It goes without saying you’re going to vote AGAINST your leader’s insane initiative to extend our forces’ stay in Afghanistan, right?
If not, then I presume you are prepared to send your kids / grandkids into the fray ?
Jeff F.
Oakville
So later today and tonight, MPs will be debating the possible ramping-up of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. In fact, this morning’s news reports suggest the country has been asked to take the lead role in that conflict in 2008, dealing with whatever mess happens to exist in that troubled country at that time.
The debate is scheduled to begin at 3:15, right after QP, with Stephen Harper speaking, and carry on until shortly after nine. Sometime between then and ten tonight there will be a vote. The Conservatives (naturally) are expected to support the enhanced mission. The NDP will oppose it. How the Liberals and Bloc will vote is less clear. However, the government is clearly gambling that the Libs can hardly oppose a troop deployment they originally approved several years ago.
So, by ten tonight, the Canadian Forces should be clear in their role – committed to the deserts and mountains half a world away for the next three years. Or not.
How am I going to vote? Well, my constituents have been fairly quiet on this issue, and the email quoted above is one of the rare messages that have come through in the last 24 hours. There are a lot of families in Halton who have sons and daughters serving with the CF, and in Afghanistan, and support for the worth of their efforts seems to be unqualified.
As one MP, I do not pretend to understand the implications of all this. I know we have set aside a big whack of money – over $2 billion at last count – to wage peace in Afghanistan. And I know the military will need another $5.3 billion in new funding over the next few years, including cash for new transport planes that cost a fortune. And I know the expenditure of this money will make the government think twice before cutting taxes more deeply or letting families or retirees keep more of their money. Canada is still a small country, and most of us believe our military is largely an afterthought.
But history teaches us something else. During the first and second great wars, Canada was in the fight from the start, committed huge resources, and did not bring the troops back until after the last shot had been fired. Our veterans are still treated as liberating heroes in the streets of Holland and Belgium.
Visit any small town in my riding, or most other places in Canada, and you will find a cenotaph covered with the names of young men – sons of farmers and merchants and teachers – who signed up to fight in distant, unknown lands, because it was the right thing to do. Today we celebrate them, and owe our unbridled freedom to their sacrifices.
But at the same time, we treat our military history as if it did not exist, and maintain the fiction that Canada is all about universal medicare and multiculturalism, rater than a continuing fight for the moral high ground in the world. In that myopic view, we fail the past, and we let down the men and women who this morning will get up in a moonscape of a place, with sand in their coffee and wackos with rocket-propelled grenades aimed at them from behind the rocks.
Sure, Afghanistan is a long ways off. But that seems about the right distance away to be fighting intolerance, religious extremism, bigotry, hatred and an untilted holy war that will only result in enduring suffering for everyone. It is here that guys from Oakville and Halifax and Regina are wearing Canadian flag shoulder patches and heading out each day to shoot Taliban. That may not be our image of Canadians, but we are blessed to have warriors with resolve, conviction and the training to be damn good at what they do.
So, tonight I will be voting yes. When I do, I will think about the MPs nine decades ago who did the same, and the Canadian soldiers who responded. Today’s children owe them life.
62 comments ↓
Well spoken Garth, I agree we have to stay. The Afgans need us to provide stability while they try to rebuild their society from the ground up. When we acceptied this assignment, we knew it would be a long term project. Although our responsibility has changed over the years, our reason for being there has not. It’s about doing what is right. Lets support our troops in this very dangerous part of the world.
Amen.
I agree.
I would love to know how my MP (Andrew Telegdi) is voting. But then, I never hear from him except through “Liberal government brag books” and I guess those won’t be coming anymore.
Well said Garth.
You have my full support on this issue.
Roland Horner
Oakville, ON
I agree. We went in an removed their government (if you can call the Taliban that) and now we have a duty to stay until the new government is stable enough to run on its own.
To leave now would either condemn the country to a brutal and bloody civil war, or dump our responsibilities onto other countries.
By the way, I read the NATO has asked Canada to take commane of the mission in the whole country, should this vote pass. Quite an honour.
Garth,
Get our troops out of Afghanistan NOW.
The people in that part of the World do not want democracy. They have no interest in Western peace.
Garth,
The vote to keep our troops in Afghanistan is the only logical course of action.
Afghanistan needs to be stabilized, and it needs a competent well trained force to do so.
Canada does have a very well trained and competent force, though it is small they are still able to be very effective.
Keep up the good work.
Garth, you’d get my vote if I were in your riding.
Gilles: You’re right, there are those in Afghanistan who have no interest in Western peace; that’s precisely why we need to deal with now, in their own neighborhood – instead of ours.
I agree with you.We need to help defeat terrorism over there rather than wait until it comes here.
People opposed to what we are doing are the same type that said WW1 and WW2 were not our wars and wait until the Germans landed in Canada.We stopped them in Europe.We want to stop terrorism somewhere else.
What we are doing in Afganistan is a good thing.Unfortunately some of our sons and daughters will not come home,but as a country,we are standing up for democracy.
I question the two respondents who said “keep it over there”, referring to the killings, bombings, and violence.
It is so easy for countries like the U.S. and Canada to take it over there-I wonder: if the civilian deaths, destruction of buildings and infrastructures were happening on the streets of Toronto or Montreal or small town Canada-if these same respondents would be so quick to commend the mission? Yeah, it’s great, as long as its not in ourown back yard.
Garth: If a majority of your constituents e-mailed you and directed you to vote NO on this issue, would you?
This is too hypothetical a questions to contemplate. It would require 45,o00 emails form voters opposed. So far today, we have received fewer than 20 notes, most in favour of the government position. — Garth
I fear this is no-win situation, but yes we do have to stay…
I believe that we have a job to do in Afghanistan. Like WWI and WWII, Canada has a role to play in international struggles. Sometimes, the role puts our soldiers in harms way. It is unfortunate, but true. Having committed to the effort to democratize Afghanistan, we can’t cut and run because the situation has become more dangerous.
On the other hand, the ‘wars’ in the Middle East are like no other. I don’t think we have ever seen an enemy who had such an easy time recruiting human bombs. How do you succeed against a foe that has a seemingly endless supply of people prepared to commit suicide in order to cause as much chaos as possible?
I am not sure that I can see anything that is ‘winnable’, here.
I don’t think even the wisdom of Solomon would help here. It’s a tough decision, and I wish Stephen Harper all the best. I’m glad I don’t have take responsibility.
Garth, I think more Canadians would support us being in Afghanistan if the government did a better job of explaining the progress being made. I shouldn’t have to turn on Question Period to get a summary of where things stand.
We call it a war or a conflict, but really it is a project, and as such Canadians should be able to see progress measured against a clearly defined set of goals.
For each dollar spent, and more importantly for each Canadian life lost, there should be a clear measure of progress.
Guerrilla style wars are notoriously difficult to “win”, and if the Afghanistan conflict continues through 2008, that will make it a longer conflict than World War II.
It is ludicrous that we can get better updates on progress in Afghanistan through Canadian bloggers, and through soldiers who blog, than we can from our own government.
I support the war in Afghanistan so long as the government has a plan which I can see, and so long as they provide regular updates as to where we are on the plan.
If the goal is to simply hang about long enough hoping that the undesirable elements will eventually give up, then that’s just a waste of our money and an inexcusable way to use our soldiers.
I agree with you Garth. I think that if we pulled out now all of our fallen soldiers will have died for nothing. At least if we can stay the course they would have fallen for what they went there to achieve.
What I don’t agree with however is how people say we are there to stop terrorism. If anyone really thinks that they can stop some crazy lunitic willing to blow themselves up to kill innicent people then good luck finding them.
