-described Canadian Forces members showing up on a board where they've never shown the slightest interest before, and they all spout the same propaganda (albeit with slight differences in tone).

We've had two separate (apparently) posters, both now gone, who placed Afghanistan in the Middle East, one by directly saying so, and the other by stating the language there was Arabic.

Now, I'll grant that what area the Middle East includes is subjective, but I doubt you'd get one out of a thousand on the street who would pick the Middle East as the location of Afghanistan.

Seems a bit odd to me that two apologists for the Canadian mission both see Afghanistan as ME, when most authorities place it in Asia (CIA, f'rinstance).

In any case, perhaps you could tell us which of the authorities you say discussed the 'target' reason for the flag order is now lying about it.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 20 March 2006 08:13 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

Then it is obvious that someone is lying.

Every quote given in the story (and these are direct quotes, not paraphrases) disagree with what you said.

So you claim to have been there when the order was given. I'm sorry but I can't believe both your version, and the version given by those who made the order..


Like I said, I merely posted that which I understood to be true. Perhaps it was a matter of differing messages for different audiences. I stand by what I said - I was led to believe that the reason for the order was a matter of targetting what else can I say?

quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

However, here's a question for you. If indeed you are closely connected to the leadership of the Canadian Afghanistan mission, how is it that you stumbled into this discussion?

Accident, or are there personnel that go out of their way to find, and try and neutralize opposition to the Canadian mission?.


Although I sense that you are unlikley to believe me, I am curious more than aything else. I first found out about this board on another one, frequented by serving memebers, former serving members, and supporters of the Canadian military. I came out of curiosity, and have stayed for the same reason.

I am on leave, having just returned from 8 months in AStan. I am enjoying that leave by expanding my horizons, by trying to understand the viewpoints of those that oppose that which I am so dedicated to. I think you will agree that I have been polite, reasonable, and have stuck to that which I know. My opinions have been valid (just as everyone else's are) and I have avoided getting in anyone's face. I am not part of a movement to "neutralize opposition" - rather I am an intellectually curious fellow who enjoys a little debate. Let me know if that is not what this board is all about...

quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

It seems kind of strange to me that once the news got out that the majority of the population was opposed to Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, suddenly there appears one after the other of self-described Canadian Forces members showing up on a board where they've never shown the slightest interest before, and they all spout the same propaganda (albeit with slight differences in tone).

You consider it to be propaganda - I consider it to be a legitimate position based on study, training, and experience. I am as unlikely to convince you otherwise than I am to suddenly decide that everything said on this board is leftist propaganda. My mother made me too polite, and my father instilled too much intellectual rigour in me for me to be that fatuous.

quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

Seems a bit odd to me that two apologists for the Canadian mission both see Afghanistan as ME, when most authorities place it in Asia (CIA, f'rinstance).

I find that odd as well. Clearly these are people who did not fair well at Gr 10 Geography - particularly considering that if they served in AStan they likely received (as did I ) the South West Asia Service Medal.

quote:
Originally posted by maestro:

In any case, perhaps you could tell us which of the authorities you say discussed the 'target' reason for the flag order is now lying about it.

See above.

Have a nice day.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 21 March 2006 04:51 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From Grizzled Wolf:

quote:
Like I said, I merely posted that which I understood to be true. Perhaps it was a matter of differing messages for different audiences. I stand by what I said - I was led to believe that the reason for the order was a matter of targetting what else can I say?

Ok, so someone 'led you to believe' the flag order had to do with targetting, while the officers in charge say it has to do with showing solidarity with the Afghani forces.

In your mind this is 'differing messages for differing audiences'.

Well, one of those 'differing messages' is a lie. Let's say for the sake of argument that the story told to you is the correct one, and the one told by the officers in charge is a lie, what do you suppose would be the purpose of that lie?

It's hard for me to imagine what difference it would make to those who were told the public story of the flags being removed as a show of solidarity.

In fact, I suspect most would be more likely to accept the story as told by you, of flag removal as a defensive action.

So why in heaven's name would those at the top of the military structure tell such a story? What's in it for them, or their agenda.

On the other hand, suppose their story is correct, that the flags were removed as a show of support. What would be the purpose of the story told to you, of flag removal as defense.

The only possible reason would be that those who made the decision were worried that the troops themselves might not take flag removal kindly. They were looking for a way to deflect criticism. Now that makes a fair bit of sense.

I suspect you were jobbed because those in authority wanted to take the sting out of an order they knew would not be kindly received by the troops. So they lied.

Now, that should make you think a bit. Is it the only time they've lied to you? It's my experience that those who lie once to achieve an objective, will lie again for the same purpose.

How many other lies have they told; about the Taliban, about the 'insurgency', about the 'democratic' nature of the Karzai government, about support for the 'Taliban' from Pakistan and indeed from the US itself?

How many more lies are they willing to tell in order to achieve the objective? Are they in fact lying about the nature of the objective?

Oh, what a tanlged web we weave...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca