Comments on: Afghanistan http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/05/17/afghanistan/ Current political events, business, real estate, financial and economic news, trends and, above all, the Future. Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:53:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Paul MacPhail http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/05/17/afghanistan/comment-page-2/#comment-10698 Paul MacPhail Thu, 18 May 2006 02:01:48 +0000 http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/05/17/afghanistan/#comment-10698 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? 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?

]]> By: Paul MacPhail http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/05/17/afghanistan/comment-page-2/#comment-10697 Paul MacPhail Thu, 18 May 2006 01:45:53 +0000 http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/05/17/afghanistan/#comment-10697 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) 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)

]]> By: BA http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/05/17/afghanistan/comment-page-2/#comment-10696 BA Thu, 18 May 2006 01:38:22 +0000 http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/05/17/afghanistan/#comment-10696 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. 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.

]]>