Brave men and women made the choice to join our military, and have been on the field in Afghanistan for a while now. If they are making a positive difference and want to continue doing so, then we should support them in their efforts. If they feel it is a waste then we should support their withdrawal. I’d rather our MP’s asked the military brass and grunts rather than suburbia how they should vote… those are the true constituents in this matter.
We ain’t got no quarrel with no Afghans (to paraphrase Muhammud Ali).
And: Afghanistan & Iraq: deja vu all over again (a la Yogi Berra), in reference to “Vietnam.”
George Bush stinks! He leads those dumb sheep south of the border into a horrible war in Iraq where there’s no positive result for Americans (or any one else). Bush lied. Bush and Rice and Powell and Rummy are leading others to fight, suffer and die, while they are cozy.
Garth, your vote of “yes” is not a beautiful thing. The opposite. But after 5, 6, 9 years of young Canadians embroiled in an ever widening war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, you, too bad, won’t be able to say that you did the right thing.
C. E. Babb, Burlington – I am a US citizen and a combat veteran, rifle platoon and weapons company, 7th Marines, Korea, 1951, where “our” war experience was peanuts compared with the mindless slaughter inflicted on mankind by the Americans throughout the world.
Garth, that was an excellent piece. Beautifully written and full of truth. Shame no one listens to it.
Dear Mr Turner
“The Canadian Professional Police Association and Canadian Association
of Chiefs of Police [say] police query the firearms databank about
5,000 times a day.”
It is vital to note the AG’s comment that the Registry does not make
anyone safer. So why do police use it? Because it is there!
I would guess that one query of the Register takes someone about 5
minutes (look at the requisition, sort out the papers, sit down at the
terminal, enter the query, wait for the results, print it out, put it
in the file). By my calculation that means 5,000×5mins or 417 hours
per day, 92 thousand hours per year, or about 46 full time policemen
are wasting their time and our money making useless queries.
But that is dirrect queries only – a bare minimum! Add at least a half
hour to each of those queries to allow time for thinking about,
discussing, and deciding to use the system before actually making the
query, and you are looking at another 275 full time police across the
country.
Policemen make about $65,000 (after 3 years), with a total employment
cost including benefits of about $80,000. If we get rid of the
Registry immediately, in addition to the direct costs of the Registry
organization, we can be saving costs to police organizations in
amounts over $25million every year, or having those 320 officers out
catching criminals, instead of perpetuating a Liberal patronage
boondoggle.
Garth, make it happen!
Robert G.
C.E.Babb – I’m curious as to how you feel about the Korean War. Was it a mistake, also? IE, if you ain’t got no quarrel with Afghanistan, what quarrel was there with Korea? What about Viet Nam?
I’m asking with all due respect. It is apparent that over the last 50+ years, The US has not done very well in the nation building department.
Judy-we are trying to keep the damage out of Toronto,Montreal or small town Canada by flushing the terrorists out of the mountains and caves.As long as they are on the run,they can’t train,practice and plan.
We’ll never erase whacky religious anti West terrorists,but we can cut the odds dramatically by fighting on their soil,rather than cleaning up the aftermath on ours.
There are a lot of Afghani’s who are ill equipped trying to take back their country and are dying for their efforts.
Now or the near future is not the time to cut and run.
It is here that guys from Oakville and Halifax and Regina are wearing Canadian flag shoulder patches and heading out each day to shoot Taliban.
Lets get one thing clear. They are not going out and shooting Taliban. They’re going out and shooting Afghans. The Taliban is not some foreign entity that exists within the country. They are Afghans and this is a civil war. Fighting for one side in a nation’s civil war is something Canada should not be involved in. And stuff your “waging peace” rhetoric. It’s repulsive.
“I wonder: if the civilian deaths, destruction of buildings and infrastructures were happening on the streets of Toronto or Montreal or small town Canada-if these same respondents would be so quick to commend the mission?”
Judy, is that what it would take before all Canadians would fully support our troops efforts to combat terrorism and protect democracy?
We tried appeasement before.
Hitler.
World War 2.
I’m whole-heartedly supportive of our troops being in Afghanistan. Why? Because the government of that country has ASKED for our help. We’re there to help stabilize the country while the government rebuilds itself until it can stand on its own. To abandon them now would plunge the country into civil war.
Our troops have a job to do and they should be allowed to finish it.
Canada stands at a very unique point in our history. We have the chance here, to show the world a very different kind of soldier: part fighter, part peacekeeper, part humanitarian. Canada is a country that has always lived up to its international obligations, and we cannot desert the Afghani people now. I believe wholeheartedly in our mission in Afghanistan, and support you in voting yes. Cutting and running, is not the Canadian Way.
- Laura S.
I would add to my original post that on this issue the Liberals are once again doing what they do best – being supreme hypocrites. What they fail to understand is that it makes them an easy target for Harper, and quite frankly they deserve everything they get.
Harper is going to outplay the Liberals at nearly every turn for the simple reason that the Liberals have never operated on principle. The Liberals have always held the arrogant attitude that it was their God given right to govern, and now that the rules of the game have changed they are like lost sheep.
The work is not done..and as usuall the useless are ready to quit and to lecture the rest of us on how wrong we are to stand for something other than covering our own asses.
Garth, this is off topic, but could you please provide some thoughts as to what the latest situation in the US spells for Canada and likelyhood of further interest hikes please.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060517/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street
The bottom line is our Stevie will do whatever George Dubya tells him today. When George tells Harper to send troops, Harper only asks how many and how soon. He’s nothing more that George’s puppet.
And Garth, you want to talk about the World Wars. Where was the US in those for the first half of each. They were too busy suppling arms to both sides to bother sending troops until late in the wars. In fact, George Bush’s grandfather had the Bush family assests siezed by the US gov’t under their trading with the enemy laws. But go ahead Garth and Steve, jump when George says jump and we can all be just one happy little Canadian family.
If you’re so anxious to send troops inot action, how about sending them to Darfur where they can do some humanitarian work that means something.
Simon, the US did during WW 1 & WW 2 what you’re saying we should now, which is nothing but debate and hope everyone else takes care of things for us. Your post seems to argue it’s own point, which side of this debate are you on?
All I can say is that we need to debate the issue a bit more. Why are we suddenly making a desision that will involve Billions of dollars and risk to life in 6 hours. It simply smells of Ideology and the “next elections” brownie points! We do not need to make this decision today. We can debate it, understand it and then vote on it!!
Acanuck…if the Conservatives are the only ones to operate on principal, how do you explain Harper’s big pout over the whole accountability thing yesterday. When the rascist he nominated got rejected by an all party committee, Harper does the really ‘mature’ thing and says now he’s not going to do anything at all. What a whiny baby he’s turning out to be. Enjoy your 12 month stint as PM Stevie cause by the time you call the next election, Canadians will see you for what he really is. Shallow and incompetent.
Robert–Prior to The U.S.,Canada and a few others bombing their lights out and landing troops,the Taliban had an ironclad grip on Afganistan and there was no civil war.They allowed Osama to do what he wanted in the hills,virtually enslaved women and even shot people for playing soccer.
The civil war that exists now is the Taliban trying to claw back power and it is repulsive to think that we would stand by and let that happen.
My last comment to Simon was explained rather poorly. Any of us with an ounce of education know that the Americans did make a vital contribution to the Allied effort in World War 2, my beef was rather with the way in which they entered the fray – when they were attacked on their own soil. That’s a history lesson that we shouldn’t see repeated more strongly here than it has already been.
“We have the chance here, to show the world a very different kind of soldier: part fighter, part peacekeeper, part humanitarian.”
This is a delusional idea. A soldier cant do that. They cannot walk into a city, shoot three people and give the rest cookies and health care, it doesnt work like that. Canada needs to make a clear statement. Have the Prime Minister stand up and say clearly we are going to stay in Afganistan until they have a UN certified democratic election across the country. That government gets to decide if they want us out or not.
The snap debate is a maneuver for political advantage. With a like minded Australian PM due in Ottawa tomorrow Harper wants to lay an Afganistan committment at his feet. There’s no reason why this decision needs to be made this week, other than that. Why not give the MPs a few days to talk to their ridings, conduct a town hall or two? It’s much too dangerous for Harper to let a grassroots movement or a protest form or worse for someone to suggest that we continue in Afghanistan only under the auspices of the UN. Personally I like what we’re doing in Afghanistan but a 2 year committment under a Nato flag, based on a invasion staged by the US (and we were only invited their after the US deposed the soverign government so in effect we have been invited to Afghanistan by the American’s puppet ruler) leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I don’t want to let the government get away with an ‘end justifies the means’ argument.
Better we should be in Darfur, under the UN flag and invited by the sovreign government.
It is a safe distance Garth, not the right distance. When you’re really fighting for those things you don’t get to do it at a distance, you have to do it up close and the knife to the hilt. Let’s fix those problems at home first. Let us be friends to all but guardians of our own and to the weak; Not the tool of tired American generals.
Just read a report that says Canada has spent 4.1 billion dollars in Afganistan since 2001 and that the amount contivues to escalate. Two more years and untold billions more sounds like a hell of an idea Steve. And that at the same time as Doris Day announces the gutting of the gun registry program…a program that Canadian Police make use of 6500 times a day. Talk about twisted priorities.
George Bush “…I said jump Steve”
Steven Harper “….Yessir Mr. Bush, how high?”
Paul M, you’re right about the Americans making a significant contribution. The Rockerfeller’s, Bush’s et al supplied arms and munitions to both the Allies and the Germans. Their contribution was ‘appreciated’ by both sides.
Paul, if you are equating 9/11 with the bombing of Pearl Harbour, how do you then explain why the US did not respond the same way. When Japan attacked, the US responded by getting off their ass and attacking Japan. That makes sense. However, when the Saudis attacked the US on 9/11, the US responded by attacking Iraq. What the hell was up with that. Why didn’t the bomb the Saudis. It was Saudi pilots, Saudi money and Saudi backing that made 9/11 possible.
“Yessir Mr. Bush, how high?”
Garth, while I am not a supporter of killing people, I AM a supporter to protect innocent women and children. If NATA forces (including our Canadian troops) withdraw now before each Afghanistan province is void of these terrorists thugs (Taliban), these innocent Afghani women and children will only be alive until they are rounded up in the soccer stadiums for public tortures and executions!
And for that reason and only that reason, I support our NATA mission to stay as long as it takes to restore basic rights for these women and children!
Solders, by design are trained to kill. It’s why they carry guns and practice over and over again how to kill. They are unfortunately a hammer and to a hammer everything is a nail. Using it otherwise it at best a misuse of the tool and at worse tragedy to the men and women who must deal with the conflict at the bleeding edge.
We should really train a new branch of the service and call them PeaceKeepers and train them to do exactly that. Make Lester P. proud.
Simon, Harper’s “big pout” as you call it over the public appointments commission was in fact a very clever strategic move.
And in case you don’t know, Bush bashing as a means of conjuring up arguements because you don’t actually have any good arugements yourself is passee.
Also, you might want to get a few facts at your fingertips before you enter a debate on Afghanistan. The Canadian troops are part of a NATO force in Afghanistan supported by the UN. It is very disingenuous of you to suggest that Afghanistan is a Bush mission.
“Garth, while I am not a supporter of killing people, I AM a supporter to protect innocent women and children.”
Catherine: Can’t we protect innocent men and old people, also? Or are they not part of the agenda these days?
I agree, Garth, with your decsion to support the proposal. Canadians served in Cyprus; Canadians serve in Bosnia. Canadians serve in the Golan Heights. It is distateful business, to be sure. But it is necessary to contrbute to world order. God bless the young men and woman that bear the Canadian flag so proudly, and risk their lives on our behalf. God bless their loving families at home. And God bless you and your colleagues in parliament that have to make these difficult decisions.
Paul Armstrong
Ottawa
Robert, of course men and old people should recieve our support. Were you just trolling?
I would vote no, were I allowed to. We are peace KEEPERS, not surogate Americain western democracy instigators.
John, how would you propose “peace keeping” in Afghanistan – singing kubaya? saying “pretty please”?
I’ve been watching the debate on CPAC. I just can’t believe what I was hearing from Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton.
They want to “debate” “analyze” “hold committee meetings” the 2 year extention. This is just so wrong on so many levels:
First, the stabilizing on each of Afghan provinces does take time. No one can say that by Feb 2007 all these provinces will be stabilized! If the Bloc and the NDP were around during WWII, would they say “sorry guys, we need to pull our troops out” before the end of war?
Second, even if all Afghan provinces reach a stabilizing by Feb 2007, it just makes sense that the “peace keeping” then takes over for several years to ensure that peace is kept.
Third, the Dawn Black (NDP) statement of “we should be involved in search and kill but peacekeeping” is just so illogical. How the heck does she think peace is made? Even as a layperson, I know that you must search and secure the area before any semblance of peace can be maintained! Does she want our troops to pull out Feb 2007 and maybe if peace does come at a later date, she will go in there and do “peacekeeping”? Why insult us with this illogical argument, and just come out and say it “we will let others do the dirty work and then we will go in”. If that is their opinion and belief, then, at least I can respect that.
Fourth, even as a layperson, I can understand that Canada needs to make a decision now so that proper future planning takes place. It does takes time and coordination.
Mr. Turner,
You have already made up your mind, sadly without spending too much time asking about your constituent’s opinion on the issue (nothing new- that’s the Harper spirit).
But mark my words: two years from now, hundreds of Canadian soldiers will be maimed or dead. Their sacrifice will be in vain and Afghanistan will still be a failed narco-state where everybody carries a Kalashnikov, where Tadjics, Uzbeks, Pashtuns, talebans and warlords, tribes and militias will fight for power with no end in sight. And our kids will be caught in the crossfire.
This is not WWII, Mr. Turner. This is just another GWB disaster. Mark my words…
Good for you Garth. I agree with your statement. We would probably be living in a different world if our prior relatives and government had not taken a stand.
I am slightly confused by the claims that the house knows nothing about Afghanistan. They had a take-note debate. They’ve been campaigning for a vote for months – in fact, they were saying that the vote should be sooner rather than later. Bill Graham is the former Defense Minister, and all the parties have members on a council for defense.
I just watched Bill Graham ask why this wasn’t being left to a committee, and Jack Layton say that they weren’t ready for this debate. I’m sure they aren’t using such an important issue to score petty political points, so what’s going on here?
You are so right on this one Garth.
What are we paying heaps of money in funding and salaries for if we do not utilize that resource for the greater good of peace in the world?
Come on now…support our troops…anything less would be cowardly.
Garth: Absolutely WELL said and that IS the reason we support the Afghanistan mission and our men and women over there. We must continue to fight this menace and continue this struggle for all the reasons you state. We have to live up to the sacrifice of so many years ago to secure our freedmon and way of life today, just as they did then.
RIP: Capt. Nichola Goddard
Canadian mission loses 1st female soldier
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/05/17/afghanistan-cda.html
Catherine – Afganistan is not ready for peace keeping. My point was that if the Americains wish to try to impose Western style democracy, let them do it themselves – not through Canadian surrogates.
Simon, sounds like you read this:
http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm#25%20
I read it myself. A lot of this is already known to most people. This debate isn’t about George Bush Sr or Jr. This debate is about whether or not we remain in Afghanistan, at the request of their government, to help train their police forces, to provide security for their citizens, to rebuild infrastructure and to hopefully allow democracy to flourish so that these people will have a chance to reach their full potential, the same way that you or I do. You can bring the Bush family into this all you want, hell – bring the Kellogs & Browns into it too, but if you’re going to stay stuck in the “What really happened?” fog, without exploring the truth as it’s seen by those that are there (ie: Michael Totten, Michael Yon, The Brookins Insitute ) then you’re not allowing yourself the possibility to accept that you may be wrong. I know that I could be wrong, but based on the evidence at hand, and the history of this great country, I have to think with my head as well as my heart. As far as your argument for why did the US not respond the same way: They did. In case you missed it, they went into Afghanistan. They attacked the terrorist training camps. They removed a terrorist harbouring regime from power. Maybe you forgot about that.
Over five years, over $4 BILLION, and 16 lives later, things are worse, not better, in Afghanistan. Committing until spring 2009 means another three years of this, and how many more billions of Canadian taxpayer money and how many lost lives?
All this so US oil and gas companies can build a pipeline across Afghanistan and make billions in profits. Instead of investing these billions of our money into Canadian oil and gas ventures, the Harper Conservatives want to give our public money to the US military-industrial complex, US energy ventures, and fundamentalist Sharia-ruled Afghanistan.
Robert–Prior to The U.S.,Canada and a few others bombing their lights out and landing troops,the Taliban had an ironclad grip on Afganistan and there was no civil war.
Don-Afghanistan was in a state of civil war before 9/11 with the Northern Alliance trying to overthrow the Taliban.
You have my full support on this issue, Garth. Quite frankly, your stance seem to be more original and logical than other arguments I’ve read above.. you know. The standard “blah blah blah.. george bush.. blah blah.. bad man.. blah blah.. harper likes bush.. blah blah.. he bad too”.. Kind of a tired cliche band-wagon mentality!
Well, after watching tonight’s debate, I can now say that the NDP, the Bloc, and some of the Liberals have no intentions of ever supporting any type of mission where military force would be used to make, restore, and enforce nation building or peace. They just give lip service.
Maybe Jack Layton and his collegues should get their boy scouts over to unstable regions and sit around the camp fire with terrorists thugs and sing. I’m sure these terrorists would welcome this approach. Sigh.
And with all the Bush bashing and Bush linking, what will the NDP and some of Liberals ever do in Jan 2009, when a new US president is sworn in.
Canadians do not put thier tails between thier legs and rn away,I would expect the Bloc and the NDPto run but never a true Canadian.Iam only sorry that I am now too old to join my fellows in thier service to our country
Bill Gear
I’ve always wondered why so many people equate ’supporting the troops’ with ’send them to war’? Since when does not sending the troops into the line of fire, not risking their lives when it isn’t ABSOLUTELY necessary, mean that you don’t ’support the troops’?!
Seems to me that it’s just the opposite. To me, supporting the troops DOESN’T mean one has to support putting them in harms way if one doesn’t believe in the cause. To me, supporting the troops means that you value their commitment to protecting Canadians and the Canadian way of life, that you offer moral support to them in their missions, that you cherish them for offering to put their lives at risk to protect you and your family and that you promise to only ever send them into harms way if it is absolutely necessary.
‘Supporting the troops’ also includes questioning the motives of our government in mobilizing them when there are so many important questions looming.
Garth, if you’re reading your blog comments on your blackberry in the HOC, you can see that the debate is quite heated among the citizens as well as your Commons colleagues, a point you may want to present if you have a moment to speak (if you have already, I’ve missed it – sorry)
BA: What are the questions then? I’ve heard the phrase numerous times, that we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan until we answer the question of why we’re there; our troops have been putting their lives on the line for five years there, there’s been five years to come up with a list of questions; so after five years, what questions do you have?